Doc Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 That may be an effect, but I highly doubt it was the intent. Sure it was. My conservative friends and I have been talking about it for awhile now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Sure it was. My conservative friends and I have been talking about it for awhile now. Can you and your conservative friends please talk about my raise being bigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The Individual Mandate for Dummies . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Let's not kid ourselves, this bill was crafted to make the size of government larger and increase the dependency from more segments of the US electorate on the ever growing reach of government in order to structurally enhance liberals prospects of elections moving forward. If that was the intent, it sure was a clumsy and stupid implementation of such. Again, it would have been better to just nationalize the insurance industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 If that was the intent, it sure was a clumsy and stupid implementation of such. Again, it would have been better to just nationalize the insurance industry. It might have been better but it wasn't possible. This is just a backdoor way of accomplishing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Can you and your conservative friends please talk about my raise being bigger? What raise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 What raise? You mean you guys had nothing to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 You mean you guys had nothing to do with it? Did Barry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Did Barry? I think ot was Helga Helswayer and your friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I think ot was Helga Helswayer and your friends. Might have been. Just be glad you still have a job. Nevermind the raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Might have been. Just be glad you still have a job. Nevermind the raise. You aren't kidding about that, but I will happily take the extra $$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 I told you what my solutions were a couple of days ago. You never responded. And those were, one more time since I do not recall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 If it were up to me, you'd live how I say you should live, under penalty of massive fines/taxes, or loss of health insurance. IOW, treating the disease, not the symptoms. And anyone receiving public funds for health insurance would have their histories made public. I am not sure what the point of this response was? Can you clarify, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 If that was the intent, it sure was a clumsy and stupid implementation of such. Again, it would have been better to just nationalize the insurance industry. It was the intent, and anything that includes the outright "nationalization" of any industry is not just a clear cut political loser but is completely unpalatable and smacks of Venezuelan Chavez style socialism. If we continue to go the path that we are steamrolling towards, maybe in about 10 years that will be acceptable, but as of today, it's simply not politically viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 It was the intent, and anything that includes the outright "nationalization" of any industry is not just a clear cut political loser but is completely unpalatable and smacks of Venezuelan Chavez style socialism. If we continue to go the path that we are steamrolling towards, maybe in about 10 years that will be acceptable, but as of today, it's simply not politically viable. The Health Insurance "Industry" isn't a noble or virtuous industry. In fact, it stands in the way of building a stronger, healthier America. Removing it, like a malignant tumor, would be the best thing this country could do for itself in the long AND short run. Health Insurance as an industry provides NOTHING for America but increased costs for patients and doctors. It's an industry that values profits over health, death over life. A country cannot prosper under such a system -- individuals can, but a nation cannot. You want a stronger America? You need healthy citizens. That means providing a health care system that promises help to those that need it rather than just those that can afford it. That logic runs counter to everything the Health Insurance industry stands for. The demise of any empire or nation has always been tied to the declining health of its population. Medicare is single payer. Veteran care is single payer. Government employees use a single payer ... why? Because it's the best health care system available. It's only a matter of time before every US citizen is on a single payer system. I hope it's in my lifetime but it probably won't happen. /Health Insurance rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I am not sure what the point of this response was? Can you clarify, please? "I" = "your doctors." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) The Health Insurance "Industry" isn't a noble or virtuous industry. In fact, it stands in the way of building a stronger, healthier America. Removing it, like a malignant tumor, would be the best thing this country could do for itself in the long AND short run. Health Insurance as an industry provides NOTHING for America but increased costs for patients and doctors. It's an industry that values profits over health, death over life. A country cannot prosper under such a system -- individuals can, but a nation cannot. You want a stronger America? You need healthy citizens. That means providing a health care system that promises help to those that need it rather than just those that can afford it. That logic runs counter to everything the Health Insurance industry stands for. The demise of any empire or nation has always been tied to the declining health of its population. Medicare is single payer. Veteran care is single payer. Government employees use a single payer ... why? Because it's the best health care system available. It's only a matter of time before every US citizen is on a single payer system. I hope it's in my lifetime but it probably won't happen. /Health Insurance rant This is such a load of **** I stand in awe. Insurance has it's holes, but the crux of the problem is 5% of people using 50% of healthcare (end of life, fat unhealthy people), and providers being terribly inefficient which they are allowed to do based on the pay structure of insurance which followed the trend set by...you guessed it...medicare. Nobody anywhere in that system is anything but a rational actor, there are no evil people tanking America for personal gain. Most insurance companies make 2-3ish percent profit and a lot of them are not for profit anyway. Additionally the ACA mandates they used 80% of the money they take in on services and anything left over is paid back...on top of that the ACA is taxing the insurance companies more on that 20% left over. Plus they provide certain basic/preventative check up type services w/ no co-pay by law now...and they take you no matter how sick you are. In return of course, the mandate will compel people into the market. The bottom line is, as we all know, the cost of healthcare. There are some cost controls in medicare, and some substantial pay structure experimentation in Medicare to correct the trend it set itself decades ago. That of course, and unnecessarily sick people...people who are unGodly and unnecessarily fat and consume pills and operation after operation b/c they don't take care of themselves. And then of course the thing that every Republican said was "killing grandma" which is also reality...end of life care needs to have rational decision making in it. Every single other civilized nation realizes this. It's just insane to dump 100K into an extra year of ****ty quality of life for a 92 year old...that' sounds harsh....but it's the truth. And yes before anyone says anything, it would be the truth if it were me too. Long story short there are no "villains" but if you are looking for them they aren't the insurance companies. There's only one group that benefits from the rising costs and it sure as hell isn't them...we all know who that is.... Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 This is such a load of **** I stand in awe. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 You're welcome. Consider the above before you walk around demonizing the insurance companies. (I believe I elaborated after you posted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) Robert's flipped http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody The more I learn about this the worse it looks for Roberts. A SC justice reviewing a case of this magnitude knows the arguments back and forth before oral arguments come into the picture. For him to switch sides mid-stream looks like he had some agenda beyond proper constitutional interpretation. Whether it was his legacy, the peception of the court, or if he just pussed out to Obama's challenges, it looks like his decision was less than sincere and certainly deserving of great scrutiny. ... Long story short there are no "villains" but if you are looking for them they aren't the insurance companies. There's only one group that benefits from the rising costs and it sure as hell isn't them...we all know who that is.... This is a really good post. I think anyone who demonizes insurance companies for denying claims they're not obligated to pay (which isn't nearly as often as the propaganda would indicate) damn well better be giving to "Save the Children." Edited July 1, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts