Obama's State of the Union Address

[Richard Masters]

I see we've run into someone else who doesn't seem to understand there are people that try desperately to get health insurance but can't.

I've desperately tried to buy a car for 9 years and could not. Why don't we make a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to get a car?

 

[Richard Masters]

I'm replying to what you write. I can't read your mind.

Well guess what? That pharmacist probably had prescriptive authority. They do in this state. So for whatever reason he/she could have refilled your prescription but chose not to accomodate you. In addition, prescribing drugs is under state control. Only narcotic prescribing is under additional federal control.

Well that's good to know. I'll try it next time.

We are back to your opinion on some specific federal regulation. You have not made your case.

Are all regulations good or perfect? Of course not. Is it about volume of regulations? No, it isn't and that's where you are not making your case. We could have used more regulations in the mortgage and banking industries and less government intervention when it comes to crony capitalist subsidies.

Just stating that I haven't made my case isn't really persuasive. From the wall of text you have provided, it's clear that you have no interest in being constructive. I explained why I preferred a Paul administration over an Obama administration, and somehow you think I agree with Ron Paul at every level. You continue to make the claim that I'm misrepresenting your arguments when you have been doing so all along. I really thought you were a reasonable person from reading some of your other posts, but I guess the Politics section really is where reason and skepticism go to die.

 

[Richard Masters]

The example you presented did not support your case. I have described why twice now.

You don't know what "my case" is. I'm not sure how you can claim to have refuted it.

So this is going to be one of those discussions then, where you reply to a subsequent post as if the first post wasn't part of the conversation? That's very annoying. The exchange went like this:

...

I said you argued against an argument I never made. Then you changed your argument to an agreement with me, not an argument against what I said.

I repeat: I did not say nor do I think that "if you support something, there needs to a law for it." Try to keep better track of the full exchange, please. Thank you.

Um, I never claimed that you think that if you support something there needs to be a law for it. I was referring to our law-makers. Please stop assuming I'm trying to misrepresent your arguments when you are doing that to me out of carelessness.

If you support Ron Paul's positions you are appealing for the vast majority of laws to be done away with. If you believe the liberals are all about adding more and more regulations then you've bought the Republican lie.

Maybe this is your problem. You think this is an "Us vs. them", or "democrats vs. republicans" argument. I think both Democrats and Republicans are all about adding more regulations. I'm not singling Democrats out on this. And I noted earlier, I don't agree with all of Paul's positions, nor am I appealing for the majority of laws to be done away with.

There would be no law against someone selling you counterfeit antidepressants. A person could impersonate a physician and charge to treat your depression but not really be qualified to do so. That X-ray for your broken finger could be taken with a machine that was out of whack and given you a radiation burn. Buyer beware would be up to you to.

Nobody is arguing for letting fraud go unpunished.

I'm saying over-saturation with regulation is a Republican campaign myth. There are some laws we don't need and a whole lot more we do need like banking and mortgage re-regulation.

I don't care what Republicans said or didn't say. I form my opinions based on my experiences, data, statistics, and hard evidence. When I say dislike over-saturation of laws I'm not referencing anything anybody else has said.

When I go to Target or Walmart, I *have* to buy fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent, which do *not* give me headaches. LED bulbs are even worse. Soon I'll have to import light-bulbs from other countries just to avoid headaches.

When I need a prescription refill I need to pay $100+ for a 15 minute discussion that's going to end in me getting my prescription. It wastes my time and money.

Or the DMV "won't accept" my insurance (actually they just haven't bothered to call my insurance company) so I'm technically driving my car illegally. I already sent them 2 letters and presented proof of insurance in person, yet I'm still driving my car illegally. The other day I got a parking ticket because my registration is suspended.

Whenever I buy electronics where I live, I have to pay $10-20 in taxes, even for a computer I built myself specifically to save money.

The state of California wouldn't recognize my driver's license so I managed to accrue $3400 dollars in fines, which I couldn't pay at the time. Eventually they withdrew the money from my bank account without warning me because they had made up an address. That money could have easily paid 6 months of health insurance. I could have bought a more expensive car than the one I currently own with that money.

Whenever I cross the border I'm treated with suspicion. Can't get on a plane without surrendering 2 hours of my time and being subjected to demeaning treatment by customs and TSA.

And apparently, as an atheist, I'm not able to hold office in most states.

Also, couldn't drink at the age of 18 despite having done so safely in other countries legally. Can't take recreational drugs now even though they are unlikely to affect me or others if done responsibly.

Also, because of overregulation in the education industry, and because the government will subsidize others' education, colleges can charge whatever they want. The cost of going to school quadrupled and I'm still paying my loans, while someone got a free education paid for by the government.

Most people I know would take either option as long as it gave homosexual partners the same rights as heterosexual partners. You could either make gay marriage legal or make all legal unions equal civil unions with the government leaving the term "marriage" to the religious world. That's not what religious conservatives want. They want gay marriages to be legally inferior.

This is the first sensible thing you've said.

Since that's a copyright law, it sounds like the problem was how your website pointed out the scam, not the law that was the problem. But without more details it's hard to comment.

I don't want to derail. Suffice it to say that DMCA is makes it very easy to shut down a site if the site owner wants to remain anonymous, even if there is no copyright infringement.

Define "solve". The laws are designed to protect people's rights, not "solve discrimination altogether.

What legislation would protect Muslims that we don't already have?

Here you go again losing track of the discussion. It's tiring. After this post I'm no longer going to go back over the discussion with you. I am going to ignore your replies that lost track of the discussion.

This is the exchange:

I didn't lose track of the discussion. You simply misread what I wrote. It's pretty maddening

Most patients do not pay the doctor for their care. Patients pay insurers who pay the doctors. Your argument that a third party paying the doctor would cause that doctor to provide unneeded care or over priced care isn't a valid argument against mandatory health coverage. It's an argument for regulation of health care.

You completely missed the point even after quoting the exchange. It's OK, I guess. I'm getting used to it.

Elaborate? It's straight forward. You go to the ED. They cannot turn you away because you don't have insurance. You never pay your bill. The hospital has to recoup its loss by increasing the amount it charges the patients that do pay. Instead of you or more evenly the tax payers, I as a health care consumer pay your freeloading bill.

How does mandatory insurance solve this problem? You are still forcing me to pay the freeloader's bill by mandating that I buy insurance.

Every freeloader who could carry health insurance but chooses not to then needs health care, gets it and doesn't pay the bill.

So punish the freeloader, not society.

Didn't you ever ask yourself who the hell pays that unpaid cost? Do you think salaries of the ED staff take the hit? Stockholders? Drug companies write off unreimbursed drugs the ED dispenses? No, the bad debt as it is called is simply rolled into the paying customer's bill.

And that's ethical, why?

It's the same with anything stolen from shoplifted goods to credit card fraud. The costs are passed on to the paying customers.

The overhead of insurance companies, paperwork all gets passed on to paying customers. The difference is when I purchase something at a store with or without a credit card, I decide whether to buy it or not.

I asked you a question, I didn't say anything about you making a claim. My question was intended to make you look at the answer you gave and show you why your answer was short sighted. Your arguments trying to make a case against mandatory health insurance are short sighted. I gave an example of cases where your argument was short sighted.It sounds like you are saying all we needed to do for people who didn't carry health insurance would be to cover a few accidents because such an uninsured person would be motivated to take care of their health.

The premise is false. It's ludicrous to think people with health insurance didn't take care of themselves because they had medical care or that people without insurance would be motivated to do so.

But even if such a person did take care of their health they'd still be at risk for major health problems that could still bring them to come to the ED for care. You do know that ED's see more than just trauma patients don't you? Heart attack, stroke, infection,.. hello.

Yep.

So you have no recollection whatsoever of what you posted a day ago!!!!! I'm not going back over this one. Do it yourself.

It doesn't matter what I posted a day ago, because you obviously misunderstood it. If you weren't so lazy, you'd see that we were talking about someone without health insurance, not someone without driver's insurance. You really need to stop. It's hypocritical.

It's clear you believe that people without health insurance only hurt themselves.

No.

But that is not what happens. They end up getting health care the rest of us pay for. It's a lie they don't seek care.

More straw man arguments...

Unless you also make it legal for the ED to turn patients away and let them OR THEIR KIDS die on the hospital steps people without health insurance cost the rest of us when we are charged to make up the hospital's bad debt.

That's a false dilemma, and if it were true, it only legalizes helping the freeloaders - I'm not sure how you are not noticing that.

I don't interpret Obama's words they way you have. I hear him simply complimenting the American people and saying we don't have to accept all the manufacturing jobs leaving the country.

OK.

 

[Richard Masters]

I read this a lot here. A classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The only time not to actively support changes to the system you're not happy with is when it's time to vote. It's to late then. If you really...
your protest may result in Gingrich or Romney getting elected. If that's okay with you, so be it. But don't pretend your sending any noble message, other then you'd prefer to cop out.

There's no significant difference between Romney and Obama... so how is that a cop out?

 

[RandFan]

I've desperately tried to buy a car for 9 years and could not. Why don't we make a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to get a car?

Because the lack of a car will far less likely cost you everything you own leaving you destitute and without preventative healthcare. It is estimated that up to half of all bankruptcies are healthcare related. I'm not sure the lack of a car even figures.

 

[Richard Masters]

Because the lack of a car will far less likely cost you everything you own leaving you destitute and without preventative healthcare. It is estimated that up to half of all bankruptcies are healthcare related. I'm not sure the lack of a car even figures.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_109143.html

It's difficult to get a job without a car, that's high on the list of reasons for bankruptcy. As for healthcare being the number one reason, note the caveat that 72% of those did have health insurance.

But I'm just pointing out to Travis how just because people try to get insurance, it doesn't mean we need to make it mandatory.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

That's not even logical.

 

[leftysergeant]

I've desperately tried to buy a car for 9 years and could not. Why don't we make a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to get a car?

Because it is better that some people not have them, perhaps as many as 25% of the morons with whom i must sometimes share I-5.

It would really be better if we changed the whole philosophy of land use planning to prevent urban sprawl so that highways do not fill up with cars as soon as they are built.

And I have no time to listen to anybody snivelling about how liberals are trying to force them out of their cars. I am tired of people who push for land-use policies that force peole like me into a car on a regular basis.

The least they could do is take away the vehicles of those fools who can't follow simple rules on the road. Use procedes of the sales of vehicles driven by drunks to fix the infrastructure and schools.

And think of the money it would save the hospital system.

 

[Richard Masters]

Because it is better that some people not have them, perhaps as many as 25% of the morons with whom i must sometimes share I-5.

Those guys are idiots. They won't even move out of the fast lane.

It would really be better if we changed the whole philosophy of land use planning to prevent urban sprawl so that highways do not fill up with cars as soon as they are built.

Yep.

I am tired of people who push for land-use policies that force peole like me into a car on a regular basis.

I couldn't agree more. Ideally I could walk or bike to work every day. But those highways get in the way.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is estimated that up to half of all bankruptcies are healthcare related.

I've looked in detail at the study in question. It's absolute crap. We can talk about that in more detail if you like, but that figure is meaningless.

 

[Ziggurat]

As for healthcare being the number one reason, note the caveat that 72% of those did have health insurance.

The problem with that stat runs a hell of a lot deeper than that. The very definition of medical bankruptcy that they use guarantees that they will include cases which most people would never consider to be medical bankruptcies. The study was designed from the start to provide an inflated number. The facts are all there^*, if you actually read the study. Which I have done (link above), but damned few other people seem to bother doing before throwing out statistics that they don't understand.

Actually, there's reason to believe someone screwed up with at least one reported number in the study too. Bonus points if you can find that problem.

 

[Beth]

I read this a lot here. A classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The only time not to actively support changes to the system you're not happy with is when it's time to vote. It's to late then. If you really...
your protest may result in Gingrich or Romney getting elected. If that's okay with you, so be it. But don't pretend your sending any noble message, other then you'd prefer to cop out.

Not really. We live a very red state. It's a given that the Republican nominee will carry this state and all it's electoral votes, so my individual vote won't have any effect on the outcome of the election regardless of who I vote for or whether I vote at all. I'm not naive enough to think my message will be received either. It just makes me feel better to send it.

 

[Richard Masters]

The problem with that stat runs a hell of a lot deeper than that. The very definition of medical bankruptcy that they use guarantees that they will include cases which most people would never consider to be medical bankruptcies. The study was designed from the start to provide an inflated number. The facts are all there^*, if you actually read the study. Which I have done (link above), but damned few other people seem to bother doing before throwing out statistics that they don't understand.

Actually, there's reason to believe someone screwed up with at least one reported number in the study too. Bonus points if you can find that problem.

Wow, that study really is littered with flaws and potentially deliberate ones at that. I'm still reading over it, so I haven't identified the potentially misreported number you pointed out.

 

[RandFan]

It's difficult to get a job without a car, that's high on the list of reasons for bankruptcy.

A.) Demonstrate that not having a car is directly and statistically significant cause of bankruptcy. B.) There is a public option (public transportation).

As for healthcare being the number one reason, note the caveat that 72% of those did have health insurance.

This doesn't argue for you. A system that systematicaly leaves so many unnecessarily destitute isn't much of a system. But the residual is still statistically significant. American population is 300,000,000. You are talking about making 42,000,000 bankrupt as a matter of course.

But I'm just pointing out to Travis how just because people try to get insurance, it doesn't mean we need to make it mandatory.

And I'm trying to point out that it is unconscionable not to. Allowing people to suffer because they have preexisting conditions seriously hurts society for no good reason.

 

[DavidJames]

There's no significant difference between Romney and Obama...

That statement shows incredible ignorance of the facts and a bizarre view of reality.

If you honestly feel that, there is no point in wasting any more time with you.

 

[RandFan]

How does mandatory insurance solve this problem? You are still forcing me to pay the freeloader's bill by mandating that I buy insurance.

You live in a society. Social species evolved to use cooperation to their benefit. IOW: It's in our best interest to solve complex social issues that are potentially harmful to large sections of the population. The same percentage of GDP is spent yet we get half the care. People suffer significantly and why? Because we are so worried that someone will get something for nothing. We would rather that people through no fault of their own suffer because we are worried about freeloaders.

Back to your car example. If not having transportation hurt a large segment of society I would damn certain make sure everyone contributed to public transportation. And you know what, that's what we do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've desperately tried to buy a car for 9 years and could not. Why don't we make a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to get a car?

You are not convincing anyone of your position with this blatantly false analogy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well that's good to know. I'll try it next time.



Just stating that I haven't made my case isn't really persuasive. From the wall of text you have provided, it's clear that you have no interest in being constructive. I explained why I preferred a Paul administration over an Obama administration, and somehow you think I agree with Ron Paul at every level. You continue to make the claim that I'm misrepresenting your arguments when you have been doing so all along. I really thought you were a reasonable person from reading some of your other posts, but I guess the Politics section really is where reason and skepticism go to die.

My wall of text was in reply to your wall of text.

I'll summarize it for you.

You claim we are over-regulated.
I claim that is a myth.
We agree some regulations are needed.

You provided an example of how overregulation hurt you personally.
I pointed out it was not the regulations that caused your problem, it was the decision of a pharmacist not to accomodate you and a flub by your clinic and/or the pharmacy.

You claim that mandating purchase of medical insurance infringes on the rights of the individual.
I pointed out that the individual who could afford but chose not to purchase medical insurance was a freeloader. People who do pay for medical care cover the costs of the people who get care and don't pay their bills.
You expressed ignorance that the unpaid bill cost other customers.
I hope you see your error there but I'm not sure you do.

If I didn't intend to be constructive, I wouldn't have wasted my time replying to you.
If you support a candidate, generally that means you accept at least some of the candidate's platform. Ron Paul's platform is extreme.
Trying to change the debate to the straw man that I've misrepresented your position and I am somehow arguing you "agree with Ron Paul at every level" might be satisfying to you. But anyone else reading this exchange as well as myself can see that is not what I've pointed out to you at all.

What I have tried to point out was your misconceptions about regulations being the source of the problems you believe they are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't know what "my case" is. I'm not sure how you can claim to have refuted it. [snipped wall of text]
OK.

For the record, tl, dr.

I've invested enough time on your position. I'll skim the post and if I see anything new I'll respond.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess I'll address a few of these.

...
When I go to Target or Walmart, I *have* to buy fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent, which do *not* give me headaches. LED bulbs are even worse. Soon I'll have to import light-bulbs from other countries just to avoid headaches.

We are at risk of not having enough energy to go around. This measure is necessary because there isn't enough electricity to go around. It's called rationing. It happens.

When I need a prescription refill I need to pay $100+ for a 15 minute discussion that's going to end in me getting my prescription. It wastes my time and money.

You should find a new doctor who doesn't require you to be seen as often as the one you are seeing. They exist.

Or the DMV "won't accept" my insurance (actually they just haven't bothered to call my insurance company) so I'm technically driving my car illegally. I already sent them 2 letters and presented proof of insurance in person, yet I'm still driving my car illegally. The other day I got a parking ticket because my registration is suspended.

Clearly mandating auto insurance is not the problem here.

Whenever I buy electronics where I live, I have to pay $10-20 in taxes, even for a computer I built myself specifically to save money.

So you just don't want to pay your share of either sales taxes or the cost of disposal of those electronics? You want everyone else to pay for waste disposal? Tsk tsk.

The state of California wouldn't recognize my driver's license so I managed to accrue $3400 dollars in fines, which I couldn't pay at the time. Eventually they withdrew the money from my bank account without warning me because they had made up an address. That money could have easily paid 6 months of health insurance. I could have bought a more expensive car than the one I currently own with that money.

Oh, that's right you have a thread on that. It sounds very much like you are blaming others for your own failures.

Whenever I cross the border I'm treated with suspicion. Can't get on a plane without surrendering 2 hours of my time and being subjected to demeaning treatment by customs and TSA.

You must have quite a legal record.

And apparently, as an atheist, I'm not able to hold office in most states.

And this is by law? Laws that are still on the books and enforced? Notify the ACLU and they'll probably take the case.

Also, couldn't drink at the age of 18 despite having done so safely in other countries legally. Can't take recreational drugs now even though they are unlikely to affect me or others if done responsibly.

Not worth comment. Drinking age is a very important law. More than a few of us would like to see pot decriminalized and you are welcome to your opinion on the legality of recreational drugs but it's not the clear cut issue you seem to think it is.

Also, because of overregulation in the education industry, and because the government will subsidize others' education, colleges can charge whatever they want. The cost of going to school quadrupled and I'm still paying my loans, while someone got a free education paid for by the government.

This is pure BS but requires a new thread and I'm out of energy to spend on you. In short, I heard a debate on this just yesterday. The right wing was claiming the cost of education went up because of tax support (in other words the money received was spent resulting in a rise in costs, rather than the costs incurred were reimbursed). But the college president in the debate pointed out the actual costs had not risen beyond the rate of inflation, rather the state funding shrank and the increased need for funding was shifted more and more to tuition.

In other words, it was a lie that tuition rate increases were due to increased spending, rather they were the result of cost shifting. I'm pretty sure there is data to support this version of reality.

...
What legislation would protect Muslims that we don't already have?

You suggested we should end current legislation. I did not suggest we needed new legislation.

...How does mandatory insurance solve this problem? You are still forcing me to pay the freeloader's bill by mandating that I buy insurance.

You cannot guarantee that you will not incur a bad debt for medical care you don't believe you might need in the future.

If you change the law and allow EDs to refuse to treat people and let them die on the ED steps, you can eliminate mandatory health insurance.

It's the same with laws requiring drivers carry auto insurance. You simply cannot guarantee you'll pay if you incur costs without insurance or a bond of some kind.