The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality

134689119

Comments

  • jamacjamac Posts: 962member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal government the authority to administer healthcare?



    If it doesn't, then the 10th Amendment applies.



    Governor Perry of Texas has already raised the possibility of invoking states' rights under the 10th amendment and rejecting nationalized health care.



    Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare



    Jazzguru dude, have you ever had major surgery? and I don't mean Cmaj.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    No, it hasn't.



    Strident declarations aside, the statistics on national savings rate show different.



    Quote:

    No, we don't. if we did then we wouldn't have tens of millions uninsured and thousands going bankrupt because of illnesses.



    We have tens of million insured for a multitude of reasons including the choice of being willing to pocket the money and accept the risk. I provided the statistics. Denials don't refute that. Thousands go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons. They don't just discharge medical bills when they file for it. They discharge almost all debts.



    Quote:

    How, then, do you explain the simple fact that millions and millions of people all over the world and all throughout time die because they do not receive necessary help?



    Amazing isn't it? It is almost like death is the default state for us all eventually or something like that. It is Utopian thought to believe otherwise. There was no garden where we were all living for 900 years until bad Republicans or Bush came along.



    Quote:

    Of course it's right. It's the right thing to do to help people who need help.



    There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.



    I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.



    Those are statements that are right.



    Quote:

    This is an argument for Social Security reform, not the removal of all social safety nets.



    It isn't a safety net when "quality of life" issues cause it to pay for and supply things that are about much more than falling and needing a net.



    Quote:

    Didn't you just say that the elderly have a lower poverty rate than the general population? Sounds like the government is doing a pretty good job for them.



    It has done a good job but not within a cost containment model. Rather they have run up huge debts and the projections for the continuation of those debts in the future show that the current model is not sustainable. It is ludicrous to suggest that an unsustainable model be moved from a segment of the population to a larger percentage. It is ludicrous to suggest doing this will make the unsustainable into the sustainable.



    Quote:

    The mechanism is only inefficient because the people in the system (the elderly and the poor) are not the ones paying for it. Once you have everyone in the same system you have those paying for it paying more careful attention to how the funds are used.



    Obama has not suggested a solution where a person pays for their own insurance now. If that were the case the only reform we would need would be an insurance mandate. Obama has declared that savings from electronic records, fraud removal and another tax on the rich will pay for this.



    By that reasoning many, many more people will be drawing services they do not pay for and the costs, like the government programs, will explode well beyond their initial projections which are already 1.6 trillion dollars.



    Quote:

    Beyond that, if everyone is given a basic level of insurance by a public system that then frees the private insurance world to be even more selective in their clientele than they are now.



    Selective = everyone eats the government burger and those who want steak better be rich. This is a prime example of why people prefer what they have now. This video hits on the point you suggest precisely and shows why people resist that choice.



    Quote:

    No, it's not. I've never had apartment insurance in my life and I'm not moving into my first home until the end of the month.



    My own rental agreements demand rental insurance because the insurance of the owner covers up to the paint on the walls. In the event of fire, flood, theft, etc. the building insurance replaces nothing for the tenant. Perhaps you've never bought it but it just means that you've done what most young(er) people do and that is use youth and lack of income as an excuse to take on the risk since you aren't risking much.



    Congrats on the home. It's a lot harder to ponder forgoing insurance when all the crap you had in your dorm room won't be worth what you probably spend to furnish one room in that house. Hope you and the wife have fun filling it with stuff and kids too (if that's the desire.)



    Quote:

    They would be more expensive if everyone needed them, yes. Apples and oranges.



    I think what you fail to see here is that they are a requirement. The question is only one of who pays it. I can assure you that if you rented an apartment, the building was insured and part of your rent went to pay that insurance. However that insurance covers catastrophic concerns and not painting the trim. Your public transportation carries insurance. As you get higher up the ladder it is increasingly often about being able to risk less because the returns are lower and the costs are higher.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jamac View Post


    Jazzguru dude, have you ever had major surgery? and I don't mean Cmaj.



    How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Strident declarations aside, the statistics on national savings rate show different.



    People fail to save because they want to spend all they have to get all the various shiny baubles they see advertized, not because they have some longterm notion of social security taking care of their retirement. People simply do not think of their retirement.



    I am sure the existence of a safety net does remove the imperative to save in some people, or at least reduce it.



    Quote:

    We have tens of million insured for a multitude of reasons including the choice of being willing to pocket the money and accept the risk. I provided the statistics. Denials don't refute that. Thousands go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons. They don't just discharge medical bills when they file for it. They discharge almost all debts.



    What statistics do you refer to?



    Quote:

    Amazing isn't it? It is almost like death is the default state for us all eventually or something like that. It is Utopian thought to believe otherwise.



    Utopian? No. the only utopian talk I see here is this notion that the poor and elderly will be taken care of by church groups.



    Quote:

    It isn't a safety net when "quality of life" issues cause it to pay for and supply things that are about much more than falling and needing a net.



    Again, a call for reform, not removal.



    Quote:

    It has done a good job but not within a cost containment model. Rather they have run up huge debts and the projections for the continuation of those debts in the future show that the current model is not sustainable.



    Unsustainable because those who are paying for it are not invested in it.



    Quote:

    Obama has not suggested a solution where a person pays for their own insurance now.



    If you mean "pays the entire cost of his own insurance", then yes. Then again, no one seems to be suggesting that.



    If you mean "pays nothing towards the cost of his insurance, then no.



    Quote:

    I think what you fail to see here is that they are a requirement.



    They are not. They are not requirements. I do not know how that can be any more explicit. A person can live a long and healthy and happy life having never purchased home or auto insurance. There are people out there who make more than you and I combined who own neither a house nor a car.
  • jamacjamac Posts: 962member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?



    If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jamac View Post


    If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?



    Ah, the old "if you haven't had a personal experience with _________ you shouldn't be able to talk about it" card.



    I don't believe I told you what my personal experience with healthcare in the US is, nor do I believe it is relevant to this discussion.



    Nice try.



    Next?
  • taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jamac View Post


    If you have not had any personal experiences with the US healthcare system than, WTF are you talking about?



    Personal experience is only anecdotal evidence and therefor not necessarily true or reliable, by definition.
    Quote:

    Anecdotal : (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.



  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    How is my personal medical history relevant to this discussion?







    Everyone's is!
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    People fail to save because they want to spend all they have to get all the various shiny baubles they see advertized, not because they have some longterm notion of social security taking care of their retirement. People simply do not think of their retirement.



    Well in life there are consequences for non-thinking.



    Quote:

    I am sure the existence of a safety net does remove the imperative to save in some people, or at least reduce it.



    What statistics do you refer to?



    Utopian? No. the only utopian talk I see here is this notion that the poor and elderly will be taken care of by church groups.



    Again, a call for reform, not removal.



    Unsustainable because those who are paying for it are not invested in it.



    If you mean "pays the entire cost of his own insurance", then yes. Then again, no one seems to be suggesting that.



    If you mean "pays nothing towards the cost of his insurance, then no.



    They are not. They are not requirements. I do not know how that can be any more explicit. A person can live a long and healthy and happy life having never purchased home or auto insurance. There are people out there who make more than you and I combined who own neither a house nor a car.



    The rest isn't worth dealing with. Simple one sentence restatements with nothing added aren't worth the time. You asked, you received and now I'm done since nothing is being added from the other side of the equation.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    NYTimes.com



    Dear Paul,



    We are supposed to be creating a health care crisis to win approval of a bill. You fucked up big time. Look at this horrible truth you told in the NY Times.



    On the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system: Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they?re currently healthy, rather than signing up only when they need care.



    Surely you being an award winning economist know that this is adverse selection. We all know they make this choice because there isn't likely to be a real benefit for them in having health care. However please don't fuck it up. If they are greedy (young, healthy) bastards gaming the system, then we can't portray them as helpless, hopeless folks that we are protecting and desperately fighting the forces of evil to bring them health care. Remember dumbass, them not having health care is a CRISIS, not adverse selection. CRISIS! Get it through your head moron otherwise this bill won't pass because we can't claim good intentions in forcing people to buy insurance when they don't want it. They aren't suffering in that instance but rendering an economic choice reflecting priorities and using the information they know.



    In the meantime shut up and read your talking points! Don't go off message again and for goodness sakes, don't tell the truth! Find some exceptions to the rule to scare people. Find that nice 23 year old with cancer and do a nice story devoid of numbers featuring them. We've got to scare people Paul, scare them so no one has to read the bill while acting quickly.



    Get with the program Krugie!



    Signed,

    Rahm
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Simple one sentence restatements with nothing added aren't worth the time.



    Like, " Well in life there are consequences for non-thinking."?



    Of course the things you cannot address are not worth addressing. After all, what good is discussion with differently-minded people when it eviscerates utopian nonsense?



    I suppose "there are consequences for non-thinking" is about as close as I'll ever get to an honest answer to questions about what will happen in Galt's Gulch to the old and infirmed; they will die alone and in pain of curable disease because they just weren't useful enough.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    CBO deals new blow to health plan



    Quote:

    For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.



    Save no money for 10+ years? In the middle of the worst economic times since the Great Depression?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Like, " Well in life there are consequences for non-thinking."?



    Of course the things you cannot address are not worth addressing. After all, what good is discussion with differently-minded people when it eviscerates utopian nonsense?



    I suppose "there are consequences for non-thinking" is about as close as I'll ever get to an honest answer to questions about what will happen in Galt's Gulch to the old and infirmed; they will die alone and in pain of curable disease because they just weren't useful enough.



    I've addressed them but I'm not willing to readdress them when the information is ignored and dismissed and then the same point brought up again as if the post never happened.



    Sorry if you feel the way you do, but you declare I'll beat an issue to death just because your name is next to it. Here I said simply I'm not going to spoon feed it to you again. There are plenty of other readers to write for on these forums.



    Speaking of uninsured, the numbers continue to reflect the non-crisis.




    Quote:

    This number is clarified more when, as Cannon reveals from the CBO, “60 percent of the uninsured are under age 35, and 86 percent are in good-to-excellent health.”



    All in all, the number of chronically uninsured who might need assistance is about 15% of that 20-30 million, or a couple million a year. Cannon and other free-market advocates wonder why America can’t help these individuals — already eligible for government programs — without endangering the health care coverage of about 119 million Americans.



    They can fill the gap, not take over our lives.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    The only addressing I saw of the issue of taking care of those without means was this:

    "Grandma be it by herself, by her family, by her local relief organization or church could easily afford a $100-200 wheel chair."



    So as I said, in Libertopia the protection for the poor/elderly/infirmed against a preventable death is the questionable and spotty charity of others.



    So I'll ask and expect no straightforward answer: What of those who receive no charity from "local relief organizations or churches"?



    You will dodge the question because its moral weight is untenable and it destroys the delusional fantasy that is strict libertarianism; sometimes people need help. Not only that, but those who espouse strict libertarian fantasies are not nearly as self-reliant and meritorious as they would love to believe themselves to be.



    Let's quote the estimable Libertarian's Christ figure, Ayn Rand, from The Virtue of Selfishness:

    Quote:

    The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.



    ...



    It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save.



    Or to take an example that can occur in everyday life: suppose one hears that the man next door is ill and penni¬less. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine, if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out. But this does not mean that one must support him from then on, nor that one must spend one’s life look¬ing for starving men to help.



    In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune hap-pening to others. He cannot live his life by the guidance of rules applicable only to conditions under which human sur-vival is impossible.



    One thing Ms. Rand must be commended for is leaving it up to the individual to determine his own happiness, but at the same time taking great pains to tell the reader what he should do. An intellectual fraud with a cultish following would be nothing if not wildly contradictory within a few sentences.
  • taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Presently, social security is the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget.



    I'm of the opinion that it should be reworked so that people that have millions in the bank stop receiving benefits before we go adding to the obligation.



    Yes, you can have millions in the bank and the government will give you one of those motorized chairs you see hawked on TV.
    Quote:

    In the past 17 years, no other motorized wheel chair manufacturer has provided more Medicare reimbursed power wheelchairs directly to their customers than Hoveround. There are no “middle-men” involved. If you pre-qualify, Medicare may cover 80 percent of the cost of your new Hoveround wheelchair, and your supplemental insurance may cover the remaining 20 percent. In fact, 9 out of 10 Hoveround owners received their HOVEROUND power wheelchair at little or no cost.



    http://www.hoveround.com/wp/medicare...r-wheelchairs/
    Quote:

    Who Qualifies for Medicare?



    Individuals who:

    • are at least 65 years old.

    • are disabled and qualify for disability (may be under 65 years old).

    • are a legal resident or US citizen.

    • have worked in a Medicare-covered employment for at least 10 years. (If their spouse meets these criteria, they will be covered even if they themselves do not meet these criteria.)



    Grandma's got no problem getting a wheelchair.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    An intellectual fraud with a cultish following would be nothing if not wildly contradictory within a few sentences.



    An apt description of Obama, indeed.



    The government was never meant to be in the "charity" or "welfare" business.



    "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

    -- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]



    "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

    -- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.



    "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."

    -- Thomas Jefferson



    In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

    -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)



    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

    --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817



    "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

    -- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    The only addressing I saw of the issue of taking care of those without means was this:

    "Grandma be it by herself, by her family, by her local relief organization or church could easily afford a $100-200 wheel chair."



    So as I said, in Libertopia the protection for the poor/elderly/infirmed against a preventable death is the questionable and spotty charity of others.



    So I'll ask and expect no straightforward answer: What of those who receive no charity from "local relief organizations or churches"?



    Exactly who are those who receive no help and why would they not receive it?



    Quote:

    You will dodge the question because its moral weight is untenable and it destroys the delusional fantasy that is strict libertarianism; sometimes people need help. Not only that, but those who espouse strict libertarian fantasies are not nearly as self-reliant and meritorious as they would love to believe themselves to be.



    Untenable? You claim a person for whom not a single family member, friend or relief organization would lift a finger to help. Who is this hypothetical person?



    What is untenable as always, is using the exception to prove the rule. The rule is people get help from those close to them and from organizations. Making up a person no one would help but I guess whom deserves help is nothing more than theft looking for a rationalization.
  • groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I will ask the question again:

    What of those who receive no charity from "local relief organizations or churches"?



    Quote:

    Exactly who are those who receive no help and why would they not receive it?



    babies

    the old

    the poor



    And on and on and on...



    Quote:

    Untenable? You claim a person for whom not a single family member, friend or relief organization would lift a finger to help. Who is this hypothetical person?



    Not everyone has family/friends.

    Not everyone has family/friends that can help.

    Not everyone has family/friends that wants to help.

    Not everyone has family/friends that even knows help is needed.



    The very nature of a safety net is to catch those who are not caught by the normal social mechanisms.



    Quote:

    Making up a person no one would help but I guess whom deserves help is nothing more than theft looking for a rationalization.



    Are you really arguing that these people do not exist?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Reading is Fundamental



    Quote:

    Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) is all over the news today thanks to this gem of a quote:



    Quote:

    I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.



    “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”



    Congressman Conyers, I would ask you: "what good is VOTING on a bill you haven't read"?



    Here is some sound wisdom from one of our founding fathers:



    Quote:

    "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."

    -- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788





  • taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    babies

    the old

    the poor



    In all these cases, according to the articles you linked, lack of existing funds wasn't cited as the reason for failure in care. In the first, the care giver says "Our quota is never full". the second, the reason was a natural disaster and a nursing home abandoned them, and the third, hospitals violate existing laws.



    Your evidence isn't supporting your claims.
Sign In or Register to comment.