# Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Here's a modest proposal:
The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
What do you think?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

No


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> No



Why not?  Some people experienced bankruptcy or were homeless.  Should they also be penalized?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.  This would be for the less well off of our society.

For the people that can pay private health care and health accounts. Both win and are happy!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.  This would be for the less well off of our society.
> 
> For the people that can pay private health care and health accounts. Both win and are happy!



We already have single payer for the less well off.  It's called Medicaid.
What about the question?  Let's reform the Individual Mandate.  The thing the gov't argued was at the heart of the bill.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

The 2014 penalty is tiny. It is basically a trial run year. By 2016 it is considerably more.

I think there is a real need for a public option. The problem is that the public option is harder to set up then it sounds.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.



Great idea.

Obamacare doesn't suck nearly bad enough.

Let's bring in Single Payer (i.e. 100% govt-provided health insurance), and we'll soon wish we had Obamacare back!

Sounds like a plan!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The 2014 penalty is tiny. It is basically a trial run year. By 2016 it is considerably more.
> 
> I think there is a real need for a public option. The problem is that the public option is harder to set up then it sounds.



The public option is  a suck idea.
But the penalty is a real problem.  Even a small sum falls heavily on people having trouble paying their bills.


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.



You mean the education system in which we spend more per student than just about any other country in the world while producing ever shittier results for those that graduate, not to mention the phenomenal drop out rates?

THAT public education system?  You want to emulate that?

Are you fucking retarded?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

Little-Acorn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.
> ...



For people that can't, sure. Accept republican ideas of health care saving accounts for the people that can...


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.
> ...



PROVE this claim with a citation of FACTS.

Your lying


----------



## Little-Acorn (Mar 12, 2014)

*Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA *


Good idea.

We can "reform" it the way we "reformed" the 18th amendment.

Can't come too soon.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



give us an example of where this idea has worked in reality?

you cant because it has NEVER worked anywhere


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



I don't see why they should need to claim a 'hardship', but anything to skip that asinine provision of the law would be welcome.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



This is going to make a lot of my Conservative Patriot friends angry but....

I've always been for mandatory participation in Health Insurance in this Country.

I think that anybody who refuses to buy Health Insurance should have to pay a fine of $5,000 per year and sign a release absolving all Hospitals, E-Rooms and Doctors of liability when they refuse to treat them for free.

Bleed to death on the Hospital door step, bitch.

It's called "Financial Responsibility"

In most States, you can't put a Car on the road without proving it but you can walk around the Country with the ability cost taxpayers HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in FREE Health Care if you get hurt or seriously ill?

Fuck you.

Now, for those who can't afford it we need to buy it for them or, at the very least, subsidize it.

But here's the difference in my thoughts....

Buy it from Private Carriers.  With a minimum approved level of coverage.......

NOT including acupuncture and maternity for 60 year old women.

The thing is this... And one reason I despise dimocrap scum so much...

Many of their ideas are pretty good... Especially the ones they steal from Conservatives... Like Universal Health Insurance

But they're stupid.  And worse than that..... They're dishonest.

No, they're not dishonest they're LYING SCUM.

And they're incompetent.  And stupid.  

Had they bothered to work with Republicans, who have the requisite skills and know-how, this thing could have worked.

Now?

Now I think it's doomed.  Maybe not.  Kinda hope not but I think it is.

Because dimocraps are some stupid bitches.

And lying scumbags

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E]"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." - Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

I just said the pubic educational system in a broad sense....We should reform that and replace it with the South Korean or Norway version.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

Little-Acorn said:


> *Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA *
> 
> 
> Good idea.
> ...



The only way your getting ACA gone is by replacing it with single payer.

live with reality


----------



## Disir (Mar 12, 2014)

Single-payer.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...




This is the only chance it has and I strongly believe that some personal choice for people should be within our health system.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 12, 2014)

Medicare age requirements will be continually reformed until all are in the system.  That, of course, would not preclude anyone from having private insurance if so desired.


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 12, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Oh look...'ol vodka and paint chips is back and weighing with its every-so-eloquent rhetoric.



> U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores



USATODAY.com - U.S. tops the world in school spending but not test scores

and



> If America Spends More Than Most Countries Per Student, Then Why Are Its Schools So Bad?



See How Much The US Spends On Education Compared To The Rest Of The Developed World - Business Insider

Now, you were saying something about "lying" you lying sack of shit?

And BTW, it's "you're".  Thanks for demonstrating what we can expect from public education.


----------



## AceRothstein (Mar 12, 2014)

I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies.  They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered.  These are probably the most popular pieces of the ACA.  If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it?  Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 12, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > *Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA *
> ...



Proves how incredibly stupid you are...

All we have to do when we kick lying scum dimocrap douchebags from office is to announce that, in the year 2018, all ACA policies will be non-renewed when they come up for renewal.

Private Carriers will jump in and compete for business like you've never seen.

Well, you're too stupid to see but, trust me.

It's easy as shit to do.

And the only people who will be pissed is the low-life scum like you.

The rest of us will be just fine.

And don't bore me with pre-existing conditions bullshit.  All new policies will not be underwritten if the Insured gets his new Health Plan withing 30 days of his old one being non-renewed.

moron


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies.  They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered.  If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it?  Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.



The penalty was put in place to make the system work. Asking people to buy insurance they dont need and can't afford wasn't going to work without forcing them.
But what about now allowing people to opt out just by stating it is a hardship?  Wouldn't that be a humane thing to do?


----------



## AceRothstein (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies.  They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered.  If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it?  Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.
> ...



Then do you have a bunch of bankrupt insurance companies?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Name one of the top ten that doesn't have government schools with government funding....

Do that and we can start real debate! I'd say we adopt one of the top 5 as ours...Sounds like a good solutions to me.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Mar 12, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...



Yes it does because I had one.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Why? Is the point of government, in your view, to make sure we're in the 'Top ten'?


----------



## Disir (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > I think the penalty is to appease the insurance companies.  They now have to cover children up to 26, there are no lifetime maximums and pre-existing conditions are covered.  If there is nothing forcing the people to buy insurance then what do the insurance companies get out of it?  Not that I agree with this but that is the logic behind it.
> ...



Will those people be able to receive medical care without being bankrupted?


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Mar 12, 2014)

Disir said:


> Single-payer.



More so abhorrent than obamacare.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The 2014 penalty is tiny. It is basically a trial run year. By 2016 it is considerably more.
> ...



This is mostly a problem in states that didn't increase the Medicaid threshold. 

Health insurance costs money and the penalty/tax is only a fraction of the risk the system takes on for the uninsured people. I am for UHC and think the mandate is pretty ridiculous but 1% of income is not an unreasonable tax.

The public option is a great idea if done right. The devil is in the details but there are places that could use it more than others.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



How do you propose to pay for pre-existing conditions?

That is the reason the mandate is necessary


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...



Some other way. The mandate is wrong.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



No, because the federal government has pledged essentially to bail them out if their return is adverse.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Not exactly a large percentage of this country could afford private school. *Not everything should be about profit*...It is within our national interest to have a educated population.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Disir said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...


Probably.
Are you in favor of allowing people to opt out just by stating it would be a hardship to sign up?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...


I dont see the connection here. The rule necessitating covering pre-existing conditions went into effect before the mandate.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It is all tied together.

Insurance companies cannot foot the bill for covering people with pre-existing conditions (non-healthy people) without the additional revenue from the individual mandate (healthy people)

How do you propose to pay?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


But wouldn't it make sense to allow people who have experienced hardship getting insurance through ACA to opt out?  Maybe just write a letter stating its been a hardship.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

The people want ACA or more.

why should you WIN in a democracy?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

because you don't care about democracy.

You don't believe in it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



Show me a person that claims the cost of health insurance is truly a hardship and I'll show you someone who qualifies for a subsidy. 

Problem solved.


----------



## Disir (Mar 12, 2014)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Single-payer.
> ...



Why?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

The people want healthcare.

you will NEVER be able to take it from them


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

Disir said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



Because he hates Americans


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The 2014 penalty is tiny. It is basically a trial run year. By 2016 it is considerably more.
> ...



What is wrong with a Public Option? It's the best of both worlds. "Shitty" government healthcare for all those dumb democrat moochers and amazing private insurance for all those self made, responsible conservative americans.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I really think they will be doing that initially

Long term, getting health insurance will be a routine process once you reach a certain age. 

I'd like to see employers out of the insurance business totally. Issue policies to individuals and let them carry it for the same price wherever they work. Even if self employed


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...


Even with subsidies some people cannot afford it. Recent bankrupts.  Recently homeless.
Don't you think people should be able just to make a statement it is a hardship and opt out of the penalty?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...


Because conservatives care about poor people, liberals don't.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...



Because of course, Comrade, it's government's job to fine me for not wanting to pay for someone else's pre- existing condition through overpaying for my own insurance.  So I can either pay for their pre-existing condition or not get insurance and pay a fine.  Wow, that's not out of control government ,is it?


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...



As long as the insurance companies get their money, it's all good, right?


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



So, in other words, the worst off both worlds?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yes, and they can. Why can't they do that now?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So what does that have to do with the Public Option being a "suck idea". Try and stay focused.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Not at all. But it's the shit system we have. I'd get rid of insurance companies all together if I could.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Tell us your ideal healthcare model.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



How about just restore our freedom to refuse to do business with them? That all the OP it's really asking for.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Free enterprise.  Get government out of the regulating, dictating, subsidizing role and let free markets work.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Or better yet, let us just decide what we want from insurance companies and not let government define our choices.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Once again conservatives are outside of the reality that people are going to use the system. Go to the er! So you're saying reject them and let them die? You have no solutions for a very real problem! 


Conservatives always have no solution besides throw the bum on the street or no government...No serious...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I love free enterprise but health care and education aren't issues that can be solved with that silver bullet. A lot can be done by free enterprise to help the public interest along.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



My ideal model is irrelevant, because I'm opposed to forcing it on other people via government. That's the faulty premise of the mandate; that we should imagine an ideal system and force it on everyone.


----------



## Disir (Mar 12, 2014)

I don't care how many times that this is drug out it all boils down to one argument. 

We have a very small amount of health care to go around and so it should be reserved for those that are more deserving of it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

Disir said:


> I don't care how many times that this is drug out it all boils down to one argument.
> 
> We have a very small amount of health care to go around and so it should be reserved for those that are more deserving of it.



???


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Disir said:


> I don't care how many times that this is drug out it all boils down to one argument.
> 
> We have a very small amount of health care to go around and so it should be reserved for those that are more deserving of it.



We have an unlimited amount of healthcare available.  Just like everything else.  Do we have a limited amount of legal services? Or accounting services?

But back to the mandate, let's allow people to opt out just by writing a statement.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



First of all, I'm a libertarian.  I always like the liberal claim you're the party of diversity and yet you can't tell the difference between any two people who disagree with you from socons to libertarians.

Second, so the only solution you can think of is for government to take over 15 plus percent of the economy and force people to pay for other people's pre-existing conditions, their age, their sex and other factors that drive insurance rates and if they don't agree to a massive socialist redistribution of wealth scheme then they are fined and denied access to cost effective insurance.  There really is no limit to the power you give government to fix our lives for us.  And you advocate more of it no matter how often it doesn't work.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So what happens to someone who gets seriously ill can't afford the costs for their care? And if your solution is based upon relying on charity I know we won't be getting anywhere with this conversation.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What country has that worked in?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Not irrelevant. I want to hear about the system you think we should be using. Whatever it may be. Don't be shy.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



What happens to someone who does NOT get seriously ill? They can't afford the cost of premiums.
People who can't afford the cost of care have many avenues available. People who can't afford premiums don't.
That's why we should allow them to opt out.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



All the ones that have tried it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So none.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



If you're stuck on the premise that government should act as our caretaker, I doubt we will.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



All of them that didn't prohibit it.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Mar 12, 2014)

Disir said:


> I don't care how many times that this is drug out it all boils down to one argument.
> 
> We have a very small amount of health care to go around and so it should be reserved for those that are more deserving of it.



Huh?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yes

That is how it works. Sometimes in life you are on the giving end and sometimes you are on the receiving end

In this case, people with pre-existing conditions were being blocked from the insurance market are on the receiving end. Not a pleasant circumstance if you suffer from a serious illness. 

But, as a true Libertarian, your view is fuck them, I got mine

We understand.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So you'll do anything to avoid answering questions. Why is that?


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I think each of is should be free to use, or create, whatever system we like. At a fundamental level you really don't "get" that, do you?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I've already told you that subsidies are available for those who can't afford it. You ignored that for some reason. 

And if someone doesn't get seriously ill, then I'd consider that a good thing. Apparently you don't.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Again....none. 

Let me know when you're ready to talk about solutions based in reality.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I like going to empirical evidence.  So far, it's never been tried in an industrialized country, every one has gone socialist.  And that has been a disaster.  Canada has higher death rates for both cardiovascular and cancer than we do.  And now that we're going socialized medicine, prices are skyrocketing for less insurance.  For decades our solution to every health care issue has been to add more and more suffocating regulations to the industry, and it keeps getting worse.

Maybe we should try a different approach than the ones that keep failing.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I get that you think anything with government is "bad". Trust me, I get it.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Every country that has gone social medicine, which is all industrialized countries, as failed.  So, which is a worse record?

Tried Capitalism:  0 for 0

Tried Socialism: 0 for everyone.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Fuck them, I got mine is clearly far more your view than mine.  You in every way advocate taking for yourself and giving for others.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



A disaster? Every country in the world has a disaster of a healthcare system? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Mar 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I would have had no problem if pre existings were mandated to be covered but instead O went ahead and destroyed everything.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



And the subsidies dont pay for the entire premium, leaving people who cannot afford it with a big bill for their premiums.
So do you support being able to opt out, or do you think that is just a GOP plan to undercut Obamacare?


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Yeah, I know. You don't get it. But I'll try one more time. My solutions are none of your business. And yours are none of mine. I'll deal with my health issues, you deal with yours. 


To put it another way, I don't accept your premise that this is a problem that "we" have to solve together. Just as my decisions regarding how to provide for all of my other personal needs aren't a matter of public policy debate.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Reading is fundamental.  What's the difference between what I said and what you did?  Cue the Jeopardy music...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



So because no one has tried it, it is not a solution based in reality?
What is not based in reality is the idea that we are going to implement a socialist scheme like Obamacare, which has been tried in the states many times and failed, and for some reason this time it will be different.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



LOL, I can point to plenty of countries with higher rated healthcare systems than what we have in this country. Those are all failures too?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Yes.  The proof is they are all marked by soaring costs and vain attempts to rein those costs in.  Go ahead an post a few examples.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Ok, let's make this real simple. Name one country you think has a good healthcare system. ANY country.


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 12, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...



WRONG again,thats how I paid for my  surgery a year ago,and that's how we cover the deductibles on our dental  A health maint account .

You should just keep your big yap shut


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

LordBrownTrout said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



It's not just pre-existing, it's the young are subsidizing the old, men are subsidizing women.  Whether or not one buys into the idea of that, young are going to be less likely to buy insurance, the healthy are less likely to buy insurance, then rates skyrocket even more.

The idea that government "solves" problems has never been empirically chosen.  Government has never meet a problem large, small, complex or simple that it couldn't make worse.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The subsidies can pay for the whole premium for those who need it. And people can "opt out" if they truly can't afford it. That's how the law currently is. What's the problem?


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



And the rich from those countries come here when they need serious treatment.  They also don't allow pharmaceutical companies to charge for their full share for the the full cost of research so those costs hit Americans more.  They have as I pointed out higher death rates from cancer and heart disease.  And it's going to get worse when they can't sponge off us because we become like them.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Exactly.  They frequently can't get treatment until they are long since dead.  Which is why Canadian and European rich come here for treatment.  The poor just die like the good little socialists that they are.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I get it, you don't like living in a civilized society. That's the problem. I'm sure there are plenty of 3rd world nations that would love your "fuck you, I got mine" mentality. Unfortunately for you, we live in a country that cares for one another (at least some of us do) and when someone needs a helping hand, we're there to lend it. Your selfishness is not what this country is about luckily. 

Good thing is, there are plenty of 3rd world countries where you can do whatever the fuck you want without pesky government getting involved that you can move to.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



We do, though it's sinking with every mandate and regulation and Obamacare is warp speeding that process.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



We've had Obamacare before?? Weird, when was that?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 12, 2014)

the right wants people to die in the streets without healthcare


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Which healthcare system costs more than ours? Name just one.


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 12, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> the right wants people to die in the streets without healthcare



You must know just how stupid you make yourself with this nonsense?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Thats the way healthcare has always worked

The seriously sick always run up more bills than the healthy. Yet they pay the same

Of the two, I would rather be the person who pays for coverage I don't use


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So every other nation has terrible healthcare? And our system which just got in bed further with private insurance is "sinking"?


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Before Obamacare or after?  After Obamacare I can't imagine anyone's does.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point. Our system is great for the rich. What about the other 99% of the country that isn't rich? That includes you.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Crony capitalism is a form of socialism, it has nothing to do with capitalism.  When government picks winners and losers and controls the market, it's central economic planning.

Liberals fundamentally don't grasp free markets.  Free markets is when suppliers and consumers make their own choices.  Free markets isn't a reference to "companies."  It's FREE markets.  You think when companies are involved we suddenly are getting our way over your government solution.  That isn't what we believe ... at all ...


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It's funny how over and over you hear the words and don't grasp what they mean when put together.

What I said is in your socialist countries, the rich aren't impacted by your socialism like the masses are.  Seriously, you see that as an argument for our going socialist?  LOL.

Same thing will happen as we go socialist.  Non-industrialized countries will set up medical freedom and our rich will go there.  We won't be so impacted.  It's you who are condemning yourself.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Before. Go for it. Tell us which system was more expensive in the last 20 years.


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



So we have many help programs,fact that cons out give by wide margins doesn't matter.

Charity and help is best when voluntary,taking from one to give to another,is not.

This is a turd going around and around the bowl,just waiting.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



First of all, you obviously don't understand the definition of Socialism. Second, you are afraid to name a single country in the world outside of ours which has a good healthcare system. Yet, there is plenty of data that a simple Google search will return showing there are in fact systems out there that are servicing their countries well. But you won't acknowledge any of them because you're an ignorant hick who thinks anything you don't like must be socialism.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That's the irony. I actually believe that. You, actually, don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be so hell bent on forcing the matter with government mandates.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I'll go for it, but can you clarify what point you're making so I can address it most effectively?  I said healthcare was a disaster in socialized countries.  The rich leave and get better care outside, the death rates for cancer and cardiovascular diseases are actually higher in socialized countries and people can't get access to specialists sometimes until long after they are dead.  I'm not clear what point you're making exactly by focusing now on "costs" only.  Can you clarify.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Socialism is central economic planning.  Only government can plan centrally, because only they can use force to impose their will.  The distinction between government owned and government controlled is zero.  If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and they have the keys, it's not really your car, it's theirs.

And I keep saying we have had the best medical system, so I am not grasping your attempt to get me to name good ones.  I keep saying our peers are all socialist, theirs aren't as good.  The best ones as we continue to go socialist will be third world countries that do with medical like the Cayman Islands do with finance, they become free zones where people who can afford treatment from industrialized countries will go to escape government controls.  Those of you who can't afford it will just die faster like you do in the industrialized socialist countries now.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Maine, Massachusetts, Tennessee, probably a few others.  All of them failed.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Too bad that wasn't what I wrote.  But thanks for moving those goalposts.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Where can people opt out?  The mandate is universal.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Who are you kidding? The sweat stained undershirts you donate to the red cross aren't doing shit for the people who truly need help in this country.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You're aware that there are doctors and organization donating thousands of hours to help indigent people, right?  How dare you disgrace that effort by calling it "sweat stained shirts".  You're a piece of shit. Like anyone had any doubt.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Government isn't good with giving us choices, are they Rabbi?  I opted out of obamacare, and the price of my policy went up by 40%.  Though that was better than opting in which tripled the price of my policy.

I contributed to my employees health care tax free through an HRA at my business.  Obamacare changed the rules so that my contributions to help them with their policies are no longer tax deductible.

Obamacare, taking the "affordable" out of "healthcare"...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You can opt out of Obamacare, but not the mandate.  Where can you opt out of the mandate?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The point is there are other countries that have good healthcare systems, with good patient satisfaction and lower costs than our own. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge them? Why? Because every system, EVERY system in the world is more "socialist" than our system. EVERY SINGLE ONE and the fact that you wont name a country tells me that you know this on some level. 

So instead of me naming which systems are rated better than ours, I'll let you tell me which system you like. Then we can discuss why. But you won't because you're a partisan hack whose only joy in life comes from complaining about commies and socialists.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I was agreeing with you, government sucks at giving us "choices."


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



It's so hard to get liberals to focus on what you are arguing and get them to stop debating the voices in their heads placed there by lying, self serving, liberal lawyers.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You use the word "good" here like it means something.  What do you mean by "good"?
Every one of those systems is beset with soaring costs and vain efforts to contain them.  Go Google "health care costs Britain" Or France.  Or Germany.  Every one of them is in trouble.
Even then their populations are generally healthier than ours and their costs would be lower anyway.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I didnt dispute that.  Government is giving the choice of enroll in health care plans you can't afford or pay a tax you can't afford.
I'm saying why wouldn't they allow people to opt out of the mandate/tax?


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I keep saying I like our system the best, even though government has for decades over regulated and mandated it.  And I keep saying all our peers are socialist now, so there is no comparable system.  Any free medical country is third world.  I am not getting the logic in your repeating when that's my view to name other countries I like regarding their system.  We are the standard, and as socialists, you're on a lifelong quest to strangle the goose that laid the golden egg so we can all be poor and equal.  Except our political leaders.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



When you show the hardship on your tax return.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



I didn't know chikenwing was a doctor.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It's so hard to get conservatives to answer a simple question. This thread is a prime example of it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



And none of them hold a candle to our healthcare costs. And that's before Obamacare was ever imagined. So your whole "soaring costs" argument is moot.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I don't know, you need to ask one.  As for libertarians, I've already answered the question multiple times and you don't like the answer.  I like our system, or I did, which is why Obama wants to destroy it.  I don't like socialist industrialized ones and I don't like third world ones.  So when you ask me to name one I like that's not ours, you're asking me to name a chicken with teeth.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



And like I said, you refuse to acknowledge other systems that are rated well.....even, *gasp* better than ours. Why is that you refuse to admit that perhaps we aren't the best?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You understand that's a non sequitur, right?


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

The German system does a better job giving the people a choice when choosing their healthcare than our system IMO. 

Other countries have far more efficient systems. The US system is able to do ok because we throw so much more money at it than other countries.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Again, what do you mean "rated better"? That is very subjective, depending on what you're measuring. But I'll bet that's too abstract for you.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



LOL. You just use terms that don't apply whatsoever when you have no place else to turn. Good for you.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You're the only one focusing only on "cost."  Actually, the Euro socialists are in the 10-12 percent range of gdp, which is a big chunk of what we pay.  We also have better care and that doesn't count what they spend privately since that's not official health care spending.

So if you saved a few bucks but couldn't get an appointment if you have cancer and die waiting you consider that a net win?  Really?


----------



## g5000 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



Hardship exemptions are already in the law.

Here are the necessary forms:

If you live in a state using Healthcare.gov: http://marketplace.cms.gov/getoffic...-and-articles/affordability-ffm-exemption.pdf

If you live in a state using its own exchange: http://marketplace.cms.gov/getoffic...-and-articles/affordability-sbm-exemption.pdf


/thread


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Because it goes directly against economic libertarianism that the conservative movement is trying to transform into. They couldn't name a single nation that allows its private sector to completely charge as they please to education the entire nations population. That would be insane.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...



And that exemption has been extended for 2 years.
ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption - WSJ.com

If the mandate was at the center of Obamacare, which is what the gov't argued to the SC, then why is it being put off?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The German system does a better job giving the people a choice when choosing their healthcare than our system IMO.
> 
> Other countries have far more efficient systems. The US system is able to do ok because we throw so much more money at it than other countries.



Time to learn from those countries.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Darn, I knew you were just too stupid to understand something like that.
Yes, your statement was a non sequitur.  Just because other countries' health care systems cost less than ours does not mean they cannot experience soaring costs.  Just to spell it to you because you're rather stupid.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Rated on several factors...if you're truly interested. Here is just one study for example.

_"U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives"_

U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives - The Commonwealth Fund


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The German system does a better job giving the people a choice when choosing their healthcare than our system IMO.
> ...



Oops.
Germany passes unpopular healthcare reform | Reuters


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Right.  So it's pretty meaningless because you can pick and choose factors to make whatever case you want.
In fact, the only thing that matters is that when people get sick they get effective treatment in time.  And the US ranks #1 in that.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You used other nations "soaring costs" as a negative, where as our country has even greater soaring costs before Obamacare. Thus, like I said, your point is moot. Back to the drawing board for you!


----------



## g5000 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The individual mandate was not extended for two years.  It was extended for those whose coverage was cancelled.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It is hardly moot.  Those systems of other nations produced soaring health care costs that have necessitated painful reform.  Thus emulating them will guarantee we will get the same result.
Whether our country has experienced soaring costs or not is irrelevant to the fact that those other countries with their systems did.  Thus the non sequitur.
You flunked logic, right?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

g5000 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



If their coverage wasn't cancelled then the penalty is irrelevant.
But under current policy, virtually anyone can plead any kind of hardship and qualify.  It is a self reported thing.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



https://www.google.com/


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



We pay more but have less doctors. We pay more for the same services. We pay more for administration. 

There are some areas where the US actually pays more because we are getting more because we have great technology, doctors, and infrastructure. The problem is with the system itself.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Their soaring costs are less than ours and their overall ratings are higher in any study you look at yet you somehow think switching to their system will increase the cost of our already most expensive system in the world. 

Solid logic, really.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So, that's a no. You don't have a link. 

Yet, I had no problem providing you with proof for what I said. yet you can't do the same. So are you lying or lazy? You pick.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Nevermind Rabbi. I know you wouldn't answer with proof, because your claim is bullshit just like everything else you claim. I found the answer.

Canada was found to be the worst, and the U.S. is next to last in healthcare waiting times (hint: that's not good).

Canada ranked last among OECD countries in health care wait times | CTV News

Whoops, another one of your bullshit, unsupported, arguments shot to hell.


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 12, 2014)

Little-Acorn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.
> ...



When you say "govt-provided health insurance", can you also explain who is paying for that?


----------



## Ame®icano (Mar 12, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I just said the pubic educational system in a broad sense....We should reform that and replace it with the South Korean or Norway version.



In South Korea every citizen pays in. Based on our progressive taxation, South Korean system cant work in USA.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

Ame®icano;8763197 said:
			
		

> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I just said the pubic educational system in a broad sense....We should reform that and replace it with the South Korean or Norway version.
> ...



Education is funded relatively regressively.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


It is irrelevant whether their soaring costs are less or more than ours.  They are what they are.  Their systems cannot deal with them and are falling apart as a result of increased costs.
I know logic is not your strong point.  I am trying to figure what is your strong point, other than stalking.


----------



## Rozman (Mar 12, 2014)

Would have been nice if the people that had insurance were able to keep their plans... as in...

Obama... "If you like your plan you can keep your plan"...

But as we have learned...
Obama is a liar!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You have never provided proof to anything you write.  You lie constantly.  And as demonstrated here you are not terribly bright.
I read a lot and have seen the evidence: when people actually get sick, which is a true measure of health care quality, they are better off getting sick here.  They receive prompter treatment that is more effective than in any other country.  If you tried reading more you might have discovered the same.  Of course you wouldn't because your low intelligence means you cannot read something and draw valid conclusions from it.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 12, 2014)

Little-Acorn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.
> ...



And the status quo healthcare system America has been stuck with is great? As long as Americans keep on getting stuck with the most expensive healthcare in the world by far, the US's healthcare system will continue to be an albatross hanging around the neck of any economic growth in this country.  (Find me an economist who doesn't agree.) We don't have the best healthcare system in the world, those who benefit aren't working families/working individuals. The healthcare industry is the only ones benefiting.  Pay attention to how much healthcare is eating up our GDP. Pay attention what Americans pay for healthcare versus what the rest of the world pays.  Pay attention to why this so called recovery is  so slow. We're getting screwed by the status quo, you love so much because your masters tell you to love it.
I do however think Public Option is workable and would hold costs down.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The costs are most certainly relevant and you are the one that brought up cost. The major problems of the US system relate directly to cost. 

In another post you reference the quality of care. I agree that if you are sick (and had insurance) you would rather be in the US than any other country. Once again the only problem with getting sick in the US is cost. 

The other major countries have way more doctors than the US per person. The idea that there is some great shortage in most other countries is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US system is inefficient. It still produces some great results but it can be way more efficient.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons.  High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems.  So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine.  That is what socialism brings: rationing.  Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant.  In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year.  Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year.  In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages.  Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Their systems didn't fail. 

Malpractice happens everywhere. How we deal with it is part of our system and worth considering reform. 

There is not some great shortage of health care across socialized nations. Yes the number of doctors matter as it has a big impact on accessibility, cost, and their ability to provide health care to everyone. There are far bigger problems within the US with regards to access to care than places like Germany or France or Japan.

I do not suggest we copy the UK or Canadian models.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Your generalizations do not constitute argument.
/fail.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



"High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many."
Really?  
_"Limiting malpractice torts nationwide would reduce total health care spending in two ways. First, tort limits would lower premiums for malpractice insurance by decreasing the average size of malpractice awards (which would also have the effect of decreasing the number of tort claims filed). That reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance paid by providers would flow to health plans and patients in the form of lower prices for health care services. Second, research suggests that placing limits on malpractice torts would decrease the use of health care services to a small extent because providers would prescribe slightly fewer services if they faced less pressure from potential malpractice claims. Together, those two factors would cause this option to reduce total health care spending by about 0.5 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates."_
Maybe you should check this link out.
Limit Medical Malpractice Torts - CBO 

And the rest of your rant can be covered with the chart below.
Per capita healthcare costs ? international comparison | pgpf.org


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Your links do nothing to disprove my statement that high malpractice insurance premiums contribute to high medical costs in the country.
And if you are suggesting tort reform, well, shut the fuck up!
Rahm to Brother: 'Shut the F--- up!' on Tort Reform


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



0.5% reduction with Malpractice reform represents a tiny, tiny portion of the cost of healthcare.  I think you didn't understand the simple statement by the CBO or you chose to ignore it. This clearly demonstrates your overused talking point is just that, a weak talking point with zilch to back it up.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



As I wrote, high malpractice insurnce premiums are one factor.  That means there are many others. The CBO's predictions have never been correct. NEver.
I understand you have to challenge things that contradict your world view. But pick on a less informed, less skillful poster than me. Save everyone a lot of time.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Now that's throwing down the gauntlet!


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...





You made general claims that are blatantly false and then run away when called on it? 

It takes a special kind of someone to bring up costs as a reason why the German system is in worse shape than the US. I guess I should have seen this coming.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Every claim I made is not only true but verified.  That you cannot follow an argument is not my fault.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



All his ridiculous points are easily defeated. Every last one of them in this thread have been shred apart. He doesn't post evidence for his BS and ignores evidence that disproves his nonsense. 

That is Rabbi in a nutshell. 

Now he'll neg me and call me a dunce. He's beyond predictable.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You keep saying my points are easily defeated.  And then fail to do so.
You are a dunce.  There is no question.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



You mean waving the white flag.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



LOL

You claimed Germany has a cost problem and their system "failed" but their per person cost is significantly less than the US. Like almost half. When pressed on this issue you attributed the cost difference to malpractice and claimed the number of doctors doesn't matter. Then you pointed to Iceland and ran away.

No offense but you don't know anything about the topic. You have a spattering of talking points and that is about it.

The US has a massive cost problem. I would even admit that some of that has to do with malpractice in the US. Even generous estimates for the cost of malpractice don't even come remotely close to justifying the cost differentials.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Ok pyscho. Maybe your insanity is why your POS business shut down.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Well, the challenge has been declared. Just try and find a poster less informed, or less skillful! Sounds like a dare to me.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Save your breath with him. He's literally insane and I'm not just saying that. He's not all there.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Than Rabbi? I give up. You win.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Mar 12, 2014)

No. Get rid of the entire law and pass a viable alternative.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 12, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> No. Get rid of the entire law and pass a viable alternative.



A hybrid of single payer and health insurance personal accounts. The single payer would be for the people that can't and the health accounts would be the better off.

What do you think about that?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...


You understand that is a non sequitur, right?  Just because their cost per person is less than the US does not mean their system cannot fail.  As it happens it did, and I posted proof they are intently trying to reform the system due to its very high cost.


> Like almost half. When pressed on this issue you attributed the cost difference to malpractice and claimed the number of doctors doesn't matter. Then you pointed to Iceland and ran away.


Are your reading skills this poor?  I specifically wrote "high malpractice premiums are one of many reasons." THat means there are more reasons than high malpractice premiums.  But the premiums are one reason.  


> Your physician spends 10 cents on malpractice insurance from every dollar you pay for health care, according to Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Furchgott-Roth notes that premiums vary from $20,000 annually in low-cost states to $200,000 annually in high-cost states. According to a survey published November 2011 in "Modern Medicine," family and general practitioners paid premiums of $12,100, and pediatricians' premiums averaged $11,800. OB-GYNs paid an average of $46,400, and plastic surgeons reported median premiums averaging $30,000.


How Much Do Doctors Pay for Insurance? | Chron.com
Yes, 10 cents out of every dollar spent is due to premiums.  You don't think that's significant?  Europe does not have premiums like that because they do not have a tort culture like ours.
The number of doctors may or may not matter.  WHat matters is patient access to them.  ANd as I wrote, in some places doctors limit their time because their salaries are limited by law.  You never bothered to answer the question about Iceland.  I wrote from memory and it was in fact Ireland.  Although doctors in Iceland also struck  Probably because you're too ignorant to have read about it and too stupid to care.  Here's an article:
http://www.marxist.com/ireland-junior-doctors-to-strike.htm
Why would they strike?  If they work more, the get paid more.  That's how things work here.  But they dont get paid more.  Thus the strike.  Their labor is essentially rationed in the system.  I realize this is high level thinking for you and you will doubtless miss the point.



> No offense but you don't know anything about the topic. You have a spattering of talking points and that is about it.
> 
> The US has a massive cost problem. I would even admit that some of that has to do with malpractice in the US. Even generous estimates for the cost of malpractice don't even come remotely close to justifying the cost differentials.



No offense but your reading skills are about on a 3rd grade level.  Nice to see you admitting what I already wrote, after you ridiculed it.  Your logic skills are about on a par.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



I think that's pretty stupid.  

Because then everyone could opt out until they get sick, and then sign up for something. It would bankrupt insurance companies within years. 

The real problem with ACA is that it props up the Trillion Dollar Health Insurance Industry.  We should go to single payer like every other industrialized nation has done.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...



You uunderstand the administration did exactly that on its own, right?


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a modest proposal:
> ...



That's a lie, douche.

Not every other nation has gone to single payor.  And the ones that have deeply regret it and are trying to go to one like Switzerland has....  The one I have always been a proponent of.  The one where government simply mandates but people buy through the Private Market.

And this is why obamacare will fail.  Because dimocraps like you are lying scum.

Everything about the ACA was a lie.  Everything.

We're gonna sve you $2,500 a year...  A lie

We're gonna insured the uninsured -- A lie (there will be more uninsured people AFTER obamacare than before)

If you like your Health Care Plan you can keep it, Period.  A lie.

A bald-faced fucking lie.  A MONUMENTAL lie.  

And that's why I hate, despise and detest dimocrap scum like you joey.  Because you're lying bitches.

Every last one of you.

And a good program, one that should have worked, one that we need, one that I want, one that the American People want......  

It's gonna go to shit because of lying scum like you joey.

lying bitch


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.
> ...



Elfie, your argument would have weight if all those countries that get better results with less money were using vouchers and home-skuling and Christian based schools. 

For them most part, they aren't.  They've got the government schools, too.  And their teachers are unionized.

Now, there are problems with our education system.  A disproportionate amount of money goes to "Special Needs", because those parents have learned how to yell the loudest.  

And, yes, I will even go so far to say the Teacher Unions have made it too difficult to fire the bad teachers.   

But part of the problem are the social problems with America overall. 

First, our textbooks are badly written because Texas is the largest market for textbooks, and no one wants to offend Texas by talking about evolution of slavery.  

Second, because schools are suffering from wealth inequality, we have education inequality.  The rich kids in Evanston are doing well because their schools are well funded.  

The poor kids on the south side in the school with the broken boiler so it's cold in the winter and they can't see the blackboard because no one checked their eyesight.  Meh. Not so much.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Talk out your ass much, Joe?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> 
> That's a lie, douche.
> ...



Actually, you hate because you have deep psychological problems.  Seriously, you're the most unhinged poster on this board.  

It was going to shit long before Obama Got there. one out of four without insurance or with inadequate insurance. 

Switzerland is a small, wealthy country that lives off of it's banking.   But let's look at their system. 

Health care in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, wait. What they have is pretty much exactly like ObamaCare. 




> Healthcare in Switzerland is universal[2] and is regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country)...
> 
> The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Duly noted you were unable to refute a single point I made.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Wow.  Twenty five percent of the population did not have insurance before Obama.  Who knew?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Well, no, it didn't.  We can thank the Senate for that stupidity.  

There were a lot of great ideas out there like MediCare Buy in for those over 55 and a Public Option to compete with the insurance companies for the poor people they didn't want, and Republicans and some Democrats in the senate like Lieberman and Bayh shot them down. 

I have no doubt we are going to have to go back in and fix this, but not until it's taken hold, unfortunately.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Wow.  Twenty five percent of the population did not have insurance before Obama.  Who knew?



46 million had no insurance. 

25 million had inadequate insurance.  

Yeah, that's one out of four in a population of 300 million.  

You must have gotten one of those Texas Math books.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



No, idiot.  I posted the link.  The administration on its own allowed people to opt out of the mandate merely by stating it was a hardship.  The Senate had nothing to do with it.
Do you make stuff up because you think it makes you look smart or because you're too lazy to find the truth or because you're just damned stupid?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  Twenty five percent of the population did not have insurance before Obama.  Who knew?
> ...



The 46M was a lie.
The 25M was also a lie.
And there are more people without insurance today than 2 years ago.
And your numbers add up to less than 25%.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No, they weren't, and not much less.  Oh, wait, it's 22%. That makes it soooo much better.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Great.  You're going to cite Wiki?  Maybe I'll go in and change some of their 'facts'.  Yeah, I contribute to Wiki.  So do a lot of other people.

Wiki isn't a joke, it's a good place to start but you need to go a lot further than that.

A LOT further

The Swiss plan is similar in its outward appearance but is different in that it doesn't have incompetent, lying dimocrap scumbags in charge of it.

Who are a fucking joke.

The American People asked for a Health Care Reform package and what your scum-sucking masters gave us was a fucking joke.  Just like your party.

Obamacare Is the Worst-Case Scenario | National Review Online



> Both Singapore and Switzerland have systems in which overall health-care spending is lower than it is in the United States but out-of-pocket health-care spending is higher. The shocking thing is this: So does practically every other country. A recent World Bank study finds that *in the United States, only 20 percent of health-care spending comes in the form of out-of-pocket expenses paid by consumers*. In Singapore, it is 88 percent and in Switzerland 72 percent. But even the single-payer systems of Canada and the United Kingdom feature more out-of-pocket spending by consumers, 49 percent and 53 percent respectively. How is it that in countries with free universal health care consumers pay more out of pocket than they do in the United States? *The short answer is that treatment in single-payer systems tends to be kind of terrible,* _which is why a tenth of British subjects use private plans rather than the NHS._ And a significant share of Britons who use the NHS must be turning to private care fairly often, since it is estimated that the typical medical specialist in the U.K. supplements his income by 50 percent moonlighting in private practice. In Canada, about 75 percent of people carry supplementary private insurance, and about 28 percent of all health-care expenditures happen in the private sector.





> > And it is worth remembering that under Obamacare there will still be millions of Americans with no health-insurance coverage, while many (and possibly most) of those added to the coverage rolls will simply be given Medicaid cards, which practically come with their own spinal infections. All together, that means that we have managed to combine the worst elements of the state-run systems with the worst elements of the private systems. We have designed a structurally defective system and entrusted its execution to a gang of politically connected incompetents with less technological sophistication than your AOL-using grandmother.



I'm rude and obscene because ignorant motherfuckers like you, in lieu of performing due diligence, just make shit up out of thin air.

IOW, you're lying bitches.

You take the word of the stupid bitches in the LSM and the lying motherfuckers in your party leadership rather than doing a little work to discover the truth on your own.

Whose fault is the abortion known as the ACA, bitch?

Whose?

I even hear lying dimocrap scum like you trying to blame Republicans because we didn't help!!

Fuck you.

We told you it was an abortion when you first trotted it out.  We warned you it wouldn't work.  We told you the lying cocksucker in chief was lying about keeping your Health Plan.

We told you the lying cocksucker in chief was lying about cutting costs.

We told you he was lying about insuring Illegal ALIENS.

We told you he was lying about taking over the ENTIRE Health Care establishment.

We told you he was lying about insuring the uninsured.

And now -- Whose fault is this fucking mess, douchebag?

Whose?

It is 100% on you and your masters in the dimocrap party.

And now you know what's gonna happen?

The lying scum in the political wing of your disgusting party are going to run away from it.

They're going to claim that it's been changed so much that it bears no resemblance to what they voted for.

Some will succeed in fooling te stupid, like you, into believing their lies.  But a lot won't.

The DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM will run interference for your disgusting Pols and will fool a few more people.

But overall?  People are sick of your lying.

You're incompetent and dishonest.  ALL of you.

This was a good idea and you fucked it up.  Its time had come.  America was ready for what had been proposed by Republicans time and time again and you people hijacked it and FUCKED it up.

Just like you do EVERYTHING you touch.

Everything.  You can't do anything right


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You and your entire party are lying bitches.

Every last one of you.

Go tell your OFA handlers that we aren't buying your bullshit today


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> I'm rude and obscene because ignorant motherfuckers like you, in lieu of performing due diligence, just make shit up out of thin air.
> 
> ...



Well, you did m ore than that. You obstructed every good idea that would have helped like a Medicare buy in for those over 55 or a public option for those who the private insurance companies wouldn't touch.  

And what we ended up with was something like ROmneyCare, which you guys were all for until the Black Guy Did It.  




Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> We told you it was an abortion when you first trotted it out.  We warned you it wouldn't work.  We told you the lying cocksucker in chief was lying about keeping your Health Plan.
> 
> ...



But none of these were the arguments you made at the time.  You guys babbled on about "Freedom" and "Socialism", and you got what you wanted- the Private Insurance Industry living large - and now you are complaining about it.  




Edgetho said:


> [
> And now -- Whose fault is this fucking mess, douchebag?
> 
> Whose?
> ...



Um, I'm sorry, I had a pretty good life when Bill Clinton was running things.  

Things didn't get fucked up for most us until the Retard From Texas stole the election. 

The thing is, this is a mess but it's a mess you all contributed to.  

We should have gone to single payer like everyone else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



OFA is hiding under your bed, but if you take the red pill, they will go away.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

You're a lying bitch.

Ryan had a great plan for Medicare and what do you scumbags do?

You run an Ad depicting him pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.

Fuck you.  You and your entire party are the scum of the fucking earth.

We offered our own plans, you killed them.  We offered to work with you, you LITERALLY locked us out of our House.

In your ignorant arrogance, you thought that you, and only you, had the right ideas.

Well guess what scumbag?

YOu're not nearly as smart as you thought were, are you?

And that's why you're going to see one of the biggest political routes in the Country's history come November.

I'm thinking as many as 15 Republican pickups in the Senate (10 is more likely) and another 25 - 30 in the House.

I'm also thinking that if the lying cocksucker in chief keeps up his lawless and unConstitutional bullshit that he will be the third dimocrap scumbag to be Impeached and the first to be removed from office.

Here's what you don't get, fuckface....

Many of us on the 'Right' are for the same things you're for.  I WANT a serious Health Care Reform Plan.

But it has to be serious.  And you can NOT look me in the eye and tell me that you're serious when you don't even address one of the worst parts of our system......  Legal abuse by the only people on Earth lower than Child Molesters -- Lawyers.

You don't even touch that and you exepct is to believe that you're serious about HC Reform?  

You're a joke.

A pathetic joke.  Your entire party needs to be extinguished from our Country.

Now go back to your OFA masters and tell them we're hip to their fucking lies


----------



## BlackSand (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...



They already can claim a hardship and avoid the Individual Mandate ... It is already a clause in the ACA.
Originally the "hardship clause" was defined under 11 conditions that were more strict than what has recently been approved by the Obama Administration.
You can claim the process of acquiring new insurance through the exchanges as a hardship by filling out a form.

*Bankruptcy, homelessness, food crisis and more have always been part of the "hardship clause" ... And around 30 more "exemptions" have been added to the original 11. *

Here is Charles Krauthammer's take on the matter ...
Krauthammer: Obamacare hardship exemption 'essentially cancels' individual mandate | The Daily Caller


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Hey taintwallow,


give us an example of the system you desire to see working in real life somewhere?


You see single payer is working in many countries.

what you want has FAILED everywhere


----------



## Scorpion (Mar 13, 2014)

Without commentary.

Obama Latest Exemption Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure - Investors.com


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



If Germany's costs are "very high" then how would you describe US costs which are almost double?

You have demonstrated gross ignorance on the topic and an inability to learn even when presented with reality. I find little point in arguing with the willfully ignorant so step up your game or I will just chalk you up as just another useless moron.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I spent over 20 years in the Insurance Industry and I can tell you unequivocally that you have no clue.

None.

The system we had was far from perfect.

The system the lying cocksucker in chief has forced on us is a disaster.

France is, or was until the socialist idiot got elected, trying VERY hard to get away from single-payer.  So is Holland.  Switzerland left their single payer plan in the dirt long ago and Singapore's is based on Private Insurance.

Both work far better than anybody else's.

And Germany's is one the best around.  They use a multi-payer, not-for-profit system (most US Health Insurance Companies were not for profit, but since you're a dimocrap, you're too stupid to know that) and while it may be the best in Europe outside of Switzerland, it still has serious flaws.....  After over 130 years of trying.

Then there's Austria's system.  And The Netherlands.

And....

Well, dimocraps are just stupid.  Too stupid for words.

You people fucked up a good thing for the next 20 years.

Thanks to you fucking idiots, we may not get modern Health Care reform for another generation.

Thanks a lot, morons.

Do the world a favor and go kill yourselves

OBTW:

The best Hospital in France?

The one where the wealthy and connected go?

It's called " l'Hopital Americain de Paris "

It is private.  It WILL NOT ACCEPT FRENCH GOVERNMENT ASSIGNEES

Cash only.

you people are just simply stupid


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Ummm, I think you just described Obamacare. Woops!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Holy shit you're full of yourself. Time from some fresh air grandpa. You're going to have an aneurysm.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So Germany is one of the best according to you. 

The German Healthcare system - 
"Coverage is universal for all legal residents. About 85 percent of the population is covered by SHI and 10 percent by substitutive PHI. The remainder (e.g., soldiers, policemen) are covered under special programs. Undocumented immigrants are covered by social security in case of illness. All employed citizens (and other groups such as pensioners) earning less than 4,237.50 (US$5,422.80) per month (50,850.00 [US$65,074.00] per year) as of 2012 are mandatorily covered by SHI, and their dependents (nonearning spouses and children) are covered free of charge. Individuals whose gross wages exceed the threshold, civil servants, and the self-employed can choose either to remain in the publicly financed scheme on a voluntary basis (and 75% of them do) or to purchase PHI. "

Germany - The Commonwealth Fund

That what you want to see here?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 13, 2014)

Ed get Ho,


when was the last time you correctly predicted the outcome of policy?


never


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Sorry, I can't read your rant if it's not properly spaced. Can you please reformat and resubmit. 

Thank you for your anticipated compliance.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 13, 2014)

ed get Ho has never been proven correct in a prediction of anything that I have ever seen.

What makes these righties think what they say carries gravitas when they are NEVER right in the end?


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



4 of the top 5 insurance companies in the US are for profit. I am not sure if you had a point there. 

Everything else you said is nonsensical ramblings.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



He did say the German healthcare system is one of the best around. I can't wait to hear why and if he thinks we should model ours similar to their system.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Know what the net worth (market cap) of the top 500 not for profit Health Insurance Companies is?

Zero.

0

Nada.

Zilch.

You're a genius, aren't you?

fucking moron.

If you're looking at number of people insured?  So what?

Not for profits companies like Harvard Pilgrim have little desire to get big.  Why should they?  They're concerned with the people in the few States they cover and not the least bit concerned about expanding into unknown territory.

And there are THOUSANDS of them...  Or there used to be.

My wife's Company was self-insured as a non-profit (about 1,200 employees).  They stopped that when obamacare came around and her premiums went from $10 a week to $50 a week.

Still better than a sharp stick in the eye but -- You know what?

Fuck you.  You're an idiot.

You're not worth my time


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



I don't even know what your argument is your posts are so nonsensical.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Are you going to discuss the German healthcare system or not?

Or would you rather just whine all day?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Thats your response, seriously?  It isnt a comparison between Germany's costs and our costs.  Unless you want to compare it per GDP, per person,as a percentage of government expenditure etc etc.  The comparison is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that rising costs in Germany led to them abandoning their system. Just as rising costs in the US under virtually the same system will lead to the same thing.
I showed where you dissembled, misread, and outright lied.  I provided arguments backed up with proof.  You are way way over your head here.  Your debate skills are poor.  Your reasoning skill are poor.  Your reading skills are poor.  And your knowledge base is appalling.
Stay in school.  Don't do drugs.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



You just had your ass handed to you and you still don't get it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...


See, there's a great example of your inability to read something and draw reasonable conclusions.  He nowhere suggested Germany's should be a model of ours.  Yet you read him saying theirs is one of the best, strictly by comparison with the other disasters around them, you ignore the part where he says they are failing, and then assume he is advocating we adopt their system.
This is why arguing with stupid people is senseless.  They cannot grasp what you are saying, much less formulate a coherent reply.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The comparison can be done any way you want. In the end the German system still costs way less. If you were even slightly informed on the topic you would have known this going into the discussion. Instead people are forced to try and educate you. Something that you clearly don't want happening and I am not going to fight you on.

This isn't really a debate because you don't know enough about the topic to have a debate.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



I already pointed out the post was nonsensical. If there was a logical argument in there somewhere I didn't see it so I couldn't respond to it. If you want to take a stab at it I would be happy to watch you fall flat on your face.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Also, comparing costs in a government-run system to a privately run system is not a fair way to measure efficiency.

Look at Medicare....

Who sends out the bills for Medicare?  Nobody.  If anybody, it's Treasury.

Who collects the bills on Medicare?  The IRS.

Who watches for fraud in Medicare?  Treasury and the DOJ.

Who defends Medicare from lawsuits (A MAJOR cost in the private industry)???

First off, good luck suing the Federal Government.  Second, if they do allow you to sue them, they defend the suit with DOJ Lawyers.  Not Medicare Lawyers.  If you win lmao the Treasury Dept pays, not Medicare.

What I'm saying is...  Private Insurance carries ALL the costs of doing business itself.  Nothing is hidden, everything is ou and up front.

Government Insurance is half hidden.  Most of the cost burden is absorbed by other agencies.

For instance, the IRS is going to hire up to *16,000* new agents for obamacare only.

But not one penny of that will be attributed to the costs of the ACA.

They'll slough it off on just the cost of doing business.

What I'm saying is that -- If you believe that government run healthcare is cheaper than Private Health Insurance, you're an idiot.

Private Companies do EVERYTHING themselves.  Government run Health care distributes its costs throughout the government system and its cost is not even known.

But it's high.  Higher than Private Insurance.

But, I'm wasting my time talking to dimocraps.  They're just too stupid to breathe the same air as I do


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



No you didnt see it.  Of course it sounds like nonense to you.  Because you cannot read.  Because your knowledge base is miniscule.  Because you are talking to people who know so much more than you it is like explaining nuclear physics to a retarded Schnauzer.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Whether their system costs less or more than America's is irrelevant.  What is relevant is what it costs today compared to what it cost 5 years ago.  And those costs are exploding and it has become unaffordable.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So what you are saying is that all I have to do to win an argument in your mind is to say something so nonsensical that the other person can't respond and then claim victory.

You seem very content on deflecting away from the fact you tried to point to Germany having a cost problem when their costs are so significantly below our own.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...





Maybe if you click your heels together when you say "costs are irrelevant" it will become true!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Wow, real life examples.
No, I am not saying that.  I am saying your low intelligence makes you incapable of understanding and appreciating what is being written here.
Germany does have a cost problem.  I provided proof of that.  That their costs are below ours is irrelevant.  Just as the guy who bankrupts on $10,000 in debt is no better off than the guy who bankrupts on $1M in debt.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Are you being intentionally obtuse here or are you actually that stupid?  Who said costs are irrelevant?  Show me the quote.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



The comparison is between the US and other countries, not just private versus public in the US. I would accept that Germany has some hidden costs with regards to how they collect taxes. I would also point out that the costs associated with tax collection depend greatly on how the law is set up. There is no doubt that the US system is inefficient with regards to how we collect money to pay for health care. We basically have the worst of both worlds.

Your conclusion doesn't follow the argument you made since it doesn't even come close to establishing the magnitude of the hidden costs in the other countries.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Keep trying. I quoted what you said for context. Defend your nonsense or keep deflecting. I don't give a crap because your argument is so unbelievably stupid.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Horrible analogy. Try again.


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Do you even read what you type...???

You are a dodo bird.

A dodo bird is a now extinct bird that flew in decreasingly concentric circles until he disappeared up his own asshole.

Do us all a favor and sprout wings.

We are actually LESS expensive than any other Country in what matters most.... 

Personal Out-Of-Pocket expenses

Obamacare Is the Worst-Case Scenario | National Review Online



> Both Singapore and Switzerland have systems in which overall health-care spending is lower than it is in the United States but out-of-pocket health-care spending is higher. The shocking thing is this: So does practically every other country. A recent World Bank study finds that *in the United States, only 20 percent of health-care spending comes in the form of out-of-pocket expenses *paid by consumers. In Singapore, it is 88 percent and in Switzerland 72 percent. *But even the single-payer systems of Canada and the United Kingdom feature more out-of-pocket spending by consumers, 49 percent and 53 percent respectively.* How is it that in countries with free universal health care consumers pay more out of pocket than they do in the United States



morons.  all of you

You know not what you have wrought


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You're over-rating yourself.  My views on America's healthcare are supported by facts and I just happen to be part of that industry.
Regarding the CBO predictions, you may be right but that doesn't matter to either side of the aisle, they like what the CBO has to say when it supports their argument.  There are plenty of studies that echo the CBO's report, just do a simple Google search. The cost of the entire malpractice scenario represents a very small portion of the overall cost of healthcare in America.
You do know that I have not supported Obamacare from the get-go because of the mandate, don't you?  We actually agree on something. Crazy, huh? 
But I feel that America is seriously getting screwed over by our healthcare industry and that includes my employer.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Right.  You are too stupid to engage further.
Bye.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Didnt you also claim you could read graphs?
I posted an article that said malpractice premiums accounted for 10% of spending.  What source do you have to contradict that claim?

The entire tort culture contributes to those costs.  As I said to my brother once, No doctor ever got sued because he ordered too many tests.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Smart choice to claim victory and run away. Your argument is indefensibly stupid so you really have no other choice.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Let's put it this way. Rabbi believes black people are incapable of being effective leaders of countries. He'll deny he ever said it, but the internet never forgets. True story.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Considering I have owned you, if I am stupid, what's that make you?


----------



## Edgetho (Mar 13, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Wow!!

Just  wow!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Not sure if that was irony in the post or just plain stupidity.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Have you really come back to tell us more about "very high" health care costs in Germany?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

This message is hidden because Bombur is on your ignore list.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> This message is hidden because Bombur is on your ignore list.



What do I win for pointing out your stupidity so many times in a row that you had to start ignoring me?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

I'm going to take the time to mark everything in red where you are doing screaming anger, but I'll leave actual arguments in black.  



Edgetho said:


> You're a lying bitch.
> 
> Ryan had a great plan for Medicare and what do you scumbags do?
> 
> ...



Ah, good start.  Sorry, it wasn't a good plan.  It was a typical, "Let's comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted" kind of plan.  Even Ryan knows that his "Rob from the Poor and give to the rich" stuff ain't flying with folks anymore.  




Edgetho said:


> [
> We offered our own plans, you killed them.  We offered to work with you, you LITERALLY locked us out of our House.
> 
> In your ignorant arrogance, you thought that you, and only you, had the right ideas.



Well, no, we wanted Single Payer Canadian Style Health Care.  That's what "we" wanted.  But we tried to work with you guys, made all sorts of concessions to even try to get ONE Republican vote, until it was pretty obvious that was futile. 

Also, I don't think you know what the word "literally" means.  They might have "figuratively" locked you out of the house, but they didn't actually close the doors and lock them with you on the outside.  




Edgetho said:


> [
> Well guess what scumbag?
> 
> YOu're not nearly as smart as you thought were, are you?
> ...



I tihnk you are delusional and the polls don't show anything like that.  RCP shows that on average, Democrats are ahead in the generic ballot. 

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2014 Generic Congressional Vote

Now, you MIGHT make pickups because the Senate Map is skewed against the Democrats.   So many Republicans were given the broom in 2008 that there's nowhere to get pickups.  But please don't delude yourself into thinking that's an endorsement for your anger.  This is the same mistake you made after 2010, and we saw how that worked out for you.  





Edgetho said:


> [
> I'm also thinking that if the lying cocksucker in chief keeps up his lawless and unConstitutional bullshit that he will be the third dimocrap scumbag to be Impeached and the first to be removed from office.



Again, that's pretty unlikely. 




Edgetho said:


> [
> Here's what you don't get, fuckface....
> 
> Many of us on the 'Right' are for the same things you're for.  I WANT a serious Health Care Reform Plan.
> ...



NOw you see, here's the problem. You've bought into shit you've heard on Hate Radio that all we need to do is Tort Reform (i.e. eliminate any redress patients have when incompetent health care givers kill and mangle them) and that will "fix" the system.  

The CBO under REPUBLICANS found that even the most draconian Tort Reform would save 54 Billion over a ten year period. ANd that was a maximum estimate.  BUt really, that only works out to about 5 billion a year when our annual spending on health care is a trillion dollars a year.  

CBO Says Tort Reform Would Bring $54 Billion in Savings

So is a .5% reduction in costs really worth the decrease in quality of care when doctors figure, "Meh, I can skip that test, my total out of pocket will only be 250K!" 




Edgetho said:


> [
> You don't even touch that and you exepct is to believe that you're serious about HC Reform?
> 
> You're a joke.
> ...



If you are like this in real life, you must not have any friends. 
If you put up a polite meek front and are seething with this kind of anger, I figure you are a disaster looking for a place to happen.  In either case, please get help.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> Who defends Medicare from lawsuits (A MAJOR cost in the private industry)???
> 
> ...



I think you are a little confused here... 

(Sorry, not going to repeat your whole rant.) 

If your doctor screws up and chops off the wrong leg, they aren't going to Sue Medicare, and they aren't going to sue Cigna or Blue Cross.  

They are going to sue the Doctor who screwed up.  

Now besides the fact you really think that medical costs are high because of malpractice suits, or the fear of malpractice, the fact is, that has very little to do with why costs are high.  In fact, most people who have a case against their doctors for malpractice or negligence don't sue.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So you're saying that insurance companies never get sued, right?  Like if they deny a claim or something.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



That wasn't the point the Poster was trying to make.  

Do try to pay attention.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yeah actually it was.  I'd suggest remedial reading but the problem is not reading but comprehension.
Ignorant we can educate
Crazy we can medicate
We can't fix stupid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No, actually it wasn't.  Of course, with that guy, half his posts are cursing people out and calling people names, but his point was that people were suing for malpractice, not a refusal to pay. Because he was going on and on about the "Tort Reform" rant.


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 13, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


This one.  Perhaps you should know a little history.

And while you are at it, pick up a few pointers on economics and the captialist/free market model.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 13, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Obviously you have reading comprehension issues.  I have easily blown you out of the water in every single debate we have had between each other.  That means I have owned you.  You called me stupid.  Now if I am so stupid, then what are you? Certainly not as intelligent as say,,,me!
Now there are quite a few conservatives that I have great respect for on these boards.  Unlike you, they aren't echo chambers of far right talking points, they think for themselves and demonstrate great usage of their grey matter. You?  You are Mr. Talking Points using other people's train of thought
Here's an example of your great intelligence and during the process you make yourself into the joke of the thread. http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...progressives-don-t-have-a-sense-of-humor.html


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 13, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



LOL. 

This one he says.

LOL

Thanks for the laugh Billy Bob


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 14, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



I reply to a post by Bombur telling him he is too stupid to engage.  And you think I'm talking to you.  And you still haven't realized it.
I'd say the only thing you've blown out of the water is your own credibility.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 14, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



People laugh at what they don't understand.
You probably laugh a lot.


----------



## kaz (Mar 14, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



The more government gets involved, the worse it gets, which motivates you people to propose as a solution ... more government ...

Einstein: Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



That's hilarious!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 14, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Yet, all the facts say the opposite. Face it, your ideas aren't based in reality and aren't supported by fact.


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



facts don't talk


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



He fears UHC because of Germany's "very high costs." There is really zero point in having a discussion with someone so detached from reality that he doesn't recognize the importance of such vast differences in cost.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Is that a fact?


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 14, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



If you are referring to H.R. 4015, which was just passed in the House, there is a problem with that. I just missed debate as I thought the House wasn't conducting business until 12:00 so I was watching the Foreign Relations Committee instead. 

House advances bill to delay ObamaCare mandate | TheHill


> The House on Thursday advanced a bill to delay enforcement of the individual mandate under ObamaCare for five years, amid Democratic complaints that the bill would raise insurance premiums and leave millions uninsured.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



If these issues really matter to the Republicans they need to stop sabotaging their own bills.


----------



## kaz (Mar 14, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Interesting, so maybe you can clarify this for me then.  So as government has been regulating more and more extensively over the last few decades, if things are not getting worse, then why did we need Obamacare?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 14, 2014)

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



And you think government involvement is the reason people were denied due to preexisting conditions?


----------



## kaz (Mar 14, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



1)  Obamacare is about a lot more than pre-existing conditions.

2)  Young and healthy people are not signing up and overpaying for their own coverage to offset the pre-existing condition mandate, so are you not seeing a government created disaster on the horizon?  Of course, all the liberals will demand the fix of "more government" for that...

I also don't see any Constitutional authority for the Federal government in the name of pre-existing conditions to take over the medical care industry...


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

If we want an efficient model we have to go with some sort of UHC model. There is really no evidence to suggest things will get better in our broken hybrid model.

Obamacare shifts costs around which has opened people's eyes to the debacle that our system is.

There is nothing in the constitution stopping us from extending Medicaid or Medicare to everyone.


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> If we want an efficient model we have to go with some sort of UHC model. There is really no evidence to suggest things will get better in our broken hybrid model.



If running society as an efficient system was the goal, I suspect we'd be doing a lot of things differently.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > If we want an efficient model we have to go with some sort of UHC model. There is really no evidence to suggest things will get better in our broken hybrid model.
> ...



Do you have a point?


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



That running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 14, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That isn't a thought, that's a fact.

I realize someone who spends his time cyber stalking people isnt into thinking beyond Stage One, but bear with me.
You would agree that insurance companies, those greedy heartless bastards, are in it to make money, yes?
Now, do they make money by denying policies or by writing policies?  Clearly by writing policies.  Yes, if they dont price the policy correctly they can lose money on it, but they have good data to where that doesnt happen or they mitigate the loss.
Now, even people with pre-existing conditions have predictable rates of claims.  The data are out there.  Since it can be predicted the likelihood of their claims can be figured into an appropriate premium that accounts for that likelihood.
Naturally that premium will be substantially higher than for someone who doesnt have pre-existing conditions.  Just like a 20 year old kid with a Mustang and 2 DUIs and 3 speeding tickets pays more for car insurance than a 50 year old woman in a sedan with a clean record.

So why didnt insurers write these high risk policies?  Could it be that the state insurance commissioners, which regulate and oversee every insurance policy sold, would not allow them to price for the extra risk, and therefore they simply declined to write the policies?
Or is it because insurance companies are meanies?


My prediction is you cannot pay attention past the second sentence, will misread half the post, or will respond with a witty throwaway line.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Good luck with that opinion. It is going to take you places.


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Have you thought about where its alternative is likely to take us? The idea that it the purpose of government IS to "run" society efficiently? Because you should. You should give it real consideration and try to put it in historical context.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Like with roads and public education.

OHH THE HORROR!!!


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



keep going ...


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What do you have against roads and public education? They have been the cornerstones for making our society more productive. Why are you against efficiency?


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I'm not. I'm against government dictating it. In my view, government should focus on protecting freedom and maintaining justice - and leave it up to the people to create the right balance between efficiency and quality of life. 

What you're pushing for is something relatively new for liberals, and I don't think you really appreciate (yet) how much it smacks of fascism. I hope you notice before it's too late.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Is building roads fascism because it is efficient? Because it helps corporations?

Your world view is fundamentally broken and you see Nazis and Communists hiding behind every bush.


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I haven't said anything about Nazis and Communists. Its Democrats and Republicans I'm worried about.


----------



## kaz (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Christian schools teach worship of God, government schools teach worship of government.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



uhh I can still see you quoting "fascism" in your post above so.... wat?

Do you consider building roads fascism or what? Or does it just "smack" of fascism? 

I will grant you that health care is not the same as building roads but that is because efficiency is not the only reason to push for UHC. There is also a large moral component as there is with education.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I was never taught to worship government(outside of the pledge of allegiance) but I was taught to think rationally and seek truth.

Do you want to get the pledge and the flags taken out of school? Good luck.


----------



## kaz (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I'm not talking about the pledge and flags, I'm talking about believe in ubiquitous authoritarian government power, like this:



Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > That running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government.
> ...


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So are you also against roads and schools?


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



It smacks of fascism when you assume that the goal of government should be to maximize our efficiency as a society. It's a subtle thing, and I doubt you, or most mainstream Democrats and Republicans are capable of seeing it just yet. But there's a marked shift going on, away from egalitarian government based on freedom and equal rights, and toward corporatist government based on class rights and running society as a 'system'. It's dangerous shit in my view, and yes, a type of fascism. But fascism always comes around in a different disguise, so don't expect it to dress up like Hitler or Stalin.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So like I said, you are paranoid and see Nazis and Communists hiding behind every bush. 

I think people have really lost touch with how far we have come as a nation and how much we all depend on one another. Too many people are stuck being superstitious and fail to actually look at reality. UHC is not fascism. If you want to worry about fascism you are better off looking at how politicians try and turn us on each other. Even the income inequality debate can turn bad when groups are blamed for it. 

Income inequality is horrible for the economy but that doesn't mean we should be turning against one another. Look at the way poor people are talked about. Look at all the propaganda about Christianity being under attack. Now that is fascist propaganda.


----------



## Antares (Mar 14, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Has anyone ever told you that you are distasteful little Troll?

(rhetorical)


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 14, 2014)

Antares said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



You mean today or in the last 10 minutes?


----------



## Antares (Mar 14, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



You made me laugh, thank you.


----------



## Intense (Mar 14, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> No



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopdD9Cu-So]I'm Melting! - The Wizard of Oz (7/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD - YouTube[/ame]

 

I wonder if insurance would have helped here??? 

Maybe a good Lawyer could have helped???

Does Obamacare even cover water damage? Drowning? Flood-hurt? Butt-hurt??? Melting???

What about the deductible?? What about when the deductible is more than the premium???

I vote "Back to the drawing board".
It's a train wreck, why encourage more of the same???


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Like I said, I don't see Nazis and Communists. I see Democrats and Republicans embracing corporatism. I see them giving up on the fundamental principles of equal protection and equal rights in favor of interest-group based privilege. That's not paranoia, it's actually happening. You just don't see it as a bad thing, and I do.


----------



## kaz (Mar 15, 2014)

Bombur said:


> So are you also against roads and schools?



So you opposed the idea "running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government."  Then when challenged, you come back with "roads and schools."  So you're satisfied if he limit government to "roads and schools" and get them out of the charity, redistribution, welfare, medical and economic manipulation businesses?


----------



## dblack (Mar 15, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > So are you also against roads and schools?
> ...




Next, he'll start chanting "Somalia!"


----------



## Bombur (Mar 16, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > So are you also against roads and schools?
> ...



I never said it had to be limited to efficiency. 

I have no problem with also having moral reasons behind policy like health care. There is a large efficiency component of health care as well. There is a moral component to education as well.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 16, 2014)

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



So you literally referenced fascism when UHC came up and now you are accusing me of essentially arguing like you by trying to equate unequal things.

In the US people do die because they don't have health insurance. We waste billions of dollars because our system is broken. I don't need to look at Somalia to see that we need a better system.


----------



## dblack (Mar 16, 2014)

Bombur said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



You're still not getting it. I don't want government preoccupied with my efficiency OR my morals. Or my 'education'. I want them to protect our rights, period. We can decide how to live, and what morals to live by, for ourselves.

Really it's that power - the power to tell people how to live - that you don't want government to be without. It seems as though, to you, it's the primary purpose of government.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



One of the primary purposes of forming government is to defend rights which are just another name for morals.

Public education is a key component to any modern society being economically relevant. 

Your world view is worthless IMO because it is not based on reality.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 17, 2014)

"brackets" 

the prezbos obamacare is going over so badly 

that they plan to have  March Madness-themed campaign

with a "16 Sweetest Reasons to Get Covered&#8221; 

White House courting basketball fans in ObamaCare push | TheHill


----------



## kaz (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...





Rights is a name for morals?  What does that mean?



Bombur said:


> Public education is a key component to any modern society being economically relevant.
> 
> Your world view is worthless IMO because it is not based on reality.



Public education is a key component in Marxism, which is why it's a plank of the communist manifesto.  Christian schools teach love of Christ.  Government schools indoctrinate people in government.


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Ahh... now I see the source of your confusion.



> Public education is a key component to any modern society being economically relevant.
> 
> Your world view is worthless IMO because it is not based on reality.



Uh.... Google irony.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Rights are a type of moral belief.

I am not interested in arguing with a fanatic about the merits of public education.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Ohh look another fanatic. 

Thank God the world isn't ruled by internet libertarians.


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Rights are a type of moral belief.



That's not how I'm using the word. Seriously, this is the source of our disagreement. You're using an entirely different definition of rights, and I'm not really sure where it comes from. 

Regardless of whose definition is 'correct', the difference is why you don't understand my posts. When I refer to a "right, I'm not talking about a moral belief. I'm talking about a liberty, a freedom of thought or action.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Rights are a type of moral belief.
> ...



Which are moral beliefs. Rights are generally considered a special kind of moral belief but they are still moral beliefs by definition. 

Some nations consider health care a right which is their moral belief. A nation could consider education a right as well. One nation could consider the ability to own a gun a right while another doesn't.

We can argue about what moral belief is the best until we are blue in the face but in the end that is just a matter of opinion. In the case of both education and health care there is also the matter of efficiency. In both cases there is far more evidence that UHC and universal education is more efficient than not.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Rights are a type of moral belief.
> ...



Bombur is a lo-lo poster.  So "right" "moral" "just" "liberty"  "freedom" etc all mean pretty much the same thing to him.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I didn't equate moral beliefs to rights. I pointed out that rights are a type of moral belief. Which they are. 

I apologize for being educated.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


You are not educated.  You are a lo-lo. Your first two sentences contradict each other.
Rights are not a type of moral belief.  Rights are political in nature.


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Yes. Your definition of rights makes no sense to me. I told you the definition I was using in my post so you could understand what I meant. When I say I want government to protect rights, I mean I want them to protect freedoms, not moral values. 

The key distinction I was making was between government that acts primarily as a policing agent, to protect us from violence and fraud, and government that tries to push people to behave in certain ways - imposing morals and values on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want the latter, whearas I prefer the former.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Uh... ok. I'm not sure what I can say to clear things up for you. You're not getting anything like what I meant from my post.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



You've looked at the moral beliefs of 300M people, many of whom are immigrants from vastly different societies?
You're simply lying.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


The consequence of being a lo-lo.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I understood exactly what you meant. You have a moral belief that you are pushing but you don't consider it equal to others because it isn't meant to directly impact other people. When I point to the indirect impact of implementing your moral beliefs you call me a fascist. 

This discussion is fundamentally boring because your entire world view comes down to one moral belief that is self supporting independent of reality. People either share your world view or they don't. Discussion over.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Wow what a stupid post.


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I'm not calling you anything. I'm just saying you don't understand my point of view because you don't understand the difference between a freedom and a moral belief.



> This discussion is fundamentally boring because your entire world view comes down to one moral belief that is self supporting independent of reality. People either share your world view or they don't. Discussion over.



Alrighty then.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I didnt pretend to know the beliefs of all 300M people here.  That was you, Sparky.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Believing that people should be free is a moral belief.

This isn't really up for argument.

I admit it is fundamentally different to believe that government is morally obligated to defend the freedom of people and saying government is morally obligated to tax people and provide UHC. When freedom is your moral priority then the consequence of not providing public education and health care is justified by the presence of freedom. Like I said it is a self supporting moral belief that ignores reality by definition. 

No nation that I am aware of operates like the way you describe. It is a moral stand that is fine to have on a message board but it has really no place in reality. No nation is going to get rid of public education, it is simply too important to a modern economy. No industrialized nation will not have some sort of government run healthcare insurance. The real world consequences and the moral beliefs of the people are simply too great. 

You have already lost the moral argument and the only argument you have is a moral one.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Here's a modest proposal:
> The Obamacare roll out and the rough time people have had getting insurance have led to many people not being able to get affordable insurance. If they can't prove they have insurance they will have to pay the penalty under Obamacare.
> To help them out, let's let people opt out of the mandate.  Perhaps they can simply make a statement that complying is a hardship and that will excuse them from the penalty.
> What do you think?



That's a good idea! Can you start a petition online at change.org
and post it here. Maybe we can get people here to sign it, send it to Congressional reps,
and Parties and ask everyone to sign it.

I was worried I'd have to find a Constitutional law group willing to sue to stop it!

I think your idea is EASIER to post a simple petition.
I will definitely sign it, and send it to all my friends, left and right, against the ACA mandates.
========================

P.S. 
My concept on "equal political beliefs" is too complicated, and requires people to take
responsibility for funding health reforms by party, which
is a whole other battle to fight ideologically.

Yours seems  mainstream that the average citizen gets and will sign.
Nobody wants to impose a hardship on people.

And I think the fine is supposed to be 10% of your income or 95.00
whichever is HIGHER. I don't think people even know the true cost.
If they are waiting until the last minute to file their taxes, they
won't have time to buy cheaper insurance to get into compliance
if they find out late that the fine will cost them more....

===============================



			
				Emily said:
			
		

> Dear Liberty Legal Foundation:
> Stephen Hotze's lawsuit against ACA from Houston
> has been successful in proving that he had standing,
> and has the added advantage of facing a Conservative
> ...


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I thought you were done? You don't want listen to what I'm telling you, preferring to instead shadowbox against your strawman. Have at it!


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



Dear Bombay:
OK so if there is only a moral argument and belief,
the govt is not supposed to infringe or regulate that either!

People SHOULD have equal rights to fund their moral beliefs and take responsibility.

so if people want to fund group education, group housing, group health, group correctional programs, etc. let them fund and manage that themselves, such as through their party.

and let people who believe in free market systems of housing, health care and education fund their own systems through business or charity plans or schools, etc.

the govt should remain neutral, or only govern policies and programs that all sides agree to fund and manage through govt, including agreement at the state or federal level; if there are any conflicts that cannot be resolved to satisfy everyone's beliefs, those should be separated and remain locally managed at the last level where there was homogenous agreement and consensus among constituents.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I apologize for trying to educate you.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



That's a joke, right?  You dont know whether something is political or moral and couldn't tell the difference if you tried.


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



No worries. It's fine.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Under such a system would the ones crying for freedom also pay for the societal costs their beliefs wrought?


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





You are absolutely horrible at logic and clearly know nothing about ethics. How many times are you going to convince me in this one thread that you have nothing to say?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



OK, so you admit that you cannot define the difference if your life depended on it.  That's what makes you a lo-lo.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?

Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them. 

Rabbi clown shoes.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?
> 
> Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them.
> 
> Rabbi clown shoes.



Your own posts indicate yiou do not understand the difference between a political principle and a moral principle.  I am asking you to demonstrate you do actually understand the difference.
And you are failing.  Because you are a lo-lo.


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?
> ...



How about this. If you have a point then you make it. 

I am not interested in doing busy work to placate some clown like you who has already demonstrated in this thread that they are poorly informed and horribly illogical.


----------



## dblack (Mar 17, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?
> 
> Make unsubstantiated claims about someone else not knowing the difference between two words and then demanding that they define them.
> 
> Rabbi clown shoes.



Bombur, you're the one who diverted things into a pointless debate over definitions. I don't care really how you label things. I think the purpose of government should be to stop thugs from getting their way with violence. I don't want government working to make society more efficient, more productive, healthier, more educated, or any of the other ways that you think people should be improved. I don't want government taking care of me. I don't want government teaching me the right way to live, and/or forcing me to live that way. I don't want government dictating my personal decisions "for my own good". Hopefully that's clear, but I suppose there room in there to muddy up some word meanings and run for cover.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 17, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So it takes "Constitutional education" to teach respect for the Constitution?


----------



## kaz (Mar 17, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



I'm not sure what that means


----------



## Bombur (Mar 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Is this some new form of arguing that I am not aware of?
> ...



You made an illogical claim that was easily addressed. I wouldn't exactly call it pointless.

Now your belief system, that is by definition pointless.


----------

