The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Azalin]

I've always been curious how someone could assert that they have a "right" to something which is a commodity with a finite supply, which is 100% reliant on others to produce.

 

I've yet to hear an answer which is sufficient.

 

Anyone care to try?

 

 

 

That's a good question for DC Tom

 

Time to lean on the smartest guy in the room.

 

It's a good question for everyone.

 

It's not intended to receive and answer, it's intended to make people think.

 

So give it some thought - where do rights come from?

[Meathead]

 

I'm so sick of trying to sift through crap to try to find out the real deal on things. All these posts in my social media feeds about rape, etc. - and all I knew was that it was wrong without even knowing anything.

 

on one partial way don is right, there really IS a lot of fake news in our mainstream media

 

and its not just politics, its everything now. you have to cross reference everything to try to get a handle on how to shave off the spin and find the truth thats now buried under bull ****

its a fkg plague on our culture

and i cant entirely blame the media, either. we as citizens are the ones that are enabling it, incentivizing it. our fixation with social technology and its incredibly ease at creating insulated silos of groupthink has dramatically exacerbated this problem. we after all buy their stories, and its our own hardening of bias that enables it

[Meathead]

I've always been curious how someone could assert that they have a "right" to something which is a commodity with a finite supply, which is 100% reliant on others to produce.

 

I've yet to hear an answer which is sufficient.

 

Anyone care to try?

 

 

 

Time to lean on the smartest guy in the room.

 

well thank you for saying so. i will do my best

 

as a culture advances it gets to a point where its abundance makes it obvious it has enough resources to permanently address an element of well being for all its citizens. we arrived at that point with food a while ago, theres enough resources so that nobody has to go hungry in america. it would be ridiculous to allow someone to starve in this country

 

its time we take that step with healthcare. yes, its a difficult rock to push up the hill, but we definitely have the resources to do it. we should not be having our citizens compete on the ability to get competent healthcare when with some effort we would be able to accomplish serving everybody

 

im glad don made the comment about australias healthcare. theres so many countries with much less than we have that are able to cover everyone. you cant tell me that we dont have the intelligence to at least replicate that, if not improve on it pretty dramatically

 

yes, its going to cost more and we are going to have to make adjustments. yet its an idea whose time has come. we have the ability and we have recently generated the will as a collective. its going to happen

 

as magox said, the people are making the choice of quantity over quality. i dont think its as dire as it sounds. even the bottom rung will be better than the nothing millions have had for way too long. options will develop that allow better means people to get better care

 

however they do it, it has to be everybody participating. considering that every single person needs healthcare throughout their lives to get and stay healthy, i think thats very fair

Edited May 7, 2017 by Meathead

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's not the case that healthcare should be a right, doesn't address it's finite nature, and doesn't address the fact that it doesn't exist at all but for the fact that other individuals produce it.

 

Try again.

[Meathead]

i think it does. hence our chasm of a divide

[Doc Brown]

The debate of whether it's a right is pointless now as the Democrats made it a right on the federal level. Taking a right away once you have one does not sit well with people (look at the opposition on any measure that threatens the right to own a gun). Instead of Republicans debating whether health care is a right or not, they're debating about how to find a way to reorganize funds and save money by taking away certain EHB's and funding for Medicaid. Even if passed in its current form it would still be considered Obamacare Lite. What state would have the political courage to opt out of the preexisting condition clause? Republicans have been in a lose lose situation no matter what they do with health care.

[Meathead]

i wouldnt call it courage i would call it cold heartedness. the rest i like

republicans would be far far faaar better off if they focused on fixing obamacare. if they did that then it would start being called trumpcare and he would go down as the only president to get a working hc plan for everybody. even i would donate to a orange haired statue for that

[DC Tom]

 

That's a good question for DC Tom

 

Time to lean on the smartest guy in the room.

 

Simple. They don't.

[Dorkington]

For me, I've always seen 'rights' as something more basic.... so when I hear things like 'healthcare as a right' I kinda cringe, even though I support universal healthcare initiatives. To me, rights are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Public healthcare, public education, emergency services, public roads, etc to me are more benefits, perks, or whatever. Services and products that we as a country, state, community, decide it's in the best interest to have for the greater good, as decided by democracy.

[Magox]

The majority of the country cares about expanding coverage. Anything that doesn't cover nearly as many if not more people than Obamacare will be viewed and reported as going in the wrong direction and most likely won't either become law or have the longevity to sustain itself.

 

If Republicans were politically smart, which they aren't, what they should do to try to avoid Medicare-for-all becoming a permanent fixture in our lives, should try to institute many market based reforms along with the acceptance that the most of the public wants there to be a high priority on expanding coverage which would entail a high dosage of subsidies.

 

I like the idea of the high risk pools, it makes lots of sense. The idea of moving a portion of the population away from most of the risk pools would without doubt lower premiums. If implemented properly, this would be a game changer. Of course the key is to not let anyone slip through the cracks. There shouldn't be a mandate for the private carriers through normal risk pools to cover people with pre ex, but there should be a guarantee that through the high risk pools that are subsidized by the government that coverage for anyone wanting to obtain coverage can get it. However, there should be some sort of penalty or blow back for people who wait to get coverage until they are sick. That would be a problematic issue, but it can be overcome.

 

There is a real opportunity for the GOP to show the world that there is a better alternative that could achieve near universal healthcare that wouldn't be a solution that comes solely from the government but a partnership between some creative elements from the private markets along with the government. It can be done.

 

The idea that society is going to accept a healthcare system that has lots of lower income and sicker people not having the means to get coverage are over. That ship has sailed.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

I've always been curious how someone could assert that they have a "right" to something which is a commodity with a finite supply, which is 100% reliant on others to produce.

 

I've yet to hear an answer which is sufficient.

 

Anyone care to try?

 

I'll take a swing, purely to play Devil's Advocate more so than because it's my actual position:

 

In a rapidly decaying world, one where our environment is assailed by pollution and our food supply is weaponized with all sorts of additives that impact not just the eater's health, but can change their genetic code to such a degree it impacts their off spring, not creating an equal playing ground for health care will only speed up the devolution of our world (and country) from one where everyone has an equal chance to one where only those who come from families well off enough to afford clean food, water, and air (for multiple generations) will be able to thrive. The rest of the people will be too busy paying out the nose for basic care or too sick to truly compete.

 

If the state is going to allow corporations to run wild, own the government, own the food supply, and pollute at will - then the state must also adapt and provide extreme safe guards for its people. If not, then you are condemning the majority of those born into this world to a life of pain, disease, suffering -- without any recourse.

 

We all (can probably) agree that individual choices matter. If you choose to smoke, knowing the risks involved, most would have less sympathy for those who smoke and get various diseases because of it.

 

But if you have no choice in the matter, which a growing segment of our population does not - either through economic strangulation (not being able to afford clean food, water, and air) or through the outcome of the genetic lottery ticket we all enter this world with - then it's not a victim mentality... it's true victimization.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[DC Tom]

For me, I've always seen 'rights' as something more basic.... so when I hear things like 'healthcare as a right' I kinda cringe, even though I support universal healthcare initiatives. To me, rights are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Public healthcare, public education, emergency services, public roads, etc to me are more benefits, perks, or whatever. Services and products that we as a country, state, community, decide it's in the best interest to have for the greater good, as decided by democracy.

 

This is why I like you. Even when we disagree, you're at least rational,

[tomato can]

 

I'll take a swing, purely to play Devil's Advocate more so than because it's my actual position:

 

In a rapidly decaying world, one where our environment is assailed by pollution and our food supply is weaponized with all sorts of additives that impact not just the eater's health, but can change their genetic code to such a degree it impacts their off spring, not creating an equal playing ground for health care will only speed up the devolution of our world (and country) from one where everyone has an equal chance to one where only those who come from families well off enough to afford clean food, water, and air (for multiple generations) will be able to thrive. The rest of the people will be too busy paying out the nose for basic care or too sick to truly compete.

 

If the state is going to allow corporations to run wild, own the government, own the food supply, and pollute at will - then the state must also adapt and provide extreme safe guards for its people. If not, then you are condemning the majority of those born into this world to a life of pain, disease, suffering -- without any recourse.

 

We all (can probably) agree that individual choices matter. If you choose to smoke, knowing the risks involved, most would have less sympathy for those who smoke and get various diseases because of it.

 

But if you have no choice in the matter, which a growing segment of our population does not - either through economic strangulation (not being able to afford clean food, water, and air) or through the outcome of the genetic lottery ticket we all enter this world with - then it's not a victim mentality... it's true victimization.

I understand what you are saying but an awful lot of people do have a choice. It takes some effort but lead healthier lifestyles. Teach your kids to plant a garden and cook healthier meals at home. Stop eating McDonalds, Burger King, or ordering out for pizza with such regularity. Stop buying cases of soda pop and allowing your kids to sit in front of the computer or video game for hours guzzling down soda. Exercise about 3-4 times a week. Planet Fitness is $10 per month, that's very affordable. Go outside and take a walk after dinner, it's free. Take your kids to the gym with you and teach them to exercise and workout. Take up swimming at the local park. You did touch on smoking...limit the amount of alcohol you consume, and don't use drugs. It takes some effort but it would go a long way towards making sure you are not suffering with diseases and other illnesses.

 

People pollute indiscriminately too. Stop throwing your trash by the roadside, walk it over to the nearest trash can. When your car is leaking oil, gas, or some other fluid repair it. Sure you might not be going out shopping or clubbing for a week or two but your environment will be cleaner. If you are going to save a few bucks and change your own oil or transmission fluid dispose of it properly, don't dump it down the nearest sewer or into the nearest river. There are things we can do to be healthier and have a cleaner environment but a lot of people are just lazy and irresponsible.

Edited May 7, 2017 by tomato can

[Meathead]

The idea that society is going to accept a healthcare system that has lots of lower income and sicker people not having the means to get coverage are over. That ship has sailed.

 

thank god

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

thank god

It's not true even in the US, and certainly not true the world over.

[Chef Jim]

Put sufficient resources forward to ensure supply gets as close to meeting demand as possible.

 

 

 

That was difficult...

It's easy when you don't have an idea without a plan to put it into motion. Let's hear your idea on how to put sufficient amount of resources forward. So now the government is going to regulate the number of people in the medical profession? Are they going to force people into it? You must have a plan right

[HappyDays]

For me, I've always seen 'rights' as something more basic.... so when I hear things like 'healthcare as a right' I kinda cringe, even though I support universal healthcare initiatives. To me, rights are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Public healthcare, public education, emergency services, public roads, etc to me are more benefits, perks, or whatever. Services and products that we as a country, state, community, decide it's in the best interest to have for the greater good, as decided by democracy.

I agree with this and I think people get confused by the word "right" because it's a vague term with a bunch of different meanings. There are what I call "inherent rights" (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) and then there are what I call "state-given rights" (public roads, gun ownership, etc.). State-given rights can be taken away (i.e. drive recklessly and you can no longer drive on public roads), whereas inherent rights can't (even if you commit murder in the name of Islam no one can force you to convert to a new religion). Healthcare would obviously be a state-given right, there is nothing inherent to it. And it's finite, whereas inherent rights have no limit. So when people say they think Americans have a "right to affordable healthcare" I don't think they're talking about it in the same sense as freedom of speech. They're talking about it like the right to own a gun. Conservatives should stop trying to argue that healthcare can't be a right because it's finite - the other side already knows that, but many things we know to be finite we also know as rights. It's just semantics. At the end of the day the question is whether we as a society are able to provide healthcare to all without making things worse.

[Meathead]

well said

[B-Man]

Fact Check: It´s a Lie That the GOP Healthcare Bill Abandons People With Pre-Existing Conditions

by Guy Benson

 

Original Article

 

As we described yesterday, there are some concerning policy elements of the House-passed American Health Care Act, which the Senate would be wise to explore and rectify over the coming weeks.

 

The bill -- and that's all it is at this point: a work in progress -- repeals and alters significant portions of the Democratic Party's failing experiment in "affordability." But based on rhetoric from elected Democrats and the Left generally, one might assume that Obamacare was called the "Pre-existing Conditions Coverage Act" (side-stepping the whole "choice and affordability" fairy tale they peddled), and that the Republican bill obliterates those protections.

 

The proposed law would be a "death warrant" for sick women and children, they shriek, casting Obamacare opponents as the moral equivalent of accessories to murder. This is demagogic, hyperbolic, inaccurate nonsense. To review the actual facts, even under an exceedingly unlikely scenario in which the Senate passed the House bill without making a single alteration, people with pre-existing conditions are offered several layers of protection:

 

Continued at the link:

[Tiberius]

 

"Most of the benefits go to millionaires," Stephanopoulos said.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-ahca-healthcare-bill-george-stephanopoulos-2017-5

 

Gosh, the number of lies told yesterday by Republicans just pathetic.