If ObamaCare is such a "Success"....

[Spartacus FPV]

No it doesn't, unless you as a libertarian think your ideas for laws or changes to laws are bad because the majority of people don't support them which would be kind of bizarre I think.

Lets be clear, I do not believe in appeals to population. A great number of people are idiots, so I care not for mob rule.

I just meant that its possible that hypothetically people could not support a law that would actually be good for them because they don't understand how the law works or that they've been persuaded by a dishonest narrative.

Regardless of how they feel or how wrong they might be, to force it upon a majority of free people who are opposed to it is wrong to me, especially when you use the words "good for them" because that is the mentality of a nanny who "knows better."

As a libertarian, a law forced upon a free people who by majority should be represented by their leaders to repeal it given their opposition, is bad and should rightly be repealed. The War on Drugs come to mind, no matter how objectively bad drugs are or how "good for them" an effective prohibition would be.

Edit: If you can force a law upon a free people, because you know better and they have no recourse to repeal said law in the political process, despite their numbers, they are not truly free. They are being dictated to by a nanny.

 

[tres borrachos]

sorry, my company calls it process review. I'm suprised you dont realize its the same thing being an expert and all. But that doesnt change the facts I've posted. Here they are again.

You said “we should just pass a law for guaranteed access.” This required you to ignore the failure of several states who did just that. On a side note, you then proceeded to not understand what I was posting or why. Clearly a sign you have comprehension issues.

You said “we should implement it in increments” This required you to ignore the failure in Kentucky was made more spectacular by implementing it piecemeal. And of course “piecemeal” implementation was based on your made up conclusion that “piecemeal implementation” would be easier to fix than Obamacare. Its not a structure, it’s a law. any piece of it could be fixed without affecting other parts.

And of course you ignore that Obamacare is just a federal version of Romneycare. Romneycare and Obamacare learned from the failures of less “reform”. A process Improvement so to speak, which is why there is so little that needs fixing. so for someone with Process Improvement “experience” you don’t seem to have any.

Process improvement is a system. Process review isn't.

Since you want to talk about Kentucky, go ahead. One state tried it and failed. Sorry, but business process improvement is a multi-billion industry. It works when it's done right and by experts.

Romneycare has nothing to do with BPI.

Come on back when you understand what I'm posting about and we can go into it more.

 

[Vern]

I see Tres bringing her real world professional experience to the discussion, and I also see you dismissing that as "empty factless rhetoric", probable because it ran counter to your party issued talking points.

If you consistently apply and measure everything using the same yardstick, I guess you'd be condemned to repeating the same things over and over, doing the same things over and over, expecting different outcomes, as you'd not be able to learn from experience, since you dismiss it so readily.

Its empty factless rhetoric because she cant back it up. You too seem to have a comprehension problem. anyhoo, tres offers her 'experience' to justify her opinion. I offered a real world example of what she suggests. It failed. See, I backed up my point, she didnt. I also posted as a bonus, previous clueless things she's posted about Obamacare. Kinda shows she's not going to let the facts get in the way of her agenda. Just like you eohrn

what will you believe, someone's claims of knowledge or someone posting an actual example. Hey, let me forward you an email I got from a nigerian prince. It could be quite the moneymaking oppurtunity for you.

 

[Wiseone]

Lets be clear, I do not believe in appeals to population. A great number of people are idiots, so I care not for mob rule.

Regardless of how they feel or how wrong they might be, to force it upon a majority of free people who are opposed to it is wrong to me, especially when you use the words "good for them" because that is the mentality of a nanny who "knows better."

As a libertarian, a law forced upon a free people who by majority should be represented by their leaders to repeal it given their opposition, is bad and should rightly be repealed. The War on Drugs come to mind, no matter how objectively bad drugs are or how "good for them" an effective prohibition would be.

You're not being very consistent, you said that's how it works in a democracy but then don't believe in appeals to population because a lot of people are idiots then in your next sentence you said its wrong to force a majority of free people to follow a law they don't agree with. So what is it?

Anyway all laws are forced on people, even if its not the majority of people its forced on someone somewhere who would rather do without it. People in government must make decisions based on an assessment of the situation they are trying to address and while taking into account the opinions of people, not being a slave to them.

 

[eohrnberger]

sorry, my company calls it process review. I'm suprised you dont realize its the same thing being an expert and all. But that doesnt change the facts I've posted. Here they are again.

You said “we should just pass a law for guaranteed access.” This required you to ignore the failure of several states who did just that. On a side note, you then proceeded to not understand what I was posting or why. Clearly a sign you have comprehension issues.

You said “we should implement it in increments” This required you to ignore the failure in Kentucky was made more spectacular by implementing it piecemeal. And of course “piecemeal” implementation was based on your made up conclusion that “piecemeal implementation” would be easier to fix than Obamacare. Its not a structure, it’s a law. any piece of it could be fixed without affecting other parts.

And of course you ignore that Obamacare is just a federal version of Romneycare. Romneycare and Obamacare learned from the failures of less “reform”. A process Improvement so to speak, which is why there is so little that needs fixing. so for someone with Process Improvement “experience” you don’t seem to have any.

Point of fact: ObamaCare is NOT just a federal version of RomneyCare. There are some significant differences.

How are the laws different

• Size and scope – The Massachusetts law applies to the 6.5 million residents of the commonwealth. The ACA covers more than 300 million people spread across 50 diverse states. Massachusetts began its reform with a rate of uninsured that was half that of the nation as a whole, and it was written to meet the unique needs of state residents. These differences led Governor Mitt Romney to oppose the ACA. While Romney’s health reform is working in Massachusetts, he believes one model cannot meet the needs of all 50 states. In addition, the ACA has a much broader scope in that it includes provisions to address healthcare provider shortages, increase wellness and nutrition programs, bolster community health centers, and adjust Medicaid and Medicare.

• Cost sharing for preventative services – The ACA requires insurance policies cover preventative services, such as cancer screenings, with no co-pays or deductibles. This provision is designed to promote wellness and diagnose disease in its earliest stages. The Massachusetts law allowed insurers to require co-pays for these services.

• Medicaid expansion – In Massachusetts, Medicaid was expanded for children, parents, pregnant women and the long-term unemployed. Under the ACA, states have the option of expanding the Medicaid program to all families and Individuals with incomes up to 138 percent* of the FPL. The District of Columbia and 25 states are currently planning to exercise this option.

*133 percent, plus a 5 percent automatic income disregard

Romneycare Vs. Obamacare: Key Similarities & Differences « CBS Boston

They are, however, based on the same framework: Obamacare and Romneycare: same framework doesn't mean same results | Gabrielle Gurley | Comment is free | theguardian.com

But there are crucial differences: Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference | The American Spectator

So no, asserting that "Obamacare is just a federal version of Romneycare" is not correct nor factual.

But, since this goes against Vern's narrative, I'm expecting yet another claim of "empty factless rhetoric" assessment of this port by Vern. (*sigh*)

 

[tres borrachos]

Vern, you don't understand process improvement, as evidenced by your posts.

I know you love to argue ad nauseum, but you're arguing about a business subject which has nothing to do with Obama.

 

[tres borrachos]

Point of fact: ObamaCare is NOT just a federal version of RomneyCare. There are some significant differences.
Romneycare Vs. Obamacare: Key Similarities & Differences « CBS Boston

They are, however, based on the same framework: Obamacare and Romneycare: same framework doesn't mean same results | Gabrielle Gurley | Comment is free | theguardian.com

But there are crucial differences: Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference | The American Spectator

So no, asserting that "Obamacare is just a federal version of Romneycare" is not correct nor factual.

But, since this goes against Vern's narrative, I'm expecting yet another claim of "empty factless rhetoric" assessment of this port by Vern. (*sigh*)

I'd have to say after reading Vern's posts in this thread that he doesn't understand what he's posting about.

 

[tres borrachos]

Other very key differences between "Obamacare" and "Romneycare":

"Romneycare" was for one state only
The uninsured rate in MA prior to its passing was 6% - the unemployment rate of the USA is almost 16%
"Romneycare" had bipartisan input

And sadly, after almost 8 years in existence, MA still has the highest healthcare costs in the country.

 

[jmotivator]

Useless post. Do you have a counter point or not? Some of us are here to discuss the ACA, not get in digs.

I actually have to laugh every time I read a vitriolic Vern screed next to his "slightly liberal" label.

 

[sangha]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

You mean like supporting incremental changes even though they have been shown to be failures?

 

[tres borrachos]

I actually have to laugh every time I read a vitriolic Vern screed next to his "slightly liberal" label.

There are many on here who have "slightly liberal" next to their names, and when you read their posts, they are right. Vern calling himself "slightly liberal" is a terrible misnomer.

 

[jmotivator]

There are many on here who have "slightly liberal" next to their names, and when you read their posts, they are right. Vern calling himself "slightly liberal" is a terrible misnomer.

Well, in Vern's defense, he never really clarifies what he mostly is.

 

[Summerwind]

It's probably the only thing that could be done as a single package, but unfortunately the polls don't say the American people support it. It's been proposed in the past with no success.

Healthcare reform should be a series of smaller, incremental steps.

Actually at the time, people supported it just fine, it was the insurance lobby, Republicans, and BlueDog Dems who are in the pockets of said lobbyists that killed single payer and public option, both/either of which would've reduced costs.

 

[clownboy]

Actually at the time, people supported it just fine, it was the insurance lobby, Republicans, and BlueDog Dems who are in the pockets of said lobbyists that killed single payer and public option, both/either of which would've reduced costs.

Same old debunked nonsense. Obama himself killed single payer very early on in the Obamacare debates. He got the support from insurance companies and the following of the low info crowd who still believes single payer is on the radar for the dems from his bargain with the execs.

 

[Vern]

Vern, you don't understand process improvement, as evidenced by your posts.

I know you love to argue ad nauseum, but you're arguing about a business subject which has nothing to do with Obama.

I have an idea tres, back up your point with something other than "I know". I know what happened in Kentucky and I posted it. And don't forget, I posted when you "knew" we could just magically pass a guaranteed access law.

 

[iguanaman]

I think it's a bit worse than that. Obama himself negotiated closed doors with the insurance companies early on to take single payer permanently off the table. All the while letting Pelosi go on and on about the glories of single payer. He got the big dollar support of the insurance companies (to avoid single payer and give them a new market) AND he got the votes from the public who were thinking this is an evolutionary step towards single payer.

He abandoned single payer early because no bill would pass with it in. The insurers would spend billions to make sure of that. Getting the insurers on board was the single most important step to implementing any reform and he did the same with big Pharma. You are naïve to think otherwise.

 

[tres borrachos]

I have an idea tres, back up your point with something other than "I know". I know what happened in Kentucky and I posted it. And don't forget, I posted when you "knew" we could just magically pass a guaranteed access law.

You are clinging to a post I made about another matter and trying to bring it in here. I said they could have passed a law that would extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. That has nothing to do with process improvement to reduce costs. As I said, it would be better if you read the posts you're commenting on so you understand what's being discussed.

I don't have to back up a point, Vern. It's my opinion that healthcare costs would improve if meaningful reform was implemented based on measurable, quantifiable improvements that are rolled out with milestones and much data collection, analysis of data, and recommendations for improvement in smaller pieces. You don't understand what I'm talking about when I say that, and to be honest, I don't have the time to teach message board posters about business process improvement. You can read a lot about the subject in your spare time.

 

[Summerwind]

Same old debunked nonsense. Obama himself killed single payer very early on in the Obamacare debates. He got the support from insurance companies and the following of the low info crowd who still believes single payer is on the radar for the dems from his bargain with the execs.

I believe I already said that. Perhaps you don't realize that Obama has been pretty much a BlueDog since his inauguration. Just because I don't single him out, doesn't mean he's exempt from my comment.

 

[Vern]

Point of fact: ObamaCare is NOT just a federal version of RomneyCare. There are some significant differences.
Romneycare Vs. Obamacare: Key Similarities & Differences « CBS Boston

They are, however, based on the same framework: Obamacare and Romneycare: same framework doesn't mean same results | Gabrielle Gurley | Comment is free | theguardian.com

But there are crucial differences: Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference | The American Spectator

So no, asserting that "Obamacare is just a federal version of Romneycare" is not correct nor factual.

But, since this goes against Vern's narrative, I'm expecting yet another claim of "empty factless rhetoric" assessment of this port by Vern. (*sigh*)

mmmm, that's funny eohrn, I say "Obamacare is just a federal version of Romneycare" and you feel the need to point that Obamacare covers more people. you really got me there eohrn. Let me rephrase so for you

Obamacare is just a federal version of Romney care that expands Medicaid and has preventative services. Is that better? You can babble about "framework" and whatnot but lets just say, Obamcare is based on Romneycare. And what's really funny when did the guy who claims "loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgage loans" become such a stickler for details. So Mr Stickler, please explain the basis for "loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgage loans"

 

[Vern]

You are clinging to a post I made about another matter and trying to bring it in here. I said they could have passed a law that would extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

that post just shows how you'll say something because you really really really want it to be true. And it shows how you'll ignore the facts that prove your "opinion" wrong. So its relevant because you back up your latest claim with "I know". Your other posts show we shouldn't trust you simply saying "I know".

That has nothing to do with process improvement to reduce costs. As I said, it would be better if you read the posts you're commenting on so you understand what's being discussed

I find it odd that you are unaware of the cost saving measures in Obamacare. Greenbeard has done an excellent job posting them. ( and notice how Greenbeard didn't beg us to believe him. He simply backed up his posts.)

I don't have to back up a point, Vern.

Yes tres, we are aware of your arrogant attitude but its a debate forum not a chat room.

It's my opinion that healthcare costs would improve if meaningful reform was implemented based on measurable, quantifiable improvements that are rolled out with milestones and much data collection, analysis of data, and recommendations for improvement in smaller pieces. You don't understand what I'm talking about when I say that, and to be honest, I don't have the time to teach message board posters about business process improvement. You can read a lot about the subject in your spare time.

and you've demonstrated quite well you don't care about facts so I have no respect for your opinion. And again, this is a debate forum, not a chat room.

 

[tres borrachos]

When all else fails, you pull out the very tired "this is a debate forum, not a chat room" meme, Vern. You overuse it.

I gather you didn't read up on process improvement, so now you're just melting down because you don't understand it. I told you I don't have time to teach you about it, Vern. I'd do some Googling and learn about it, and when you come back and are ready to debate the merits of healthcare reform via the method that's universally accepted as making real improvments, we can do it. Until then, I'm just debating a subject you don't know anything about. It's like me trying to argue with a motorcycle mechanic. I don't know anything about motorcycles so why would I bother?

 

[eohrnberger]

mmmm, that's funny eohrn, I say "Obamacare is just a federal version of Romneycare" and you feel the need to point that Obamacare covers more people. you really got me there eohrn. Let me rephrase so for you

Obamacare is just a federal version of Romney care that expands Medicaid and has preventative services. Is that better? You can babble about "framework" and whatnot but lets just say, Obamcare is based on Romneycare.

Point being, an demonstrated with the links provided, that ObamaCare IS NOT the same as RomneyCare uprated to the federal level. It's a false conclusion, and not an accurate fact. Just felt that I had to point that out.

And what's really funny when did the guy who claims "loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgage loans" become such a stickler for details. So Mr Stickler, please explain the basis for "loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgage loans"

This isn't the mortgage bubble thread.

 

[sangha]

Point being, an demonstrated with the links provided, that ObamaCare IS NOT the same as RomneyCare uprated to the federal level. It's a false conclusion, and not an accurate fact. Just felt that I had to point that out.

The differences are marginal

 

[Spartacus FPV]

You're not being very consistent, you said that's how it works in a democracy but then don't believe in appeals to population because a lot of people are idiots then in your next sentence you said its wrong to force a majority of free people to follow a law they don't agree with. So what is it?

You seem to have missed my point of starting out with the fact that I do not accept an appeal to population ALONE as an argument, its only a fallacy if that is the entirety of your case rather than this case which is more complicated than the mere opinions of a population.

That being said the argument I was making was that just because alot of people disagree with something doesn't make it wrong, but when dealing with Government (which is force) especially representational government, if the elected officials are ignoring their constituents (like when calling for a repeal) THAT would be wrong.

Anyway all laws are forced on people, even if its not the majority of people its forced on someone somewhere who would rather do without it. People in government must make decisions based on an assessment of the situation they are trying to address and while taking into account the opinions of people, not being a slave to them.

All VERY true, which is why the force of our government must be carefully wielded, never in a heavy handed manner. Whenever ANY law is proposed, I believe each and every one of our countrymen should consider "is this issue serious enough to send men with guns to my neighbors house for noncompliance."

 

[eohrnberger]

The differences are marginal

Yet they exist, and were at least glossed over if not more, and claimed to be the same thing when in fact they are not.