So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[DavidJames]

...and we are back to the "we all need to help out" rationalization, so let's require everyone buy motorcycle insurance to help cut the costs for those that do need it. Hey one day, in the bigger picture, you or someone in your family might just own a motorcycle...

We've been down this road.

First and most importantly, we're talking health insurance not motorcycle insurance. Other then trying obfuscate, I don't understand why you think they are the same.

Second, I don't know how old you are, but I would think it wouldn't be necessary to explain how insurance works. But I can find some links if you're aren't sure and would like to read up on how it works.

 

[Shalamar]

...and we are back to the "we all need to help out" rationalization, so let's require everyone buy motorcycle insurance to help cut the costs for those that do need it. Hey one day, in the bigger picture, you or someone in your family might just own a motorcycle...

It is similar isn't it! Everyone that drives a motorcycle should be forced to have Motorcycle insurance!

Everyone that has a body, should have health insurance!

 

[elbe]

The problem with your analogy is that we don't all ride motorcycles. We do, however, all have health.

The only sense I can make of his posts is that they've started putting people into robot bodies, ala Ghost in the Shell. I'd like to think I would have heard about that, though.

 

[uke2se]

I won't feed trolls. Quote and cite my "some do" statement. Then quote and cite my response in 583.

Ok:

My original question:

Do they earn little enough to go below the poverty line? If so, they can get welfare.

Your response to this:

Some do, some don't and simply are forced to pay more for health insurance.

My follow up question:

Are you saying that the ACA will bring people below the poverty line? If so, please cite.

Your response:

I'm saying some people will pay more for health insurance with Obamacare in place.

My attempt at getting you to clarify:

And I asked if some of those would go below the poverty line because of it, to which you replied "some do". I want to know if I have understood you correctly and you are saying that the ACA has brought people below the poverty line, in which case I am asking you for a cite.

You miss the mark here:

You did not specifically say "because of it". I'm not claiming that thousands are driven into poverty because of Obamacare.

Again I attempt to get you to clarify:

Are you claiming that anyone below the poverty line will pay more for insurance that they already have?

Again you miss the chance to clarify:

Did you see anywhere that I in anyway suggested that?

Again I ask for clarification:

So you're not? Then why did you say "some do" when replying to my question about people below the poverty line getting increased premiums?

And you start asserting that you've already answered the question, completely failing to provide any clarification, once again:

I've already answered that in post 583 to which you replied in 604. Do follow the thread if you are going to chime in and quit asking the same questions repeatedly.

After this you start flinging ad homs against me because I have the audacity to keep asking for clarification.

Lies. I never said "more for less or more for the same". Troll on brother.

Then what the hell is your argument? That some people will pay more for insurance post ACA is a lie by omission, as it fails to mention that they also get added coverage and benefits.

Really? Explain to me why males and gay females need birth control. Explain to me why people strictly adhering to abstention from addictive drugs or alcohol need coverage for addiction recovery. Explain to me why people that have the funds to pay for these or any other of the "essentials" and thus don't want to lose money by paying insurance premiums, really "need" these.

Already covered.

It's a fact that someone who has his questions answered, yet repeatedly asks them over and over, either isn't paying attention or is deliberately trolling the thread. Take your pick.

The third option is that the person really hasn't had his questions answered, as I demonstrate above. I wonder, what does that make you?

 

[Neally]

The problem with your analogy is that we don't all ride motorcycles. We do, however, all have health.

Health <> health insurance.

We've been down this road.

First and most importantly, we're talking health insurance not motorcycle insurance. Other then trying obfuscate, I don't understand why you think they are the same.

The principle of "we all need to help" therefore whether you need it, want it, or not, you have to get it, is exactly the same.

Second, I don't know how old you are, but I would think it wouldn't be necessary to explain how insurance works. But I can find some links if you're aren't sure and would like to read up on how it works.

Laughably, people keep thinking that they know what insurance is yet keep equating health care to health insurance. I know very well how insurance works and what the sole function of all insurance is. Do you?

It is similar isn't it! Everyone that drives a motorcycle should be forced to have Motorcycle insurance!

Everyone that has a body, should have health insurance!

And everyone that doesn't drive a motorcycle should be forced to have motorcycle insurance, you know, to help lower the costs for those that do! Unless of course you are some sort of greedy scum that doesn't care a damn about others.

 

[uke2se]

Health <> health insurance.

The principle of "we all need to help" therefore whether you need it, want it, or not, you have to get it, is exactly the same.

Laughably, people keep thinking that they know what insurance is yet keep equating health care to health insurance. I know very well how insurance works and what the sole function of all insurance is. Do you?

And everyone that doesn't drive a motorcycle should be forced to have motorcycle insurance, you know, to help lower the costs for those that do! Unless of course you are some sort of greedy scum that doesn't care a damn about others.

You really don't get that for some people health insurance = health care, do you? You have had a privileged life, and never had to worry about doctor's bills, but not everyone has had the same luck as you. Now you get the chance of helping the people who can't afford health care by paying a little more for your own health insurance (although a lot of people pay less, as has been shown), and simultaneously help yourself as the reduced costs of health care overall benefits society at large, and you are part of society, whether you want to be or not.

 

[Shalamar]

Health <> health insurance.

The principle of "we all need to help" therefore whether you need it, want it, or not, you have to get it, is exactly the same.

Laughably, people keep thinking that they know what insurance is yet keep equating health care to health insurance. I know very well how insurance works and what the sole function of all insurance is. Do you?

And everyone that doesn't drive a motorcycle should be forced to have motorcycle insurance, you know, to help lower the costs for those that do! Unless of course you are some sort of greedy scum that doesn't care a damn about others.

You don't have a body, and thus aren't a drain on health costs? How bizarre.

I do however have motor vehicle insurance, as I do drive a motor vehicle. Much in the same way I have health insurance, as I have a body.

 

[Neally]

Ok:

1. I never said Obamacare forced people to go below the poverty line.
2. My "some do" refers to poor people qualifying for welfare/subsidies.
3. As I've said repeatedly, thousands of people will pay more for health insurance with Obamacare in place and thousands of people have less income because of Obamacare.

Now, what part of the above do you not understand?

Then what the hell is your argument?

See the above. I've only repeated it a half dozen times here.

That some people will pay more for insurance post ACA is a lie by omission, as it fails to mention that they also get added coverage and benefits.

Coverage that many don't want or need, yet are now forced to pay more for insurance because of Obamacare.

- Hey my insurance went up 50% under Obamacare.
- There, there, what you'll get is so much better!
- I don't want it and can't afford it.
- There are subsidies to help you.
- I don't qualify.
- But it's for the good of everyone that you pay more now.
- It's not good for me.
- Um, well Travis got his!

The third option is that the person really hasn't had his questions answered, as I demonstrate above. I wonder, what does that make you?

That you don't get the answers you want doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.

You really don't get that for some people health insurance = health care, do you?

Thanks for making it clear that you indeed don't understand what insurance is or the sole purpose thereof.

Now you get the chance of helping the people who can't afford health care by paying a little more for your own health insurance (although a lot of people pay less, as has been shown), and simultaneously help yourself as the reduced costs of health care overall benefits society at large, and you are part of society, whether you want to be or not.

...and we are back to the "we all need to help out" rationalization, so let's require everyone buy motorcycle insurance to help cut the costs for those that do need it. Hey one day, in the bigger picture, you or someone in your family might just own a motorcycle...

You don't have a body, and thus aren't a drain on health costs? How bizarre.

What's bizarre is that somehow you think everyone with a body is somehow a drain on health costs. Whatever that means.

 

[marplots]

...and we are back to the "we all need to help out" rationalization, so let's require everyone buy motorcycle insurance to help cut the costs for those that do need it. Hey one day, in the bigger picture, you or someone in your family might just own a motorcycle...

And I do contribute to motorcycle insurance. In Michigan, part of my premium goes to a "catastrophic fund" used to help cover injuries that exceed medical coverage, among them, injuries from motorcycle accidents.

Furthermore, we are a "no fault" state, so if a motorcycle hits me, my insurance will pick up coverage if theirs doesn't. Just like with Obamacare, most of what I pay benefits me, some will benefit others, and some benefits the system as a whole.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

As far as the bigger picture goes, there is certainly an element of community involved. I have no kids in public school, but part of my property taxes go to fund public schools. I don't directly benefit, but I do support the idea of a public education as worthwhile. So yes, there really is a bigger picture and a "vision" if you like. This is why we all voted on going ahead with Obamacare. We voted as a nation, a community, a "bigger picture."

 

[uke2se]

1. I never said Obamacare forced people to go below the poverty line.
2. My "some do" refers to poor people qualifying for welfare/subsidies.
3. As I've said repeatedly, thousands of people will pay more for health insurance with Obamacare in place and thousands of people have less income because of Obamacare.

Now, what part of the above do you not understand?

Why it was so freaking hard to answer my question the first time without resorting to calling me a troll.

Also, why you keep forgetting that the people that pay more also get added benefits and coverage. If you just state that they pay more, you are technically speaking the truth, but not the whole truth, and since you have been known to be partisan, it's fairly obvious that you omit it out of dishonesty.

See the above. I've only repeated it a half dozen times here.

Coverage that many don't want or need, yet are now forced to pay more for insurance because of Obamacare.

They don't know if they need it or not. Health insurance is now under quality control. The people with crap insurance get to pay for a better policy. In doing so, they also contribute to millions and millions of people who can finally afford health insurance to cover their health care needs.

- Hey my insurance went up 50% under Obamacare.
- There, there, what you'll get is so much better!
- I don't want it and can't afford it.
- There are subsidies to help you.
- I don't qualify.
- But it's for the good of everyone that you pay more now.

Ok, there's a claim. Your claim is that some people who now pay more can't afford to do so and don't qualify for subsidies. Now back it up.

That you don't get the answers you want doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.

In this case it did.

Thanks for making it clear that you indeed don't understand what insurance is or the sole purpose thereof.

I understand it. It's obvious that you don't.

...and we are back to the "we all need to help out" rationalization, so let's require everyone buy motorcycle insurance to help cut the costs for those that do need it. Hey one day, in the bigger picture, you or someone in your family might just own a motorcycle...

This has already been dealt with, so I'm not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt again. This is either a lie, or worse.

 

[Shalamar]

Sorry Travis, Neally doesn't think you should have healthcare, so 'some people' can save a few bucks. Terribly sorry.

You'll have to give up a chance at a healthy life without having to worry about going bankrupt if you get sick again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Everyone that has a body, should have health insurance!

Unless you want to change the law that requires hospital EDs to take anyone who walks or is brought in the door, yes.

 

[Shalamar]

Unless you want to change the law that requires hospital EDs to take anyone who walks or is brought in the door, yes.

Perhaps the Tea Party plan is to change that to help control costs. No Insurance? Can't pay? No medical treatments for you!

 

[Dymanic]

Perhaps the Tea Party plan is to change that to help control costs. No Insurance? Can't pay? No medical treatments for you!

"This is 911 emergency. What is the nature of your payment method?"

 

[thaiboxerken]

There are winners and losers with Obamacare. Travis is a winner. Good for him. Screw the losers with less income and higher insurance costs.

Yes. Travis gets to live longer. Bummer, eh?

 

[Peephole]

As I've said repeatedly, thousands of people will pay more for health insurance with Obamacare in place and thousands of people have less income because of Obamacare.

Because those people are paying too little at this moment. They're either uninsured or they have inadequate insurance. Either way, they're not chipping in enough money to keep the insurance system going. You do realize that insurance systems need people who pay, right?

Coverage that many don't want or need, yet are now forced to pay more for insurance because of Obamacare.

People don't really need car insurance, right up until the point they actually get into an accident. A lot of health insurance in the US is substandard. Not only is that bad for people in case something actually happens, but it also means people these aren't paying enough into the system.

 

[Upchurch]

Health <> health insurance.

Motorcycles <> motorcycle insurance.

What's your point?

Not everyone drives motorcycles, but everyone (living) does have some degree of health.

 

[Biscuit]

Motorcycles <> motorcycle insurance.

What's your point?

Not everyone drives motorcycles, but everyone (living) does have some degree of health.

Not just that but the principles and reasons behind the 2 types of insurance are completely different.

We don't need to spread the cost of MI because its a privilege that people exercise not a mandatory condition like life is. Auto insurances is mandated to insure the party you damage is made whole again, not to make you whole again. My health insurance doesn't cover your injuries if I accidently knock you over. The differences could go on for pages but it's enough to say it's a crap analogy.

 

[jimbob]

Alright, let's talk about the obvious here. Travis loves the ACA. Why? Well, basically because he sees it as a game that is rigged in his favor. He will put a relatively small amount in and get a relatively large amount out.

I don't mind admitting that I feel the opposite. I feel like someone who's being forced to take a bad bet. The roulette wheel has 38 possible spots and I'm being told that I should accept a .005-1 payoff because, hey, there's another guy over here who's getting 1000-1.

Insurance to me has been a terrible racket; I have paid out a huge amount compared to the claims I have submitted. Car insurance? I have probably paid somewhere around $30,000 so far in my life. Claims? Well, I did have my convertible top broken into twice, so say $900. Couple of minor fender benders might add $1000 to the total; but I didn't see any of that.

Home insurance I have easily spent $30,000 on. Zero payouts so far.

Health insurance is harder to quantify since much of what I had was when I was "employed" by a big company. I can say that in the last 30 uninsured years I have spent a tiny amount on traditional health care. Maybe I'm lucky that way and maybe my luck is about to change (given family history that is unlikely).

I fully hope to pay more into society in taxes than I get out in benefits.

If you live long enough you will need some form of healthcare.

You do realise that the US system is about the least cost-effective in the Western World?

Confused Britisher here.

Notwithstanding that I can't understand how anybody can call themselves human and support a system that denies healthcare to people just because they are poor, I am also really confused by this situation.

Me too.

Also check out my sig about the relative cost of healthcare (the proportion covered from taxes) in the US and UK.

 

[davefoc]

Right now the Democrats control the senate and the presidency. They theoretically hold more power than the Republicans that only control one house.

If the Republicans can shut the government down while controlling only the House of Representatives the Democrats should be in an even better position to shut the government down unless they get their way.

It is time for the Democrats to make their move. They should create a Democratic Party legislative wish list and present it to the Republicans and tell them that unless they let the Democrats have their way the Democrats will keep the government shut down. Then to deflect public anger at their scheme away from them the Democrats can propose laws that will mitigate some of the pain they are causing and when the Republicans fail to go along the Democrats can claim that the Republicans aren't negotiating and that the reason for the government shut down is that the Republicans want the US to fail.

This is such a great idea, I am surprised that the Democrats haven't started doing this already. Who needs a government anyway at least like the one that the US has right now.