Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Health Care Bill Passes 219-210Follow

#152 Mar 22 2010 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
I meant what I said; the impossibility of a perfect society does not mean you should do nothing to improve it.

Right, to be more fair. So, you're not a stupid idealist, you're 6 years old and mommy and daddy suck at parenting.


What you are claiming here is that making society more fair is impossible, which is to say that current society is as fair as possible, which is to say there are no reforms you want in any direction. This is not only stupid, it contradicts so many things you have said in the past.

Quote:
News Flash: Life isn't fair.


Fairness isn't binary.

Quote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
As for the rest, I never claimed $100k was rich (it isn't) or that the rich had raped the land - there are plenty of other things you can rape to become rich.

If you want to have semantic arguments, we can do that, too. If you want to support people who have no problem bending over someone who makes a hundred grand to pay for the food, shelter and health care of someone making 40 grand because "they can afford it", you think 100 grand is rich.


But that's not how it works. I mean, taking an insurance system to be the alternative to public healthcare, the guy at $40k (who also pays tax!) might well be subsidising the guy at $100k, if the guy at $100k had a preexisting condition when he got his insurance. Of course, public health care cuts costs for the vast majority (excepting people who are rich, who, if they actually pay their tax, have more of their tax money siphoned into public health than if they had insurance) including people at $100k because, hey, it's a cheaper system.

Quote:
Oh, I forgot, you're not a vengeful person. You're a p'ussy.


No, I mean it as never intended as a threat in any way but rather a way of saying "look how much I dislike this guy's views". I don't want you dead, really, because while I wouldn't be surprised if your life had a net negative impact on the world it certainly isn't large enough. If I actually intended to kill a guy I certainly wouldn't broadcast it. If I actually intended to physically intimidate someone over the internet.... well, I wouldn't, because it's absurd.
#153 Mar 22 2010 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
What you are claiming here is that making society more fair is impossible, which is to say that current society is as fair as possible, which is to say there are no reforms you want in any direction. This is not only stupid, it contradicts so many things you have said in the past.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is you're a moron.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Fairness isn't binary.

Actually, it is.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
But that's not how it works. I mean, taking an insurance system to be the alternative to public healthcare, the guy at $40k (who also pays tax!) might well be subsidising the guy at $100k, if the guy at $100k had a preexisting condition when he got his insurance. Of course, public health care cuts costs for the vast majority (excepting people who are rich, who, if they actually pay their tax, have more of their tax money siphoned into public health than if they had insurance) including people at $100k because, hey, it's a cheaper system.

I don't know what the f'uck you were trying to say there, but what you accomplished was asinine and completely misguided and inaccurate, not to mention ignoring of the fact that private business and the right to purchase or not purchase from a company makes it all irrelevant.

Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
No, I mean it as never intended as a threat in any way but rather a way of saying "look how much I dislike this guy's views". I don't want you dead, really, because while I wouldn't be surprised if your life had a net negative impact on the world it certainly isn't large enough. If I actually intended to kill a guy I certainly wouldn't broadcast it. If I actually intended to physically intimidate someone over the internet.... well, I wouldn't, because it's absurd.

No, what you meant to do was try and act imposing, make a pseudo-threatening remark, and tuck your balls between your legs when you got called on it. But you're a p'ussy non-vengeful person, so it's ok. Fly that PFLAG.
#154 Mar 22 2010 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Quote:
What you are claiming here is that making society more fair is impossible, which is to say that current society is as fair as possible, which is to say there are no reforms you want in any direction. This is not only stupid, it contradicts so many things you have said in the past.


That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is you're a moron.

Yes, but you said I was a moron in response to the claim that things could be made fairer with legislation. Also, if fairness if binary and life isn't fair then you are saying that the current system is as fair as possible (not at all) and that it is impossible to get any more fair (or any less fair, of course).

Quote:
Quote:
But that's not how it works. I mean, taking an insurance system to be the alternative to public healthcare, the guy at $40k (who also pays tax!) might well be subsidising the guy at $100k, if the guy at $100k had a preexisting condition when he got his insurance. Of course, public health care cuts costs for the vast majority (excepting people who are rich, who, if they actually pay their tax, have more of their tax money siphoned into public health than if they had insurance) including people at $100k because, hey, it's a cheaper system.

I don't know what the f'uck you were trying to say there, but what you accomplished was asinine and completely misguided and inaccurate, not to mention ignoring of the fact that private business and the right to purchase or not purchase from a company makes it all irrelevant.


Probably because you lack the wit to understand the most simple of concepts.

Quote:
No, what you meant to do was try and act imposing, make a pseudo-threatening remark, and tuck your balls between your legs when you got called on it. But you're a p'ussy non-vengeful person, so it's ok. Fly that PFLAG.


Smiley: laugh

You know, I've had more challenging arguments with Varrus.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2010 9:30pm by Kavekk
#155 Mar 22 2010 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Yes, but you said I was a moron

Sensing a pattern here?
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Probably because you lack the wit to understand the most simple of concepts.

Or that you're the Terry Schiavo of simple argument making.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
You know, I've had more challenging arguments with Varrus.

I can believe it. I tend to perform down to the level of competition.
#156 Mar 22 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I can believe it. I tend to perform down to the level of competition.


You'd need to be so very much taller to stoop to my level. Why don't you head over to =10? I reckon if you tried really, really hard you could manage one of 'em.
#157 Mar 22 2010 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
******
27,272 posts
Smiley: popcorn
#158 Mar 22 2010 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Smiley: popcorn

I'm not sure how entertaining hearing the same comeback over and over again can be. Then again, I never found the self-aware sarcastic "your mom/face" fad to be that funny either.
#159 Mar 22 2010 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
Allegory wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Smiley: popcorn

I'm not sure how entertaining hearing the same comeback over and over again can be. Then again, I never found the self-aware sarcastic "your mom/face" fad to be that funny either.


Your moms face.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#160ThiefX, Posted: Mar 22 2010 at 7:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So that we all understand.
#161 Mar 22 2010 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
ThiefX wrote:
So that we all understand.

This bill that the majority of Americans are against was a year in the making it took back room deals, special executive orders and a promise that they would get more than 216 votes because no Dem wanted to be publicly known as 216 to pass, not to mention it will cost a trillion dollars and possible bankrupt this country and this is what you libs call a "Great day for America"?
Right. How many more times do we have to say it?
#162gbaji, Posted: Mar 22 2010 at 7:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ok. So what's great about it?
#163 Mar 22 2010 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:

Do you honestly think this will make the lives of the average US citizen better? How?


If my fellow citizen can get the care they require, instead of spending their days chasing it to no avail, they can contribute more to society.

Simple.
#164 Mar 22 2010 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
It is wonderful there are so many lucky Americans who never had health problems either during or causing financial difficulties, and never have they or anyone in their family had their insurance cancelled due to serious illness.

I wish I was that lucky. At least my compassion isn't broken I spose, since no amount of medical care can repair that disorder.
#165 Mar 22 2010 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
I just want to know how many of you honestly, truly believe they will be able to fund this bill without raising taxes significantly on something. Even assuming that the implementation of the program is perfect, with 0 cost overruns (and as someone who works for the government I can assure you that will likely not happen) I don't see any means for it to sustainably fund itself without denying access to the more expensive medical proceedures, like cat scans and ambulance rides. Or brain surgery. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something here. How does this pay for itself long term?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#166 Mar 22 2010 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly think this will make the lives of the average US citizen better?

No. But then again, welfare and unemployment benefits and VA benefits and Equal Opportunity laws don't make the lives of the "average" citizen better either. They do, however, make life much better for the groups of citzens they're intended to help.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Mar 22 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
14,454 posts
My friend Felicia was interviewed today by a local news station for this bill passing. Her son had a tumor on his leg when he was born and had to go through chemo. She had to quit work to care for him 24/7 and they lost their house because of the costs. Even though he's a healthy 3 yr old now, no insurance would touch him.
Anyways if youre interested in watching you can watch the video of her here.

http://news14.com/triangle-news-30-content/top_stories/623588/citizens--businesses-look-ahead-after-nbsp-health-bill-passes
#168 Mar 22 2010 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I don't see any means for it to sustainably fund itself without denying access to the more expensive medical proceedures, like cat scans and ambulance rides. Or brain surgery. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something here. How does this pay for itself long term?

This bill doesn't pay for your CAT scans or ambulance rides or neurosurgery. Your insurance does. This bill helps to ensure that you have insurance via (among other things) regulation of the insurance companies and a mandate for citizens to have insurance including subsidies to assist those who can not afford it.

Even the forthcoming "government plan" will be made up of privately owned insurance companies overseen by the Office of Personal Management, same as our current federal employees plan is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Mar 22 2010 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I expect there will be some increased cost, but what we won't necessarily see trumpeted will be the cost offsets.

When hospitals aren't writing off massive amounts of debt because everyone is covered, your local taxes should go down - or at least be freed up for other stuff like police and fire and maintenance. When people aren't locked in to their current employment because they're afraid to go without coverage, you'll see more cottage industries and other types of start-ups.

There will benefits, but many of them will be hidden simply because there is no way to track them.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#170 Mar 22 2010 at 10:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly think this will make the lives of the average US citizen better?

No. But then again, welfare and unemployment benefits and VA benefits and Equal Opportunity laws don't make the lives of the "average" citizen better either. They do, however, make life much better for the groups of citzens they're intended to help.


At the expense of making life worse for everyone else.


And I love how you lumped welfare in with unemployment benefits, and with VA benefits, and then tossed equal opportunity laws in to boot? Other than welfare, none of the programs have anything in common with this health care bill other than that they are all government programs.


So yeah. I disagree with it for the same reason I disagree with welfare. And no. It's not because I hate poor people. It's because I don't think it's right for the government to seize the property of one person to provide benefits to another. Being "poor" should not be a criteria by which we decide if someone gets something free. Not from the government. Let private citizens do charity. Leave the government out of it...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Mar 22 2010 at 10:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This bill doesn't pay for your CAT scans or ambulance rides or neurosurgery. Your insurance does. This bill helps to ensure that you have insurance via (among other things) regulation of the insurance companies and a mandate for citizens to have insurance including subsidies to assist those who can not afford it.

Even the forthcoming "government plan" will be made up of privately owned insurance companies overseen by the Office of Personal Management, same as our current federal employees plan is.


Which is you avoiding the question. The question is about cost increases. Whether that comes in the form of taxes to cover the government subsidies into the health care system as a result of this bill, or increased insurance costs due to the increased mandated coverage required by this health care bill, the costs "the people" will have to pay for health care will go up. Not a little bit. A whole hell of a lot.

That's what Kao is asking. If it costs X amount to provide insurance for the number covered today, and we increase that number by say 25%, and then we also prohibit insurance companies from not covering some things they don't cover today, then who makes up the difference in cost? Isn't it insane to think that this wont cost at least 25% more? And that's before the whole "you must cover things you didn't before" bit.


Of course it will cost more. And now I'm just waiting for the predictable Liberal response of "Well duh. Only an idiot thought it wouldn't", despite having argued for a year that this was about cutting costs. Sad...


I just don't understand how people can cheer while they are destroying the liberty of themselves and their children. Are you all really closet fans of authoritarian rule? Or are you just stupid? You'll give up your freedom for a handful of trinkets and freebies? That's the saddest part of all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Mar 22 2010 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
So yeah. I disagree with it for the same reason I disagree with welfare. And no. It's not because I hate poor people. It's because I don't think it's right for the government to seize the property of one person to provide benefits to another. Being "poor" should not be a criteria by which we decide if someone gets something free. Not from the government. Let private citizens do charity. Leave the government out of it...


You must massively disapprove of the republican party too, then.
#173 Mar 22 2010 at 10:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
So yeah. I disagree with it for the same reason I disagree with welfare. And no. It's not because I hate poor people. It's because I don't think it's right for the government to seize the property of one person to provide benefits to another. Being "poor" should not be a criteria by which we decide if someone gets something free. Not from the government. Let private citizens do charity. Leave the government out of it...


You must massively disapprove of the republican party too, then.
Well, if it's corporate charity then it's a-ok.

Really, gbaji should be thrilled. It's basically a handout to his corporate buddies

Edited, Mar 22nd 2010 11:27pm by Sweetums
#174 Mar 22 2010 at 10:32 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Really, gbaji should be thrilled. It's basically a handout to his corporate buddies

But they create jobs! If we gave it to poor people they'd just waste it buying goods and services, and then how would businesses have any money to hire people?

Edited, Mar 22nd 2010 11:35pm by Allegory
#175 Mar 22 2010 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
If it costs X amount to provide insurance for the number covered today, and we increase that number by say 25%, and then we also prohibit insurance companies from not covering some things they don't cover today, then who makes up the difference in cost? Isn't it insane to think that this wont cost at least 25% more?
No, it's not. It's the same "a larger pool thereby reduces overall expenses" situation.

More likely, increasing the number covered by 25% would reduce the cost by about 5% - because those new people aren't all currently uninsureable. Some, yes. Others just can't afford the coverage without reducing the cost of it first - and the cost wouldn't come down unless there was some way to increase the pool.

And the insurance companies come out ahead in any situation where, assuming the new people are roughly representative of the rest of the population other than not being able to get insurance through their work, costs aren't assumed to drop by more than 20%, so any figure for costs above, roughly, 85% of current per-customer costs is reasonable.

This includes the likely case where the insurance companies decide that they're in this to suck every spare dollar possible out of people, drop their rates ridiculously initially to bring in every possible customer... then jack rates to 300+% of their current levels. Capitalism plus government mandates at work!
#176 Mar 22 2010 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Allegory wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Really, gbaji should be thrilled. It's basically a handout to his corporate buddies

But they create jobs! If we gave it to poor people they'd just waste it buying goods and services, and then how would businesses have any money to hire people?

Edited, Mar 22nd 2010 11:35pm by Allegory
Let them eat their bootstraps.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 238 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)