Do You Want "Obamacare" to Fail?

TheDemSocialist said:

Yes you are correct it is your opinion.
You are missing the democratic consent part of the argument. Taxes are not arbitrary impositions decreed by a faceless government, taxes are dues we pay in exchange for membership in a society and access to all the services it offers.
Saying taxation is theft is like saying if someone is found guilty of a crime and hauled off to jail is being kidnapped. Its ludicrous.
Taxes are paying back to society what you owe for the wealth you have generated on the resources it has used on you and for the insurance of that wealth you have gained.

Click to expand...

There is only few arguments that I have seen by people that argue that taxes are not theft. There is the argument that there is only two sure things in life "death and taxes", which is kind of like saying the only sure things in life is death and getting robbed. That argument is more of a "it's just a fact life and therefore stop complaining about it" argument. Then there is the social contract argument, which states that taxes are part of the social contract and therefore we consented to be taxed. Then we have the good old taxes are voluntary argument, which of course ignores completely how they are collected and the punishment for not paying them. Finally, we have your argument that it is the due to society for the privilege of being a citizen and having access to services and that helped create your wealth. This argument is perhaps the most arrogant, and if wasn't for the taxes are voluntary argument, it would be dumbest as well. It relies on so many false premises that it is absolutely amazing they all fit in such a small argument. For one thing, society is a group of individuals with their own rights and there is no thing as people owing any sort of whatever to society. For another, this idea that somehow you owe payment for services that you never asked for is completely illogical. That would mean that if anyone does you any favors that you didn't ask for that it doesn't matter one way or the other if you consented to it being done, as now you owe them payment, as if some sort of exchange was ever agreed upon. Then you have the idiotic wealth argument that assumes that because I earn wealth that I owe wealth to other people. Of course, that is idiotic as my earning of wealth has no effect on your worthiness of my wealth. They are completely separate from each other.

Now that all that nonsense is out of the way, the only thing that needs to be said, is that when you take property from someone without them agreeing to that transaction you have taken part in theft.

No im not. I think the government should nationalize more.

Click to expand...

Well, I would imagine we are getting there anyway..

Oh i forgot this wasnt a debate politics site :roll::lamo

Click to expand...

What would you like to debate? How you are owed the vital services that keep you alive at other peoples dime? Is that it? Or perhaps how great of an idea it is for the organization that is the greatest killer and oppressor in all of human history to run your healthcare?

Paschendale said:

I see your anecdotes (and seriously, what's the private equivalent to the DMV that you're comparing it against?), and raise you actual studies and facts.

Mythbusters:
'The private sector is superior'. Time to move on from this old dogma | Andrew Simms and Stephen Reid | Comment is free | theguardian.com
And The Winner Is....The Public Sector | On the Commons

And who cares which staff was nicer to you? How on earth do you think that's a factor in public or private enterprise?

Click to expand...

It wasn't just a matter of niceness. Nobody knows where medical records are but they pretend to and send me all over the hospital on a wild goose chase. One place I was sent the lady was on the phone, kept talking when I got there in what seemed to be a personal social conversation as I wait patiently. After she got off the phone, instead of asking could I be helped, she proceeded to read the newspaper for a few minutes, then I guess tired of me standing at her counter she finally asked "may I help you?" only to be sent on yet another fruitless trip to the other end of the hospital on another floor. It was a 2 hour lesson on government healthcare.

Boo Radley said:

I don't put much credence in that thinking. It ignores the actual nature of healthcare. Few people buy cancer or being struck by lightening or being shot by a friend, relative, or enemy. But the care you need then has to be paid for. Much like when your house catches on fire. Firefighters put it out. I wonder how negotiation would go for that on the market? We all know that young people never live in homes that burn down, and they never have car accidents, or need the police. But they will need healthcare, sooner or later. And most won't be able to afford it.

Of course, we could have a plan. Say a universal plan? :coffpap

Click to expand...

Sorry, but who I do business with and who I do not do business with is my business and my right to decide on my own terms. You are not involved and you do not have the right to be involved in my commerce decisions. It is not your call to say I need to do business with this person or that person or that group of people or that group of people over there. You are not involved and you do not have the right tell me what to do in my commerce decisions.

This very simply concept like the concept of property escapes people like you for no good reason. In fact, my right to decide on these things is a property right. Yay property, the very foundation of all human rights.

Boo Radley said:

It was an idiot exaggeration. Not much else.

Click to expand...

So controlling the decisions of property owners is not a violation of property rights? I will be sure to log that next to all the other things you don't understand about rights.

I want it to fail catastrophically (financially, not medically)...to teach people that big government NEVER works...it only makes things worse in the long run.

Smeagol said:

It wasn't just a matter of niceness. Nobody knows where medical records are but they pretend to and send me all over the hospital on a wild goose chase. One place I was sent the lady was on the phone, kept talking when I got there about what seemed to be a personal social conversation as I wait patiently. After she got off the phone, instead of asking could I be helped, she proceeded to read the newspaper for a few minutes, then I guess tired of me standing at her counter she finally asked "may I help you?" only to be sent on yet another fruitless trip to the other end of the hospital on another floor. It was a 2 hour lesson on government healthcare.

Click to expand...

I got my lesson back when I was in the service. Sprained my ankle really bad one day, swelled up like a grapefruit and I thought I'd broken it. Some buddies took me to the med center where after I checked in (~15 minutes), I was sent to the 3rd floor (stairs only) for x-rays. I made it to the 2nd floor before nearly collapsing in pain. A nurse saw me and got me a pair of crutches so I could make it to the 3rd floor - by myself (buddies had to stay in the lobby). I arrived at X-ray and checked in (~30 minutes). After the x-ray, I was sent back down to the first floor to wait for results (~1 hour). After results came back, I saw a nurse who walked me up to the 2nd floor for bandaging (~30 minutes). About 2 1/2 hours later I was on my way home with some crutches, a bandaged grapefruit of an ankle that felt like it was about to explode... and 3 aspirin.

Smeagol said:

I think the ACA came from a good place; the President was simply trying to improve the lives of the American people. Not the best solution but I think his heart was in the right place. I cannot say the same for the GOP response. To the GOP its been all about scoring political points, damaging his legacy and being a robust political opposition. I do not think the GOP is interested in improving the lives of the American people when it comes to healthcare reform. The way I see it, they did everything in their power to stop him from being elected including support for other democrats once the GOP primary had been settled in 2008. Nothing they tried in terms of demonization would stick; not a US citizen, deep seeded hatred for white people, middle name association with terror, White House Czars over cabinet members subverts the constitution, BFFs with Bill Ayers, BFFs with Ludacris, mentored by Jeremiah Wright, communist, Maxist, socialist, Muslim, only "half black," guilt by association with both people and simply being from Chicago, nothing. Even the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama was described as "all he did was kill a few black teenagers" and that didn't work.

Then along comes healthcare reform and despite its lofty motives, something actually started negatively impacting the Obama politicallyly. A couple of dozen states take the administration to the Supreme Court over the individual mandate provision, despite the fact that idea ORIGINATED with republicans, was mostly opposed by people who had health insurance while decrying its unfairness that they should be forced to buy something they don't want.

I personally don't like Obamacare in its present form. I don't like employer-based and as a consequence employer-controlled healthcare. Although I support "healthcare," I don't like "health insurance" as all this does is create several middle men who all get their cut of our medical costs while destroying many of the market forces that would lower costs and improve quality. I'm simply being honest about how I see the GOP response to the present ACA law.

Click to expand...

I don't think it came from a good place at all because it has nothing to do with universal healthcare nor healthcare for the poor. It is a way to justify denying healthcare to the poor and tax working people more for healthcare.

It also is incredibly corrupt by design. Rich people have bought exemptions by political bribery. The entire idea was establish massive payola to the insurance industry, drug companies and the AMA - all to receive a huge cut - in return for supporting and financially supporting incumbents that would support the program.

It is the marriage of corporations to the government, using the government and IRS and those corporations' bill collector for required purchases with those companies - and an excuse to for hospitals to refuse indigent care for those who do not have the copay or didn't know how to do the paperwork.

It also was meant to shift the tax burden for indigent care from rich property owners to working people, meaning shifting for indigent healthcare paid for on a progressive tax basis to a massive tax break for the rich.

Carjosse said:

Well the single payer system does not allow something for the same reason it may not be be in the U.S., it is not approved yet or it is not covered as it is seen as unnecessary like cosmetic surgery. They would have allowed it, ultrasounds are fine, people in my family have had them at times. Also our single-payer system pays for people who have to go the U.S. for treatment not available here.

Click to expand...

I'm happy for you that you like the system your country has in place. Canada's government is based on the British system of government which is completely different than that of the US.

We have freedoms that British based government peoples do not have, and more importantly, we have Constitutionally based restrictions on our government that others do not have.

Those restrictions on government are good. I support a limited and highly restricted government, with very limited power over my life.

I prefer to not participate in the downfall of the core premise of my country's existence; freedom.

That includes freedom from government as well as freedom of choice in my own life such as the decisions regarding my own health care.

Beaudreaux said:

I'm happy for you that you like the system your country has in place. Canada's government is based on the British system of government which is completely different than that of the US.

We have freedoms that British based government peoples do not have, and more importantly, we have Constitutionally based restrictions on our government that others do not have.

Those restrictions on government are good. I support a limited and highly restricted government, with very limited power over my life.

I prefer to not participate in the downfall of the core premise of my country's existence; freedom.

That includes freedom from government as well as freedom of choice in my own life such as the decisions regarding my own health care.

Click to expand...

Amen sir! :thumbs:

X Factor said:

Now, there's a decent argument that the failure of Obamacare could usher in something worse (or better, depending on your point of view - honestly, single payer scares the **** out of me). To be truthful, though, I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I didn't want it and the fact that "you could keep your insurance" had to be such a big part of getting support indicates to me, that a good many of us didn't want it and Obama knew that. Now, I don't know if it can ever fully go away, but presuming it could do you want Obamacare to fail?

Give me a minute to attach the poll.

Click to expand...

Obamacare HAS failed. Would I like it undone? Absolutely.

Smeagol said:

It wasn't just a matter of niceness. Nobody knows where medical records are but they pretend to and send me all over the hospital on a wild goose chase. One place I was sent the lady was on the phone, kept talking when I got there in what seemed to be a personal social conversation as I wait patiently. After she got off the phone, instead of asking could I be helped, she proceeded to read the newspaper for a few minutes, then I guess tired of me standing at her counter she finally asked "may I help you?" only to be sent on yet another fruitless trip to the other end of the hospital on another floor. It was a 2 hour lesson on government healthcare.

Click to expand...

Why do you think any of that would be different under a private system? Except that, in order to curtail expenses and increase profit, that same woman was doing the job of two other people at the same time as well as hers. So, you'd face even worse service. Do you think that her performance would be better if someone was getting rich off of her labor? If you do, would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

X Factor said:

I think this is a good example of why there can be difficulty dealing with the left (and I'm not talking about everyone on the left). Instead of dealing in the realities of problems that even Democrat politicians have acknowledged, to some, any disagreement is a character flaw or makes you sociopathic. There can be no compromise with crusaders.

Click to expand...

Your post was preemptively answered by my sig.

Henrin said:

Sorry, but who I do business with and who I do not do business with is my business and my right to decide on my own terms. You are not involved and you do not have the right to be involved in my commerce decisions. It is not your call to say I need to do business with this person or that person or that group of people or that group of people over there. You are not involved and you do not have the right tell me what to do in my commerce decisions.

This very simply concept like the concept of property escapes people like you for no good reason. In fact, my right to decide on these things is a property right. Yay property, the very foundation of all human rights.

Click to expand...

And I'm sure you will, bleed there on the street. Care to bet what you will decide? It is after all commerce and nothing more. Or that loved on who is deadly ill. Don't worry, you you can find a bargain.

Yes, it is a very simple concept.

Henrin said:

So controlling the decisions of property owners is not a violation of property rights? I will be sure to log that next to all the other things you don't understand about rights.

Click to expand...

Well, that's consistent. Doubling down with another exaggeration. :coffeepap

If you know the person your daughter is marrying is a deadbeat, and beg her not to marry, does that mean you WANT the marriage to fail if she goes through with it?

ok then

Paschendale said:

Why do you think any of that would be different under a private system? Except that, in order to curtail expenses and increase profit, that same woman was doing the job of two other people at the same time as well as hers. So, you'd face even worse service. Do you think that her performance would be better if someone was getting rich off of her labor? If you do, would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

Click to expand...

The hospital my insurance has as the preferred provider is a primate non-profit hospital and the service is far superior. We were only sent to the government hospital because of a specialized equipment only available through the government hospital.

I understand your concern but I'm not making any of this up. Almost every employee at the hospital I encountered acted like I was a problem, was bothering them and wanted to make it clear they were the boss and at their mercy. And I go out of my way to be courteous to people. If employees of government run entities want to have public support, they need to read the memo and offer superior service than what is seen in private organizations.

Smeagol said:

The hospital my insurance has as the preferred provider is a primate non-profit hospital and the service is far superior. We were only sent to the government hospital because of a specialized equipment only available through the government hospital.

I understand your concern but I'm not making any of this up. Almost every employee at the hospital I encountered acted like I was a problem and was bothering them and I go out of my way to be courteous to people. If employees of government run entities want to have public support, they need to read the memo to offer superior service than what seen in private organizations.

Click to expand...

The service that matters isn't if they're nice to you. It's if they can get you the healthcare you need and not bankrupt you in the process.

it has already succeded.

$75 month for full Health and dental insurance..........................LMAO!!!

Beaudreaux said:

I'm happy for you that you like the system your country has in place. Canada's government is based on the British system of government which is completely different than that of the US.

We have freedoms that British based government peoples do not have, and more importantly, we have Constitutionally based restrictions on our government that others do not have.

Those restrictions on government are good. I support a limited and highly restricted government, with very limited power over my life.

I prefer to not participate in the downfall of the core premise of my country's existence; freedom.

That includes freedom from government as well as freedom of choice in my own life such as the decisions regarding my own health care.

Click to expand...

Weird because we are viewed as more free than the U.S. is. Does not having single-payer promote more financial freedom. We don't live in fear of going bankrupt due to medical expenses, we also Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is something Britain lacks. We would would rather sacrifice our freedom to choose an insurance provider for better financial security. No one should be denied quality medical care because of how much money they have or what condition they suffer form. I remember one journalist put it this way: Americans love their right to buy complete garbage that would be considered ludicrous in other parts of the world.

Boo Radley said:

And I'm sure you will, bleed there on the street. Care to bet what you will decide? It is after all commerce and nothing more. Or that loved on who is deadly ill. Don't worry, you you can find a bargain.

Yes, it is a very simple concept.

Click to expand...

Sorry, is that supposed to counter my argument?

Boo Radley said:

Well, that's consistent. Doubling down with another exaggeration. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

I noticed that you didn't explain how I was wrong.

Henrin said:

Sorry, is that supposed to counter my argument?



I noticed that you didn't explain how I was wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes I did counter your argument. You just haven't thought it through yet. Think about it a while longer.

Nobody should want a piece of legislation that is intended to benefit people to fail.

Robbie Loucks said:

Nobody should want a piece of legislation that is intended to benefit people to fail.

Click to expand...

Fail? Many if not most who will benefit are working people.

Boo Radley said:

Fail? Many if not most who will benefit are working people.

Click to expand...

Um...how is that relevant to what I said?

I voted for fail but only as it is now. I would like to see it work but it just does not sound good at all. I don't have any idea what they could do different but I think something obviously needs to be done.