SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[RandFan]

That's why I don't live in California!

So if you destroy someone's property? Screw 'em? I think people at times forget that freedom and privileges come with responsibilities.

 

[bookitty]

Now, if we could just figure out how we could stop the govt from forcing us to pay with every paycheck for trillion dollar fighter jets and other military nonsense and govt waste that many of us, perhaps most, don't want to buy.

It's this silly bit of nonsense that drives me crazy. Why not be honest? Why not just say, govt can force people to pay for it but not in this manner? The money must be taken from people and put in the general fund first. Then the govt could get rid of all insurances companies and do the job themselves.

I really don't understand why this isn't on the table. The government wants (or should want) healthy, productive citizens. Insurance companies are motivated by profit. The government would have a responsibility toward the people who are receiving care, while insurance companies have a responsibility to the stockholders. The government would be more invested in health care and would have less need for tactics that increase profit at the risk of health care, no need to budget for advertising, no need for lawyers to tweak contracts, no secondary industries designed to foil those lawyers and no need to pay anyone to lobby for laws that increase profit.

The government wants people to be healthy, insurance companies only want people who are healthy.

 

[RandFan]

I really don't understand why this isn't on the table. The government wants (or should want) healthy, productive citizens. Insurance companies are motivated by profit. The government would have a responsibility toward the people who are receiving care, while insurance companies have a responsibility to the stockholders. The government would be more invested in health care and would have less need for tactics that increase profit at the risk of health care, no need to budget for advertising, no need for lawyers to tweak contracts, no secondary industries designed to foil those lawyers and no need to pay anyone to lobby for laws that increase profit.

The government wants people to be healthy, insurance companies only want people who are healthy.

Yes. Well said.

 

[BravesFan]

So if you destroy someone's property? Screw 'em? I think people at times forget that freedom and privileges come with responsibilities.

I have insurance. I didn't say that didn't. I just noticed that it woul be cheaper to not carry it and pay the tickets.

As far as damaging their property, they would always have the option of suing me and winning. Then I file for bankruptcy and they get nothing.... That's the system we have devised.

I seriously doubt most low income people carry car insurance. They also have nothing for a claimant to win in a settlement. So , be responsible for yourself and carry uninsured motorist coverage and let your insurance company worry about suing them, and winning nothing.

I personally find it all a bit Big Brother, this requirement to purchase private products..... True the result is consequences that one may not like. But like helmet and seat belt laws. I think personal liberty trumps money every time.

 

[BravesFan]

Here's another problem with UHC. Who is responsible for malpractice? Would the Doctor's still be required to carry their own private insurance? Or would they now be under the Fed's umbrella and all lawsuits would be against the govt? Can the govt handle the increased cost of ongoing civil litigation? Won't this create a cottage industry of going after the govt with frivolous lawsuits designed to target a overworked Govt who is likely to be more willing to settle than face lengthy expensive trials?

I honestly had never thought of this until just now.... What's the protocol on malpractice and UHC?

 

[RandFan]

I have insurance. I didn't say that didn't. I just noticed that it woul be cheaper to not carry it and pay the tickets.

Actually you said:

I one time figured that it was cheaper for me to not have insurance and run the risk of being caught once a year and paying a ticket, than it was to pay my premiums....

As far as damaging their property, they would always have the option of suing me and winning. Then I file for bankruptcy and they get nothing.... That's the system we have devised.

Or, states could do what California does. Punish people who refuse to be considerate of others.

I seriously doubt most low income people carry car insurance. They also have nothing for a claimant to win in a settlement. So , be responsible for yourself and carry uninsured motorist coverage and let your insurance company worry about suing them, and winning nothing.

So, those who elect to save money and not purchase insurance it's the suckers other person's fault they don't have uninsured motorist insurance?

I personally find it all a bit Big Brother, this requirement to purchase private products..... True the result is consequences that one may not like. But like helmet and seat belt laws. I think personal liberty trumps money every time.

I find all a bit living in a society and balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of society. It doesn't really have to be 1984. Nations with the highest rates of contentment and well being work hard to balance these needs. They don't simply shrug their shoulders and say "F' it."

 

[BravesFan]

They also have very small mono-cultural populations. I find it irrational to try and compare Scandinavian countries policies with ours when they have 5 million citizens and a long history of paying higher taxes. They also don't face similar international issues that the US does.

It's apples and radishes.

 

[RandFan]

They also have very small mono-cultural populations. I find it irrational to try and compare Scandinavian countries policies with ours when they have 5 million citizens and a long history of paying higher taxes. They also don't face similar international issues that the US does.

It's apples and radishes.

I'm not talking about a single nation or small group of nationss. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, dynamics makes it difficult to compare. But you are talking about big brother. My point is that to balance the needs of citizens with the needs of society doesn't have to be big brother and that is true whether it's 1 million or 300 million.

 

[BravesFan]

Why should govt be involved in this at all? I have yet to see a compelling argument for this. It seems to me that before the Govt started becoming our babysitter, the majority of the citizens functioned rather well. is it ever going to be perfect? No, and to try and make it perfect is a fools game. I would love to see responsibility put back on the individual a well as having to live with the consequences of our actions. Be they corporate, individual or Governmental.

 

[RandFan]

Why should govt be involved in this at all?

You mean before govt stoped child labor, slavery, segregation? Before govt allowed women to vote? Or do you mean before technology exploded and our ability to treat thousands of diseases and afflictions that we couldn't before drove up prices?

I don't know how to make this more clear. We are a social species. We evolve to cooperate and to help each other. Flourishing societies are correlated with social services. Dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated. Now, correlation does not equal causation. But please, please to find me the inverse, anywhere.

One last thing, nations rated highest in economic freedom provide Public Health Services or provide UHC. We are the lone hold out of the industrialized world and we pay the most for health care yet many of our citizens cannot even get preventative care. What on earth is it that we don't get?

I have yet to see a compelling argument for this.

• Nations highest in HDI.
• Nations with UHC.

It seems to me that before the Govt started becoming our babysitter...

Rhetorical. Begging the question.

...the majority of the citizens functioned rather well.

What "seems" to you isn't in evidence. It's the golden age fallacy.

...is it ever going to be perfect? No, and to try and make it perfect is a fools game. I would love to see responsibility put back on the individual a well as having to live with the consequences of our actions. Be they corporate, individual or Governmental.

You can have personal responsibility and healthy, happy citizens.

 

[mhaze]

Why should govt be involved in this at all? I have yet to see a compelling argument for this. It seems to me that before the Govt started becoming our babysitter, the majority of the citizens functioned rather well. is it ever going to be perfect? No, and to try and make it perfect is a fools game. I would love to see responsibility put back on the individual a well as having to live with the consequences of our actions. Be they corporate, individual or Governmental.

There have been both charity, often operated by churches or other non profit corporations (Shriners), and county-tax operated hospitals for a long time. Say since the 1930s to cover the general category.

Since when did the argument progress to "taxpayer funded is equal to FEDERALLY FUNDED???" It seems that these other sources of revenue are completely ignored in the discussion.

Take for example, the FEDERAL mandate that emergency rooms must accept people. Bingo, 20 million illegals head on in there. Border hospitals are crammed with women from Mexico doing the baby thing. Then the fed comes back and pays for a part of these costs.

THEN the fed wants to say "It's not quite working right so we need to have more control"?

Huh???? It is, as Ziggarut stated, an issue where the federal government blunders in and actively creates a situation where thence, they can claim that new problems require new federal interventions.

How about they just GTF out?

 

[shuize]

Why should govt be involved in this at all? I have yet to see a compelling argument for this. It seems to me that before the Govt started becoming our babysitter, the majority of the citizens functioned rather well. is it ever going to be perfect? No, and to try and make it perfect is a fools game. I would love to see responsibility put back on the individual a well as having to live with the consequences of our actions. Be they corporate, individual or Governmental.

I tend to agree with this as well.

As an American living in Japan, one thing that really suprises me when I visit the States is what a bunch of fat slobs we are. I don't want the government telling us what to eat and how much to exercise, but I also don't like the idea of paying higher taxes or being forced into an insurance plan I don't want in order to subsidize all the people who can't be bothered to walk two blocks for their next double-double with cheese.

 

[RandFan]

I don't want the government telling us what to eat and how much to exercise...

What is it with the straw men?

 

[SezMe]

I tend to agree with this as well.

As an American living in Japan, one thing that really suprises me when I visit the States is what a bunch of fat slobs we are. I don't want the government telling us what to eat and how much to exercise, but I also don't like the idea of paying higher taxes or being forced into an insurance plan I don't want in order to subsidize all the people who can't be bothered to walk two blocks for their next double-double with cheese.

Would the Japanese trade their healthcare system for that of the USA? Why?

 

[balrog666]

There have been both charity, often operated by churches or other non profit corporations (Shriners), and county-tax operated hospitals for a long time. Say since the 1930s to cover the general category.

Since when did the argument progress to "taxpayer funded is equal to FEDERALLY FUNDED???" It seems that these other sources of revenue are completely ignored in the discussion.

Take for example, the FEDERAL mandate that emergency rooms must accept people. Bingo, 20 million illegals head on in there. Border hospitals are crammed with women from Mexico doing the baby thing. Then the fed comes back and pays for a part of these costs.

THEN the fed wants to say "It's not quite working right so we need to have more control"?

Huh???? It is, as Ziggarut stated, an issue where the federal government blunders in and actively creates a situation where thence, they can claim that new problems require new federal interventions.

How about they just GTF out?

The Federal Gubmint stinks up every single thing they touch. Every time.

 

[RandFan]

The Federal Gubmint stinks up every single thing they touch. Every time.

There's always Somalia waiting for you. They don't have a govt to stink up their military. No safe food regulations. Building codes. Laws. Just pure unadulterated no govt heaven.

 

[BravesFan]

There's always Somalia waiting for you. They don't have a govt to stink up their military. No safe food regulations. Building codes. Laws. Just pure unadulterated no govt heaven.

The alternatives are hardly that extreme. One doesn't have to answer anarchy with socialism (nor vice versa).

I would be in favor of putting cost controls in ,unless you have a manageable way to pay for 300 million people getting UHC. I have still not heard how it's going to be paid for. Saying that we have to have it and then showing a graph of the escalating costs of health care don't answer the question of how to pay for it.

 

[RandFan]

The alternatives are hardly that extreme. One doesn't have to answer anarchy with socialism (nor vice versa).

I'm not the one excluding the middle. You responded to the wrong poster. You wanted the post above mine. I don't claim that the govt stinks up everything it touches. Niether do I believe the govt is the answer to everything.

I would be in favor of putting cost controls in ,unless you have a manageable way to pay for 300 million people getting UHC. I have still not heard how it's going to be paid for. Saying that we have to have it and then showing a graph of the escalating costs of health care don't answer the question of how to pay for it.

I have still not heard how you will solve the problem without UHC. BTW: I don't accept your claims. Your incredulity isn't evidence of anything. The current trend of health care cost is.

 

[BravesFan]

I was referencing both of you. His statement the Gubmint screws up everything it touches, and your counter about Somalia. i find both equally wrong.

I don't accept your claims that the Government must intervene on health care. i say that eventually the health care community will have to change or go bust. I think they will change. Now, I think that Tort reform would help a lot of this too as Doctors shouldn't have to carry 6 figure malpractice premiums. IDK how much this would lower overall costs, but it couldn't hurt.

I don't have all the answers to this. it's a major issue. Will it take care of it's self before it collapses of it's own weight? I have no idea. Will UHC solve all the problems? I doubt it, as it just creates new ones. Will we ever get this all figured out? I don't think so, not while I'm alive. (and I'm hoping for 40 more years)

You still haven't presented a plan on how to pay for it.

 

[SezMe]

The Federal Gubmint stinks up every single thing they touch. Every time.

Your life must be just awful. From the moment you get up (government regulated electricity to sound your alarm clock) to the moment you go to bed (government regulated mattresses for fire protection) to every moment in between (government regulation of the air you breath and the water you drink) the government is involved. Since they can't do it right, daily existence must be an absolute grind.

What keeps you here?