AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2013 14:09:04 GMT -5
What if government had decided you had a "right" to a computer? What if say, the "Consumer Protection and Affordable Computer Act" had been passed into law to guarantee everyone had access to a computer? What if you were required to get your computer from approved vendors selling government authorized computers on a government run computer exchange? What if government had taxed the purchase of computers based on income to provide a subsidy to those that could not afford a computer? What if government decided what features your computer should be required to have? My guess is that we wouldn't have advanced much beyond this- and probably the price would be ten times this: And in a decade, two decades, three decades- what's left of our health care system is going to be just as bad, and far more expensive. Instead, we left personal computing to the free market- it got orders of magnitude better, and the costs came down just as dramatically as the product improved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 5:38:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 14:57:24 GMT -5
If only the "nanny-state" could figure out just what pacifier would be effective to stop the ongoing tantrums... the histrionics are a bit over-the-top.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2013 15:07:34 GMT -5
If only the "nanny-state" could figure out just what pacifier would be effective to stop the ongoing tantrums... the histrionics are a bit over-the-top. my son cried for over an hour on the day he was born. nothing could console him. the advise (sic) nurse finally gave him over to his mom for her to try at it. she had never seen anything like it in her 30 years. let's see if the GOP can keep this up another 3 years.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 27, 2013 19:03:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure what this has to do with the GOP. Thus far, the only action the GOP has taken on PPACA is to fund it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2013 19:09:28 GMT -5
No, paul. We do not need yet another thread on the ACA. We just don't. Couching the same old rhetoric in slightly different terms isn't going to cut it. I'm going to merge this into your previous thread on the ACA. Enough. - mmhmm, P&M Moderator
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 29, 2013 11:21:56 GMT -5
|
|
grits
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 17, 2012 13:43:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,185
|
Post by grits on Nov 29, 2013 11:26:43 GMT -5
The initial purpose of it was to provide health insurance for those who could not afford it. Instead, Congress stuffed it so full of requirements that insurers are dropping people right and left. The bill is 2000 pages long, and they didn't even read the whole thing before they passed it. Nice going Congress. Once again you screwed up something that was supposed to be good.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 29, 2013 13:10:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure what this has to do with the GOP. LOL! good one, Paul. you always bring a smile to my face.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 29, 2013 13:12:31 GMT -5
i loathe UHC. maybe they are cutting doctors because they SUCK.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Nov 29, 2013 22:40:35 GMT -5
"What if government had decided you had a "right" to a computer?"
What if you actually came up with an intelligent comparison?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 5:38:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 7:43:01 GMT -5
Actually, the LOs Angeles school system did decide everyone has a "right" to an iPad and decided it needed to spend $500M of taxpayer money to make that happen.
Not so far fetched.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 30, 2013 8:22:45 GMT -5
"What if government had decided you had a "right" to a computer?" What if you actually came up with an intelligent comparison? Well, perhaps if liberals didn't believe that healthcare was a totally special item not subject to the laws of nature- you'd understand that ANY comparison is correct. Let's take the example of food stamps. Fraud and waste notwithstanding, the government at least knew better than to attempt a government food monopoly where you could only get the government approved food from government run exchanges. Once people except that healthcare is not special, and that it's no different than any other product or service, and that the free market has, could, and would solve the problem-- we'll all be better off. The only lack of intelligence is on the part of those who believe government can do anything- anything at all- as well or better than the private sector. The answer for healthcare is the answer for everything: free-market, consumer-driven.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 30, 2013 11:47:26 GMT -5
"What if government had decided you had a "right" to a computer?" What if you actually came up with an intelligent comparison? Well, perhaps if liberals didn't believe that healthcare was a totally special item not subject to the laws of nature- you'd understand that ANY comparison is correct. Let's take the example of food stamps. Fraud and waste notwithstanding, the government at least knew better than to attempt a government food monopoly where you could only get the government approved food from government run exchanges. Once people except that healthcare is not special, and that it's no different than any other product or service, and that the free market has, could, and would solve the problem-- we'll all be better off. The only lack of intelligence is on the part of those who believe government can do anything- anything at all- as well or better than the private sector. The answer for healthcare is the answer for everything: free-market, consumer-driven. how is the ACA NOT consumer driven?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Nov 30, 2013 12:09:12 GMT -5
The free market did not and would not solve the problem, that is generally when government steps in. It could have but greed was to much in the way.
Then the GOP stepped in and was only interested in how much damage they could do instead of working together and destroyed it.
It would not surprise me if there is big money behind all this to make sure it does not work.
There is so much blame out there its sad. Everyone deserves healthcare and enough money is being spent everyone could have it.
The insurance companies are being forced to spend 80% of the premiums on healthcare now and they will destroy the system before they comply. It's like the GOP, they will burn the country down before they compromise on anything.
Hell of a mess for sure. In what way was the health insurance industry a free market? Between the Feds, state, and local government, it was and still is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. I think I see the problem on the left...they don't seem to understand what a free market actually is.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Nov 30, 2013 12:12:46 GMT -5
So I love reading about the website shutdown this morning...it mentions that if the website is still faulty after today, the president will have to delay theinsurance sign-up time to be sometime after March 31.
So the republicans handed the president exactly that (a delay in rollout), and he and the other Dems refused to budge, even to the extent of shutting down government. And now they might have to delay anyway.
And people want MORE government after they see the clusterf*** we have now? What are you thinking??
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 30, 2013 19:46:50 GMT -5
So I love reading about the website shutdown this morning...it mentions that if the website is still faulty after today, the president will have to delay theinsurance sign-up time to be sometime after March 31. So the republicans handed the president exactly that (a delay in rollout), and he and the other Dems refused to budge, even to the extent of shutting down government. And now they might have to delay anyway. if they were asking for less than a year, he might have agreed.And people want MORE government after they see the clusterf*** we have now? What are you thinking?? i am thinking more government in some areas and less in others. what are YOU thinking?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Nov 30, 2013 23:56:19 GMT -5
"What if government had decided you had a "right" to a computer?" What if you actually came up with an intelligent comparison? Well, perhaps if liberals didn't believe that healthcare was a totally special item not subject to the laws of nature- you'd understand that ANY comparison is correct. Let's take the example of food stamps. Fraud and waste notwithstanding, the government at least knew better than to attempt a government food monopoly where you could only get the government approved food from government run exchanges. Once people except that healthcare is not special, and that it's no different than any other product or service, and that the free market has, could, and would solve the problem-- we'll all be better off. The only lack of intelligence is on the part of those who believe government can do anything- anything at all- as well or better than the private sector. The answer for healthcare is the answer for everything: free-market, consumer-driven. So instead of actually answering the question, you drag out that "liberal" boogeyman. Tell you what, I'll play along for a moment. Ownership of a computer will not treat your cancer and any attempt to use a computer for the treatment of cancer will not save your life, and may result in an agonizing death because computers can't dispense pain medications or palliative care. Trips to the barbershop will not be successful in treating your heart valve problem and any continuous attempts at treating your heart valve problem may result in the loss of your life. Ownership of a really excellent set of golf clubs will not ease your distress or discomfort from ALS, but while you are suffocating to death drowning in your own lung purge you can feel confident that you are leaving your kids a lovely set of awesome golf clubs. A pedicure service won't help your symptoms of Lupus and definitely won't slow the destruction of your vital organs, skin and connective tissues, but while you are lying in bed unable to move because you are too weak and full of pain, you might be able to stretch your neck enough to glance at your nicely manicured toes and think to yourself, gee, my feet look pretty. That lawn service wasn't helpful for that lady who went into labor and the cord was around that baby's neck and she needed an emergency c-section. Landscapers just don't handle that sort of thing. Healthcare is not comparable to a computer, or a piece of fruit, or a car, or an ottoman. It is not comparable to any service such as a pool company, a construction contractor or MollyMaids. It isn't even close. I don't even know what the hell your tangent on food stamps was all about, you took a goofy turn to try to prove some bizarre link to things run by the government but actually disproved your own point...whatever. Now I'm not sure where you've been for the last several decades, but the private sector has had their hands all over healthcare. The result was far too many people not getting any healthcare, not getting any preventative care. The gap between affordable health insurance and eligibility for medicaid got bigger and bigger, while people are getting sicker. Our country can build gazillion dollar war ships, send rockets and satellites into space, but cannot seem to provide the most basic of health care to it's citizens. I won't waste much more time on this because I think it's lost on you. YOU don't think healthcare is "special" as you put it because in all probability you have never needed it to stay out of pain, save your life or the life of someone you love and not been able to get it. You have no idea what that is like. Hopefully you never will. I will also add: Right to an adequate standard of living The most significant inspiration for the inclusion of the right to an adequate standard of living in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the 1941 Four Freedoms speech by US President Franklin Roosevelt, which declared freedom of speech, freedom of faith, freedom from want and freedom from fear.[2] On the basis of the speech the American Law Institute established a draft proposals for an international bill of rights, the Statement of Essential Human Rights, which greatly influenced the UDHR.[3] The statement included the right to adequate food and housing and the right to social security, including the right to health.[4] Article 25 of the UDHR recognises the right to an adequate standard of living, stating that: "(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All Children, whether born in or out of wedlock shall enjoy the same social protection."[5]
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 1, 2013 1:01:02 GMT -5
Well, perhaps if liberals didn't believe that healthcare was a totally special item not subject to the laws of nature- you'd understand that ANY comparison is correct. Let's take the example of food stamps. Fraud and waste notwithstanding, the government at least knew better than to attempt a government food monopoly where you could only get the government approved food from government run exchanges. Once people except that healthcare is not special, and that it's no different than any other product or service, and that the free market has, could, and would solve the problem-- we'll all be better off. The only lack of intelligence is on the part of those who believe government can do anything- anything at all- as well or better than the private sector. The answer for healthcare is the answer for everything: free-market, consumer-driven. So instead of actually answering the question, you drag out that "liberal" boogeyman. Tell you what, I'll play along for a moment. Ownership of a computer will not treat your cancer and any attempt to use a computer for the treatment of cancer will not save your life, and may result in an agonizing death because computers can't dispense pain medications or palliative care. Trips to the barbershop will not be successful in treating your heart valve problem and any continuous attempts at treating your heart valve problem may result in the loss of your life. Ownership of a really excellent set of golf clubs will not ease your distress or discomfort from ALS, but while you are suffocating to death drowning in your own lung purge you can feel confident that you are leaving your kids a lovely set of awesome golf clubs. A pedicure service won't help your symptoms of Lupus and definitely won't slow the destruction of your vital organs, skin and connective tissues, but while you are lying in bed unable to move because you are too weak and full of pain, you might be able to stretch your neck enough to glance at your nicely manicured toes and think to yourself, gee, my feet look pretty. That lawn service wasn't helpful for that lady who went into labor and the cord was around that baby's neck and she needed an emergency c-section. Landscapers just don't handle that sort of thing. Healthcare is not comparable to a computer, or a piece of fruit, or a car, or an ottoman. It is not comparable to any service such as a pool company, a construction contractor or MollyMaids. It isn't even close. I don't even know what the hell your tangent on food stamps was all about, you took a goofy turn to try to prove some bizarre link to things run by the government but actually disproved your own point...whatever. Now I'm not sure where you've been for the last several decades, but the private sector has had their hands all over healthcare. The result was far too many people not getting any healthcare, not getting any preventative care. The gap between affordable health insurance and eligibility for medicaid got bigger and bigger, while people are getting sicker. Our country can build gazillion dollar war ships, send rockets and satellites into space, but cannot seem to provide the most basic of health care to it's citizens. I won't waste much more time on this because I think it's lost on you. YOU don't think healthcare is "special" as you put it because in all probability you have never needed it to stay out of pain, save your life or the life of someone you love and not been able to get it. You have no idea what that is like. Hopefully you never will. I will also add: Right to an adequate standard of living The most significant inspiration for the inclusion of the right to an adequate standard of living in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the 1941 Four Freedoms speech by US President Franklin Roosevelt, which declared freedom of speech, freedom of faith, freedom from want and freedom from fear.[2] On the basis of the speech the American Law Institute established a draft proposals for an international bill of rights, the Statement of Essential Human Rights, which greatly influenced the UDHR.[3] The statement included the right to adequate food and housing and the right to social security, including the right to health.[4] Article 25 of the UDHR recognises the right to an adequate standard of living, stating that: "(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All Children, whether born in or out of wedlock shall enjoy the same social protection."[5] this post should totally end the discussion on this matter. but it won't.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 1, 2013 8:56:55 GMT -5
So instead of actually answering the question, you drag out that "liberal" boogeyman. Tell you what, I'll play along for a moment. You dispute that liberals think healthcare is different than any other product and service in the marketplace- that healthcare is too important for the laws of economics to apply, and that government possesses some magical power to distribute health services better, and at a lower cost than the market? Oh, nevermind- I see that you don't, because you are about to go on and explain why you, a liberal, think it's different.Ownership of a computer will not treat your cancer and any attempt to use a computer for the treatment of cancer will not save your life, and may result in an agonizing death because computers can't dispense pain medications or palliative care. Trips to the barbershop will not be successful in treating your heart valve problem and any continuous attempts at treating your heart valve problem may result in the loss of your life. Ownership of a really excellent set of golf clubs will not ease your distress or discomfort from ALS, but while you are suffocating to death drowning in your own lung purge you can feel confident that you are leaving your kids a lovely set of awesome golf clubs. A pedicure service won't help your symptoms of Lupus and definitely won't slow the destruction of your vital organs, skin and connective tissues, but while you are lying in bed unable to move because you are too weak and full of pain, you might be able to stretch your neck enough to glance at your nicely manicured toes and think to yourself, gee, my feet look pretty. That lawn service wasn't helpful for that lady who went into labor and the cord was around that baby's neck and she needed an emergency c-section. Landscapers just don't handle that sort of thing. Healthcare is not comparable to a computer, or a piece of fruit, or a car, or an ottoman. It is not comparable to any service such as a pool company, a construction contractor or MollyMaids. It isn't even close. You just explained why its so critical we get government OUT of healthcare. You didn't explain why the laws of economics do not apply to healthcare. You implied government HAS TO do it because it's SOOOOO IMPORTANT.
You failed to explain why you think government possesses the ability to deliver health services better and/or at a lower cost than the free market? I agree with you that healthcare is more important, and of more urgent necessity than many of the more trivial products and services that we can purchase at our discretion. That's why government shouldn't be permitted to get anywhere near it.I don't even know what the hell your tangent on food stamps was all about, you took a goofy turn to try to prove some bizarre link to things run by the government but actually disproved your own point...whatever. OK, well then pretend I'm saying this S L O W L Y: Think about one-size-fits-all healthcare from Washington, D.C. that you think will be a panacea, vs. FOOD, and how government chooses to solve the problem of providing enough FOOD. To help the poor, the government provides them with up-front cash they can use to choose a wide variety of food from a nearly limitless number of vendors. I thought the comparison was easy enough to understand, but let's add the implication and see if you object: IF the government is going to be involved, because healthcare, like food, is vitally important and not everyone can afford it: why not provide an upfront cash payment or voucher that people may use to purchase health insurance- or even directly purchase health services the way they use their SNAP cards?Now I'm not sure where you've been for the last several decades, but the private sector has had their hands all over healthcare. The result was far too many people not getting any healthcare, not getting any preventative care. The gap between affordable health insurance and eligibility for medicaid got bigger and bigger, while people are getting sicker. Our country can build gazillion dollar war ships, send rockets and satellites into space, but cannot seem to provide the most basic of health care to it's citizens. Pre-ObamaCare, the government is directly responsible for almost HALF of all the healthcare provided in the US. The rest- I've explained at length is a complicated web of government regulation, and malinvestment caused by ill-advised government intervention in the economy.I won't waste much more time on this Too late. (Everything before 'but' is generally a lie or an insult) to wit:I will also add: Right to an adequate standard of living The most significant inspiration for the inclusion of the right to an adequate standard of living in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the 1941 Four Freedoms speech by US President Franklin Roosevelt, which declared freedom of speech, freedom of faith, freedom from want and freedom from fear.[2] On the basis of the speech the American Law Institute established a draft proposals for an international bill of rights, the Statement of Essential Human Rights, which greatly influenced the UDHR.[3] The statement included the right to adequate food and housing and the right to social security, including the right to health.[4] Article 25 of the UDHR recognises the right to an adequate standard of living, stating that: "(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All Children, whether born in or out of wedlock shall enjoy the same social protection."[5] Socialist claptrap is not an argument. Stating something doesn't make it so. this post should totally end the discussion on this matter. but it won't. You'd all like that- but guess what? Healthcare.gov is STILL a trainwreck, and Obama and the Democrats are OUT of excuses. The whole thing must now be repealed.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,228
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 1, 2013 11:11:44 GMT -5
IF the government is going to be involved, because healthcare, like food, is vitally important and not everyone can afford it: why not provide an upfront cash payment or voucher that people may use to purchase health insurance- or even directly purchase health services the way they use their SNAP cards? Sounds a lot like the existing system to me, Medicaid and subsidies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 1, 2013 11:34:34 GMT -5
this post should totally end the discussion on this matter. but it won't. You'd all like that
it has nothing to do with what i "like". it has to do with who holds the majority in the Senate, and who is sitting in the WH. - but guess what? Healthcare.gov is STILL a trainwreck, and Obama and the Democrats are OUT of excuses. The whole thing must now be repealed.it won't be repealed now. it will probably never be repealed. so, clearly, "must" is your opinion, not any sort of fact. edit: California is never going to get rid of it's exchange, imo. i doubt many other blue states will. that means that for half the nation, ObamaCare is permanent. you might not like that, i might not like that, but it is a fact. the sooner you and i deal with that fact, the better off we will be.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Dec 1, 2013 12:18:21 GMT -5
"You dispute that liberals think healthcare is different than any other product and service in the marketplace- that healthcare is too important for the laws of economics to apply, and that government possesses some magical power to distribute health services better, and at a lower cost than the market? Oh, nevermind- I see that you don't, because you are about to go on and explain why you, a liberal, think it's different."
Oh my god you are hilarious, and not in a good way. It's not a "liberal" VS everyone else thing. It's a human thing. I explained why I as a HUMAN BEING AND A TAX PAYING CITIZEN of this country believe that it is different. You yourself just agreed with me when you stated: "I agree with you that healthcare is more important, and of more urgent necessity than many of the more trivial products and services that we can purchase at our discretion. "
So there you have it. Now, was that statement made out the "liberal" side of your mouth, or the human side of your mouth? Inquiring minds want to know!
I never stated anything about the government having some magical powers to to distribute health services. The government actually doesn't do that and under the ACA still won't do that. Medicaid and medicare are really no different than any other insurance when it actually comes down to accessing healthcare. The medical community still does what they do and sends the bill to the government payer system for payment. Although, I will grant you that it's heavily regulated, as it should be given the chance that without those regs in place many things can and do go horribly wrong and of course fraud will always occur when there is a will to commit it. That isn't really any different than having BCBS, Harvard health, or any of the other insurance you can get. Matter of fact, from a consumer perspective, medicare and medicaid insured patients have easier access to healthcare in many instances than privately insured folks. Take that however you like.
You just explained why its so critical we get government OUT of healthcare. No, I did no such thing. That is what you read into it in a lame attempt to try to look smart. Total fail. You forget, others here can read too!
You didn't explain why the laws of economics do not apply to healthcare. You implied government HAS TO do it because it's SOOOOO IMPORTANT.
What I did say was that the free market has had it's chance. Now, if you take the free market out of the equation, what have you got left for a solution? I never implied the government had to do it, but if you can come up with a viable alternative to the free market, please do! We are all waiting...tic toc...
"OK, well then pretend I'm saying this S L O W L Y: Think about one-size-fits-all healthcare from Washington, D.C. that you think will be a panacea, vs. FOOD, and how government chooses to solve the problem of providing enough FOOD. To help the poor, the government provides them with up-front cash they can use to choose a wide variety of food from a nearly limitless number of vendors. I thought the comparison was easy enough to understand, but let's add the implication and see if you object: IF the government is going to be involved, because healthcare, like food, is vitally important and not everyone can afford it: why not provide an upfront cash payment or voucher that people may use to purchase health insurance- or even directly purchase health services the way they use their SNAP cards?"
You should say it slowly to yourself several times. What you described is pretty much what the ACA does! I have to hand it to you, that was so fucking funny, you made my morning. Thanks!
Pre-ObamaCare, the government is directly responsible for almost HALF of all the healthcare provided in the US. The rest- I've explained at length is a complicated web of government regulation, and malinvestment caused by ill-advised government intervention in the economy.
The government does not administer healthcare unless we are talking about the VA system. It's a payer system similar to any other insurer.
"Socialist claptrap is not an argument. Stating something doesn't make it so. "
Using buzzwords like "socialist" isn't an argument. Stating such doesn't make it so.
"You'd all like that- but guess what? Healthcare.gov is STILL a trainwreck, and Obama and the Democrats are OUT of excuses. The whole thing must now be repealed."
That's just like saying that the latch on my door doesn't work properly, so instead of replacing the latch, I must rip out the door, the frame and probably the surrounding wall, heck maybe the who fucking house because the door latch doesn't function! Healthcare.gov is a website. The website sucks, the software sucks and that should not have occurred the way it did, and it's beyond embarrassing, I will give you that. But, the website isn't the ACA. I know you want to think that it is, and your friends at rushhlimbaughisadick.com tell you so, but it isn't true no matter how many times you click your heels together and recite there's no place like home. Pull up your big girl undies and get used to it, because the ACA isn't going anywhere.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 1, 2013 12:32:29 GMT -5
"OK, well then pretend I'm saying this S L O W L Y: Think about one-size-fits-all healthcare from Washington, D.C. that you think will be a panacea, vs. FOOD, and how government chooses to solve the problem of providing enough FOOD. To help the poor, the government provides them with up-front cash they can use to choose a wide variety of food from a nearly limitless number of vendors. I thought the comparison was easy enough to understand, but let's add the implication and see if you object: IF the government is going to be involved, because healthcare, like food, is vitally important and not everyone can afford it: why not provide an upfront cash payment or voucher that people may use to purchase health insurance- or even directly purchase health services the way they use their SNAP cards? "
You should say it slowly to yourself several times. What you described is pretty much what the ACA does! I have to hand it to you, that was so fucking funny, you made my morning. Thanks!
like you, i think this analogy is really close, except the government doesn't hand out payments in full, only subsidies. and the government actually made it easier to shop, in theory. both of these provisions, as well as the universal mandate, were products of the Heritage thinktank. so, unless we are all prepared to call the Heritage Foundation "socialist", it seems totally inconsistent to label these provisions as such. rather, it seems easier to label them as moderate, market based reforms to a system that has become increasingly feudalist in structure- with healthcare insurance companies carving out little kingdoms for themselves in the marketplace, and serving primarily THEIR interests, not those of the public. Heritage proposed these modest fixes in the 90's, they are now law in the form of the ACA, and only an idiot would want them repealed.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Dec 1, 2013 12:34:30 GMT -5
"OK, well then pretend I'm saying this S L O W L Y: Think about one-size-fits-all healthcare from Washington, D.C. that you think will be a panacea, vs. FOOD, and how government chooses to solve the problem of providing enough FOOD. To help the poor, the government provides them with up-front cash they can use to choose a wide variety of food from a nearly limitless number of vendors. I thought the comparison was easy enough to understand, but let's add the implication and see if you object: IF the government is going to be involved, because healthcare, like food, is vitally important and not everyone can afford it: why not provide an upfront cash payment or voucher that people may use to purchase health insurance- or even directly purchase health services the way they use their SNAP cards? "
You should say it slowly to yourself several times. What you described is pretty much what the ACA does! I have to hand it to you, that was so fucking funny, you made my morning. Thanks!
like you, i think this analogy is really close, except the government doesn't hand out payments in full, only subsidies. and the government actually made it easier to shop, in theory. both of these provisions, as well as the universal mandate, were products of the Heritage thinktank. so, unless we are all prepared to call the Heritage Foundation "socialist", it seems totally inconsistent to label these provisions as such. rather, it seems easier to label them as moderate, market based reforms to a system that has become increasingly feudalist in structure- with healthcare insurance companies carving out little kingdoms for themselves in the marketplace, and serving primarily THEIR interests, not those of the public. Heritage proposed these modest fixes in the 90's, they are now law in the form of the ACA, and only an idiot would want them repealed. Agreed! A subsidy is still money no matter how you slice it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 1, 2013 12:41:43 GMT -5
this came out in USA today yesterday: The White House announced Sunday it has met its goal to make the Healthcare.gov website operate smoothly for most users by Nov. 30.
"The bottom line is health care.gov on December first is night and day from where it was October first," said Jeffrey Zients, the president's appointee to fix the website's problems. "The site is now stable and operating at its intended capacity at greatly improved performance."
When the site — which allows people to compare private plan benefits and costs before buying an insurance policy — launched Oct. 1, millions of people were disappointed by slow or frozen pages, an inability to log in, and incorrect or missing information. The White House tapped Zients to lead a team to fix the site.
At the beginning of November, Zients said the site had an "up time" of just 43%. As of Nov. 30, the site's up time was 95%.
"We have a much more stable system that's reliably open for business," he said in a Sunday conference call with reporters.
After hardware updates and bug fixes that continued through the weekend, the federal health exchange site now has the capacity to serve 50,000 people at a time, for a total of 800,000 people a day, according to a report issued Sunday by the Department of Health and Human Services.
That figure is "conservative," Zients said, because they figured it using an eight-hour day, rather than a 24-hour day.www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/01/federalexchangmeetsgoal/3795523/i know it is fashionable to bash the site 24/7, but it appears that it is improving rapidly. edit: the only commercial cable news outlet that covered this story was NBC. LMBMA.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 1, 2013 13:35:12 GMT -5
Obama's shitty approval also seems to have bottomed out @ about 40%. it has been stuck there for 11 days now. this is the same pattern that the healthcare law has followed, so it is pretty clear that they are related.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 1, 2013 18:27:30 GMT -5
like you, i think this analogy is really close, except the government doesn't hand out payments in full, only subsidies. and the government actually made it easier to shop, in theory. both of these provisions, as well as the universal mandate, were products of the Heritage thinktank. so, unless we are all prepared to call the Heritage Foundation "socialist", it seems totally inconsistent to label these provisions as such. rather, it seems easier to label them as moderate, market based reforms to a system that has become increasingly feudalist in structure- with healthcare insurance companies carving out little kingdoms for themselves in the marketplace, and serving primarily THEIR interests, not those of the public. Heritage proposed these modest fixes in the 90's, they are now law in the form of the ACA, and only an idiot would want them repealed. Agreed! A subsidy is still money no matter how you slice it. Yep. Was listening to RW radio while driving home from the holiday and there was a long discussion on the minimum wage- I found it very interesting that the preferred solution to helping workers that make less than it takes to survive- is to not increase the minimum wage- but to increase the EITC Seems they are just fine with corporate welfare. Can't really get why they hate this law so much since the 'solution' to the problem is right up their alley- other than Obama did it instead of them. When they moved to health care of course there was the 'why should I pay for maternity coverage' bullshit. Kind of stale isn't it? Sounds to me these folks are against group coverage and prefer individual underwriting. So get off the shitter and campaign to end employer group plans already. Have some guts. *Side note on the minimum wage argument- the host's point was that min. wage should be abolished and that a young person with no family to support should be allowed to undercut an experienced and more expensive employee by offering to work for less. He went on about how unfair it is that a person cannot negotiate their own pay because of the government intrusion into the free market Damn government infringing on our rights to work for shit pay and have shitty or no health care! How dare they! Where's a gun shop? People fought to the death for our right to be abused by corporate America! GRRRRR!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 10:56:32 GMT -5
Agreed! A subsidy is still money no matter how you slice it. Yep. Was listening to RW radio while driving home from the holiday and there was a long discussion on the minimum wage- I found it very interesting that the preferred solution to helping workers that make less than it takes to survive- is to not increase the minimum wage- but to increase the EITC Seems they are just fine with corporate welfare. Can't really get why they hate this law so much since the 'solution' to the problem is right up their alley- other than Obama did it instead of them. When they moved to health care of course there was the 'why should I pay for maternity coverage' bullshit. Kind of stale isn't it? Sounds to me these folks are against group coverage and prefer individual underwriting. So get off the shitter and campaign to end employer group plans already. Have some guts. *Side note on the minimum wage argument- the host's point was that min. wage should be abolished and that a young person with no family to support should be allowed to undercut an experienced and more expensive employee by offering to work for less. He went on about how unfair it is that a person cannot negotiate their own pay because of the government intrusion into the free market Damn government infringing on our rights to work for shit pay and have shitty or no health care! How dare they! Where's a gun shop? People fought to the death for our right to be abused by corporate America! GRRRRR! that argument is prima face nonsense. a person can't support a family on minimum wage, so basically he is asking the government to subsidize corporations unwilling to pay to poverty standards. but he is cloaking the argument in "free market" rhetoric. personally, i think the FMW should go WAY up. our floor is too low here, and it is having a seriously adverse impact on our economy, and essentially making us MORE socialist as a country than we would otherwise be.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Dec 2, 2013 11:25:23 GMT -5
so everyone who works hourly should have their pay rate boosted by that equal(way up) percentage? i mean that's the only way it would be fair. as an hourly worker who would be making close to or the "new" DJ min wage i'd be on board with that. but i wouldn't want the min wage boosted to what i'm currently earning and my hourly wage not being boosted also by the same percentage, that would be me going backwards.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2013 11:27:33 GMT -5
so everyone who works hourly should have their pay rate boosted by that equal(way up) percentage? no.i mean that's the only way it would be fair. you may have noticed that i don't use the word "fair" when making these arguments.
|
|