Taxation is not theft. When we pay taxes for legitimate governmental functions, we all benefit. We all get the same police protection, drive on the same roads, drink the same treated water, etc. What you are talking about is a bald transfer of money from Person A to Person B. Person B cannot afford something like health care. Person A has enough extra money (maybe). So we will forcibly take money from Person A and give it to Person B.
If it wasn’t for healthcare, but for something like a in ground pool at Person B’s home, we would all agree that it is outright theft. But because it is something that Person B really, really needs, like healthcare, we don’t view it as theft.
It goes even further than that. We already have Medicaid to provide health care for the indigent. The ACA provides handouts to the middle class to pay for health care. We aren’t even in the realm of charity and helping out the less fortunate. We are talking about a permanent transfer of wealth between people who are not in need of charity in order to support the current system of insurance.
There is simply a better way to do these things that does not require such a massive government intervention.
No. The reaction just seemed extreme, if it described a real plan to print and frame the post, but I was hesitant to say, “No, you won’t,” for fear that would be interpreted as an accusation of lying. So I asked if you were serious, or if you were not actually going to print, frame, and hang an SDMB post.
Um… No. Person A pays taxes, and we allocate a certain percentage of those taxes towards programs to promote a bare minimum standard of living for those less fortunate, such as person B.
Are you arguing for UHC, or for a magical system that has never existed anywhere in the world?
People die if they don’t receive healthcare for all kinds of conditions, ranging from a knife in the chest to Hep C. Only some of those conditions are treated/treatable for Americans who lack health insurance or personal wealth.
To give an obvious example, if you have a kind of cancer that is typically only treatable if discovered early, you will die as the result of not getting the kind of non-emergency screening that you won’t get without health insurance. There are also conditions with expensive treatments, like Hep C, that you just won’t get unless a drug company is nice to you. They will stabilize you in the ER, but at some point they won’t be able to because to because you aren’t getting other care.
What’s the evidence in support of this claim? Have the United States’ “health outcomes” changed significantly in the years Obamacare has been the law of the land? Has the trajectory of our life expectancy been significantly altered by Obamacare? Are fewer people dying of cancer and heart disease? Has the suicide rate changed?
If you’re sure that’s not what I want, and it certainly is a non sequitur, was that an attempt at humour?
Why should you care? I don’t know. If all your peers have made a certain choice, it warrants a good look. A good look would show they have better healthcare for cheaper. Can’t make you care about that, though. While you could use the old “if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” but maybe they noticed the train barreling down the bridge.
And I’m sure all those other countries that have UHC haven’t joined together to propose any sort of “world government”, so where the hell did you pull that statement from?
My ghod, you can almost envision one eyebrow arching as you type that absurd accusatory question. Yes, Bricks-this is all part of a ruse in support of a One World Government. None of us are actually worried about our health or the heath of others. Congrats on uncovering this horrible ruse. :rolleyes:
I did not read the entire thread so maybe Bricker has addressed this, but I gather from his stance that he would also be happy with ending the Medicare and Medicaid programs? Let the old and poor fend for themselves? I always get the feeling when Bricker posts that he isn’t quite able to appreciate the difference between what is right and what is lawful. It’s like laws define morality for him.
The repeal of the mandate is more than just giving them a choice to decline insurance.
They already had a choice to decline insurance, it just costs about a thousand bucks if you did.
So, by repealing the mandate, you are increasing the effective opportunity cost of carrying insurance by a thousand dollars, and this is before any cost increases on the premiums themselves.
So, i would not say that all of those who drop it are just dropping because of no longer having a mandate, it is not due to preference but to actual cost.
This is why there are 14 or so million dropped off the rolls in the first year.
As far as the rest of the 24 million over the next 10 years, you seem inclined to think that you cannot lose what you never had, right, and the rest of those never had insurance to begin with?
The problem with that assumption, is that most of these people would have had insurance. They were employees who either lost their job, or their employer stopped covering insurance, or they are children, going off of their parent’s insurance or other childhood health assistance program. Point is, that they did have coverage, and now they do not, that is a loss, that is having it taken away from them.
I think the 24 million over 10 years is actually pretty optimistic, given how many companies were dropping or reducing their health coverage pre-ACA, and how difficult and expensive it was to get insurance as a private individual pre-ACA.
That’s a matter for better public schools, then. In high school, we only had to do one semester in US govt. I would think that if it were important we’d fund public education better, rather than cutting health benefits, because I do not thing that a measurable percentage of the population will get out of this healthcare debacle a better education in proper govt civics.
The states ceded their power to the federal govt, and in my opinion, the more power they ceded, the better they were.
Prior to the article of confederation, we just had a bunch of states that we declaring independance, but had no way of working together.
The articles were cool, but they still did not create a strong enough central govt to actually run a nation.
We came along with the constitution, which was a drastic improvement, but given some unpleasantness about a minor states rights issue in the 1860’s, the federal govt took on a much stronger role.
Banking regulations and income taxes added another layer of stability, and then came along entitlements like SS and eventually medicare and medicaid.
Rephrasing in your own words is a good way to determine if you are on the same page.
I do not think that his rephrasings are dishonest, but that they are actually his best attempt to really understand what it is that you are trying to get at here.
And it really does seem as though you are holding philosophy as greater than the reality of people needlessly suffering and dying.
I think I see what you are getting at, that the weakening of the framework could spell further erosions of that framework, ultimately resulting in collapse.
The problem is, is that if we cannot achieve our desired outcomes within the framework, then we either need to cram them through in an “unwise”, but constitutional fashion as was the ACA, or we need to change the framework. Either way, if it is the framework itself that is preventing desired progress, then praising the framework is not going to win over many hearts and minds.
In this, I disagree. There is no less govt intrusion into the health marketplace. The only real difference between this bill and the ACA, as far as govt intrusion is the mandate, so if that is what you are happy is gone, then say that. The rest of the bill does not in anyway reduce the involvement of the federal govt in healthcare, just changes it in a way that far fewer people are covered.
So, getting rid of the mandate could be (but is not IMHO) a wise move, but the rest of the bill would need some serious explaining as to what particulars that you feel are actually wise.
Not directed at me, I know, but I don’t know that you can put a number on a judgement like that. But, at the same time, if I find myself having dificulty in cummunicating, I do not automatically assume that all, or even most, of the fault lays on the other party.
I assume that you feel that the mandate being repealed is a good thing. Are there any other parts of the ACHA that you feel is a wise step?
Fairly similar to blackburn.
Congress passes a law, people who are against the law think it is unconstitutional, and put it up against the supreme court, who decides that it is in fact constitutional.
I take it that you think of wick v fil to be a unwise decision by SCOTUS, or that the entire federal crop support program was unwise, if not unconstitutional.
In your analogy, you are saying that people in lichenstein have no effect on NK, and this is true, but you are trying to say that a politician’s constituents have no influence on the politician, if they didn’t vote for them.
The policy of only representing your base, or the people that voted for you, rather than representing the people of your district is a bit of a new one, I don’t know who started it, but it is most certainly on the first page of the republican playbook these days.
But, you are trying to only count the 11 million who will lose their insurance due to being taken off the exchanges.
You are not counting their friends of family, who have to watch them suffer and die needlessly. You are not counting the millions of people who will see their premiums go up, and their coverage go down, even if they are not actually loosing insurance. I couldn’t give you an estimate, but it’s gonna be much more than 11 million, and a very significant number, quite likely the majority, of those are going to be people that voted for republicans in 2016.
You do need to keep in mind that many people voted for trump based on his promise of improving healthcare, just as people voted for Obama in 2008 on the same promise.
Democrats lost quite a bit of political power due to the ACA being not as good as promised, do you really think that the republicans won’t lose some political power due to the ACHA being essentially a big “FU” to the people who voted for them?
No, but is there something about the ACHA that limits its negative effects to non-GOP voters?
Is that ideological, or is that actually a measure that you take on a regular basis?
What do you think it would take to change that weighing? Do you think it is at all possible that your ideology puts a thumb on the scale?
There are millions of people taking you up on that bet right now. They will incur real world losses if the ACHA goes through, and the house doesn’t turn in 2018, the only difference is, is that you get no payout for their suffering.
I would take that bet, but not yet. The senate may turn the ACHA into a wonderful healthcare bill that provides health and ponies for everyone, in which case, not only will the gop win 2018, they will have proved that they deserved to win through a demonstration of competent governance. So, my bet is predicated on the nature of the final bill.
No bill goes through, I predict a minor democratic pick up in the house and senate, but not an overturn.
This bill goes through, I predict a massive backlash against the GOP, throwing them out of the house, and making inroads into the senate, maybe even picking up a majority in 2018, but that’s a pretty tall order, but by 2020, definitely.
The GOP passes an awesome bill that provides healthcare for anyone who needs it at an affordable cost to both the consumer and the taxpayer, and the GOP could win the next generation, you could even push through quite a bit of conservative social agenda, if people are happy with their healthcare bill.
So, my best bet, if I feel ideologically tied to the left, is to hope that the GOP keeps doing what it is doing, and craps out a healthcare bill that causes a great deal of suffering and death. As I am less concerned about politically philosophy, and more about actual people, then I would be happy to see the GOP win, if that meant that people are not suffering and dying needlessly, even if I disagree with some of the GOP’s social policies.
I would say that thinking our system is superior is akin to flat-Eartherism at this point.
Other countries have shown us that UHC is superior. Our system is particularly inept and hurtful and causes needless suffering for more money. Cleaving to it is self-destructive and only serves to soothe an ideological need in GOP voters.
Don’t you think that satisfying that need is less useful to society as a whole, than helping sick people for less money?
Yes, because bookmarking the page costs you little in real world expense. Printing, framing – are you going to cut beveled matting for it? will there be graphics? – and hanging are more significant expenses, and so your claim sounded like it was hyperbole.
