- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well, you missed an important point, which is that a majority of Americans do NOT want Obamacare.
Thats debatable since the majority probably doesn't even know what it really is....especially conservatives.
When it's called the Obamacare they don't like it....but when it's called the Affordable Care Act they do seem to like it. So lets give it a chance, shall we? Because as time goes on, more people probably will like it. In fact they'll probably like it so much that Republicans will never be able to repeal it. hehehehe
BTW....I think the OP is talking about "up or down votes" and "filabusters"....not the ACA.
The "try it and see if we like it approach" would be reasonable if government programs weren't near impossible to get rid of. Even if it ends up terrible for the country, my grandkids 30 years from now will still probably end up having it.
The biggest and most obvious problem is that it doesn't add any more doctors or "supply", but increases those trying to go to doctors or "demand". If demand increases without an increase in supply, prices will go up. Throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it is the only way to try to even it out, and that's not how grown-ups should handle finance. If we have, for example, 1 million doctors and 200 million patients, what will happen to the cost and quality of healthcare when if we have 1 million doctors and 300 million patients?
Holy ****!Regardless, we have to get the practice of health insurance out of the private sector. Prices are only bound to go up at the expense of peoples' health.
Holy ****!
No it does not need to be removed from the private sector, because that is exactly where it belongs.
Health care is a product of another's efforts. No one is entitled to it or should be forced to supply it for another.
So because you want to get rid of "Obamacare", you support the continuation of a flawed (arguably corrupt) political system? Wasn't it the same flaws that helped it get though in the first place?Well, you missed an important point, which is that a majority of Americans do NOT want Obamacare.
How does health insurance companies make their money?
1.) Sell policies to new customers.
2.) Sell more expensive policies to existing customers.
3.) Increase cost of existing premiums.
4.) Cover less health costs while charging the same premiums.
5.) Refuse to pay claims while ensuring no consequences.
That list I think consists of at least most of the ways that health insurance companies make their money. With the continuous growth paradigm of the free market, insurance companies will enact more suffering to their customers to provide a good balance sheet to investors regardless of financial expansion or contraction. Why? Because the drive of maximizing profits is the name of the game. Not just making a profit, but maximizing it. So if a health insurance company can not sign more customers, it has to use a combination of the other methods lined up above to make more money.
What happens?
Higher prices and more suffering for everyone.
I think that if health insurance is provided, it will allow more income to be spent in the economy on other things. This battles inflation for everybody. The same could be tailored but more so for education. Education is a stronger investment for obvious reasons. But if the cost of education were provided more money would be present to spend in the economy.
Not to mention we have the means to provide health insurance for everyone. It would be the humane thing to do to provide it.
Plus if everybody is insured, the cost of premiums go down.
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them. A single person or minority of people should not be able to keep something off the floor. Things should be presented and voted on in congress. If they are all against it then they are all against it, but it should be presented. Any house representative should be able to bring forth a budget or bill and have it voted on. If the majority of the house finds it acceptable they vote on it. This should apply to both parties so that bills or a budget which have enough bipartisan support to pass can pass. Letting the speaker decide which legislation he wants to vote on gives him way too much power. No matter which party it is they can restrict votes on all legislation based on the desires of the people who elect them which are just the members of that congressman's district. The US is litterally being held hostage at this pointy by the minority of people who happen to be the majority in boehner's district, and that is simply unacceptable for any representative to have that sort of power.
This is obviously a flaw that needs to be corrected ASAP to stop this sort of thing from happening again. If the majority of the house were actually continuing to vote down this sort of thing then that would be better, but since it seems the majority is ready to pass a clean budget it should not be held up, and to go further than that how much legislation has been held up by boehner's or any other speaker's personal bias in the past? It is insane if a dem does it, and it is insane if a republican does it. Whatever the result of all of this shutdown becomes we have to make sure one of the effects is to eliminate the rules that prevent a vote by the house and senate based on a single person or minority hissy fit. Yes, that needs to include the filibuster.
Your list is nonsense.How does health insurance companies make their money?
1.) Sell policies to new customers.
2.) Sell more expensive policies to existing customers.
3.) Increase cost of existing premiums.
4.) Cover less health costs while charging the same premiums.
5.) Refuse to pay claims while ensuring no consequences.
That list I think consists of at least most of the ways that health insurance companies make their money. With the continuous growth paradigm of the free market, insurance companies will enact more suffering to their customers to provide a good balance sheet to investors regardless of financial expansion or contraction. Why? Because the drive of maximizing profits is the name of the game. Not just making a profit, but maximizing it. So if a health insurance company can not sign more customers, it has to use a combination of the other methods lined up above to make more money.
What happens?
Higher prices and more suffering for everyone.
I think that if health insurance is provided, it will allow more income to be spent in the economy on other things. This battles inflation for everybody. The same could be tailored but more so for education. Education is a stronger investment for obvious reasons. But if the cost of education were provided more money would be present to spend in the economy.
Not to mention we have the means to provide health insurance for everyone. It would be the humane thing to do to provide it.
Plus if everybody is insured, the cost of premiums go down.
Your list is nonsense.
Insurance sells a service/product.
That is how they make their profits.
Cost of care goes up, then so do premiums. That only makes sense.
They can not cover less than is agreed to. So stop with the absurdities.
And as to #5. When a person puts a claim in that they are not covered for, of course it gets denied.
They didn't purchase coverage for what ever it is they claimed.
Secondly, there isn't that many wrongful denials. But they are the most heard about.
Suffering is natural.
Healthcare is created and the product of another's efforts.
Folks who don't want insurance, don't have to purchase it, and nor should they be forced to.
If you want to hedge against your future suffering, then take out insurance.
And no "we" do not have the means to provide. Nor should we create the means when it means forcing someone against their will.
Nor does it have anything to do with governing the people. It isn't required, or needed.
Do you really not understand that forcing someone to provide for another is wrong?
Do you really not see that?
fundamental flaw that needs to be corrected in congress.
Because what you outline is skewed as noted.How is my list nonsense because they sell a service or product? Why couldn't someone sell a service or product and do what I outlined above?
Clearly that is you.You are living in fantasy land.
That is what a business does and is supposed to do.The purpose is to continue making profits.
Your position is skewed.The list outlined before are the possible means by which insurance companies make their money. They do it all the time! If you make a major health claim your premiums will change.
Wrong.But if someone purchased the "new" premiums with less coverage, then they would receive less coverage.
And again, wrongful denials are not the norm.Finally, health insurance companies have refused to pay claims to their customers to make more money.
:doh What the heck are you talking about?What are they going to do? Die? How are they going to fight back the process? Hire a lawyer that they can't afford?
I already have. It is propaganda. But it figures you would refer to it as skewed/liberal as your thoughts are on this topic.I already know you are going to dismiss this film. But I suggest you watch the movie Sicko.
WTF?I don't get this argument. We already force people to buy insurance. It is called auto insurance. So what's the big deal? Because of some un supported philosophical stance we keep providing a better life for everyone.
:dohWe spend half a trillion dollars on the defense department per year. We have the money easy. Not to mention if you understand how the flow of money works and the banking sector, we create money out of nothing. We can easily provide the necessities of life to everyone, but we choose not to do it for various stupid reasons.
Oh G_d!Why is doing something for the common good is wrong?
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them. A single person or minority of people should not be able to keep something off the floor. Things should be presented and voted on in congress. If they are all against it then they are all against it, but it should be presented. Any house representative should be able to bring forth a budget or bill and have it voted on. If the majority of the house finds it acceptable they vote on it. This should apply to both parties so that bills or a budget which have enough bipartisan support to pass can pass. Letting the speaker decide which legislation he wants to vote on gives him way too much power. No matter which party it is they can restrict votes on all legislation based on the desires of the people who elect them which are just the members of that congressman's district. The US is litterally being held hostage at this pointy by the minority of people who happen to be the majority in boehner's district, and that is simply unacceptable for any representative to have that sort of power.
This is obviously a flaw that needs to be corrected ASAP to stop this sort of thing from happening again. If the majority of the house were actually continuing to vote down this sort of thing then that would be better, but since it seems the majority is ready to pass a clean budget it should not be held up, and to go further than that how much legislation has been held up by boehner's or any other speaker's personal bias in the past? It is insane if a dem does it, and it is insane if a republican does it. Whatever the result of all of this shutdown becomes we have to make sure one of the effects is to eliminate the rules that prevent a vote by the house and senate based on a single person or minority hissy fit. Yes, that needs to include the filibuster.
Thats debatable since the majority probably doesn't even know what it really is....especially conservatives.
When it's called the Obamacare they don't like it....but when it's called the Affordable Care Act they do seem to like it. So lets give it a chance, shall we? Because as time goes on, more people probably will like it. In fact they'll probably like it so much that Republicans will never be able to repeal it. hehehehe
BTW....I think the OP is talking about "up or down votes" and "filabusters"....not the ACA.
Regardless, we have to get the practice of health insurance out of the private sector. Prices are only bound to go up at the expense of peoples' health.
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them.
I think you just proved my point that most don't even know what the ACA is or whats in it.
The ACA anticipated the need for more doctors.....
"...The National Health Service Corps’ Students to Service Loan Repayment Program was created by the ACA to help fourth-year medical students pay for their education in return for providing primary care services to underserved urban or rural areas. The loan awards were distributed by the National Health Service Corps and span 29 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico....<snip>.....
Recipients of these funds are required to serve three years of full-time service or six years of part-time service. The number of clinicians serving in the National Health Service Corps has nearly tripled during the past five years, according to HHS. About 10,000 primary care health care professionals are serving more than 10 million people at 14,000 health care sites....read..."
ACA starts repaying some medical student loans for primary care - amednews.com
Medical Students and Health System Reform
You're right. It should be a simple majority rules approach. Between the House and the Senate and the White House, we currently have 279 elected Republicans and 256 elected Democrats.
Every one of them should present bills to vote on every single day and all of the votes should be taken immediately without reading them as they did with Obamacare. This way, we could have 537 improvements to or country implemented every single day of the year every year. Majority rules and the country is healed!
You're a genius!
So when the house sent bills it passed to the senate, that funding various parts of the government, the senate should have just voted for them, rather than allowing harry to simply not allow a vote on them? Yep.
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them. A single person or minority of people should not be able to keep something off the floor. Things should be presented and voted on in congress. If they are all against it then they are all against it, but it should be presented. Any house representative should be able to bring forth a budget or bill and have it voted on. If the majority of the house finds it acceptable they vote on it. This should apply to both parties so that bills or a budget which have enough bipartisan support to pass can pass. Letting the speaker decide which legislation he wants to vote on gives him way too much power. No matter which party it is they can restrict votes on all legislation based on the desires of the people who elect them which are just the members of that congressman's district. The US is litterally being held hostage at this pointy by the minority of people who happen to be the majority in boehner's district, and that is simply unacceptable for any representative to have that sort of power.
This is obviously a flaw that needs to be corrected ASAP to stop this sort of thing from happening again. If the majority of the house were actually continuing to vote down this sort of thing then that would be better, but since it seems the majority is ready to pass a clean budget it should not be held up, and to go further than that how much legislation has been held up by boehner's or any other speaker's personal bias in the past? It is insane if a dem does it, and it is insane if a republican does it. Whatever the result of all of this shutdown becomes we have to make sure one of the effects is to eliminate the rules that prevent a vote by the house and senate based on a single person or minority hissy fit. Yes, that needs to include the filibuster.
And you have no legitimate argument so you make one up to argue against. If you are going to play with yourself get a room, if you are here to respond do it to what I say not what you wish I had said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?