Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obamacare really sucks...right?

Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 7:44:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. To date, Americans have saved an estimated $1 billion on their health insurance :premiums thanks to rate review. State-based Rate Review Programs were created or strengthened by the health care law.

2. Additionally, 13 million Americans have benefitted from $1.1 billion in rebates made possible by the 80/20 rule.

3. By holding insurance companies accountable, rate review and the Affordable Care Act"s Medical Loss Ratio policy (or 80/20 rule) have yielded an estimated $2.1 billion in savings to consumers in one year.
_____________
http://www.healthcare.gov...
Sapere Aude!
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I still don't have insurance at my job (won't be mandatory for a few more years), nor can find the insurance I want (a major medical with high-deductable and no (not zero, but non-existent) co-pays.

Co-pays are a major reason insurance is expensive.

And it isn't that Obamacare is a "bad" thing, in the context of its effect as being overall good. The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.

Obamacare is a bad law with good intent.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 8:18:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I still don't have insurance at my job (won't be mandatory for a few more years), nor can find the insurance I want (a major medical with high-deductable and no (not zero, but non-existent) co-pays.

Co-pays are a major reason insurance is expensive.

And it isn't that Obamacare is a "bad" thing, in the context of its effect as being overall good. The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.

Obamacare is a bad law with good intent.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 9:21:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol... You link the Gov website? That's the equivalent to me justifying Nazi ideals by linking the Nazi Party website.

As for the actual benefits that it bestows onto individuals, they are irrelevant. The bottom line of Obamacare is that it increases demand while keeping supply constant, therefore making a shortage.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 9:59:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 9:21:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Lol... You link the Gov website? That's the equivalent to me justifying Nazi ideals by linking the Nazi Party website.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:01:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.
Freedom? You don't have the right to force me to pay for your healthcare.
If I don't have insurance and can't pay for my care (emergency or otherwise), guess who pays the price? Either through higher premiums or taxes.
Sapere Aude!
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:05:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 9:21:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Lol... You link the Gov website? That's the equivalent to me justifying Nazi ideals by linking the Nazi Party website.
Any actual objections to the calculations? And there have been numerous independent anylysis of the the ACA (none that I have seen on this particular thing).
And your analogy fails. We aren't talking about justifying ideals. These are numbers and estimate. Even independent studies are based on govt. numbers the majority of the time.
As for the actual benefits that it bestows onto individuals, they are irrelevant. The bottom line of Obamacare is that it increases demand while keeping supply constant, therefore making a shortage.
Why would supply stay the same?
Sapere Aude!
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:01:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.
Freedom? You don't have the right to force me to pay for your healthcare.
If I don't have insurance and can't pay for my care (emergency or otherwise), guess who pays the price? Either through higher premiums or taxes.

Nobody should pay the price, you either do without or have to rely on private charity.

The only reason they have to raise premiums is because hospitals raise costs and this is because due to government interference, they aren't allowed to turn people away due to inability to pay.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:23:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:20:47 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/11/2012 10:01:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.
Freedom? You don't have the right to force me to pay for your healthcare.
If I don't have insurance and can't pay for my care (emergency or otherwise), guess who pays the price? Either through higher premiums or taxes.

Nobody should pay the price, you either do without or have to rely on private charity.

The only reason they have to raise premiums is because hospitals raise costs and this is because due to government interference, they aren't allowed to turn people away due to inability to pay.

So refuse care to those who can't pay? Just let them die? Wow...
Is that what America stands for? Let people die on the doorsteps of hospitals for be so audacious as to be poor. All so that people pay less in premiums.
Sapere Aude!
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:26:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:20:47 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/11/2012 10:01:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.
Freedom? You don't have the right to force me to pay for your healthcare.
If I don't have insurance and can't pay for my care (emergency or otherwise), guess who pays the price? Either through higher premiums or taxes.

Nobody should pay the price, you either do without or have to rely on private charity.

The only reason they have to raise premiums is because hospitals raise costs and this is because due to government interference, they aren't allowed to turn people away due to inability to pay.

Hospitals would likely write off the price for some lower income people, and pass the costs onto other consumers. Not that this is inherently bad, it's not, as it helps the lower income people get access to care.

Obamacare may be good in some ways like you've mentioned, but the alternative is far superior --> free market health care.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:27:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:01:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.
Freedom? You don't have the right to force me to pay for your healthcare.
If I don't have insurance and can't pay for my care (emergency or otherwise),

I want to point out that "otherwise" is not covered, you will only get emergency life-threatening care. You do not get kemo if you can't afford it or have insurance, but when you kidney fails due to your cancer, you will get help for that.
Also, these people get to file bankruptcy, which is hardly saying there is no cost for them.

guess who pays the price? Either through higher premiums or taxes.

Same could be said about anything, therefore it is a poor argument. Take a restaurant, if people's checks constantly bounce, the prices will raise to reflect the cost associated with that. Or, they'll take credit cards (which eat 2-4% for processing) and stop taking checks.

If we wanted to do something about that, we could repeal the law that forces hospitals to offer care to those that can't afford it.

Tell me, why do I need to buy a policy that offers contraceptive services? My wife refuses them, and I don't need them. This costs more. In fact, there are many regulations that states currently have, and soon feds will, that increase the cost of care.
If I could just buy insurance to protect me from cancer, it would be about $15/month (four years ago), going from an Aflac agent's word. Sign me up for cancer, heart, and major accident (like appendicitius or falling from my roof), I'll pay the couple hundred per doctor visit in the meantime. This is what I want, and because of this law, I will never get it. And, by the way, what I want is ACTUALLY insurance as it's meant to be, not healthcare.

People confuse health insurance with health care. Why does the insurance model work for auto, property, and life insurance policies? The more you use it, the more it costs. The liklier you are to get into an accident, be robbed, or die, the more it costs. But, for some magic reason, this model doesn't work for medical insurance...

As far as your supply question goes. If more people have insurance, they will likely see the doctor, right? However, this law does nothing to foster an increase in the amount of doctors. Demand (those seeking services) will go up due to Obamacare, and the supply (doctors) will stay the same. This causes a shortage.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:32:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would also like to add that Medicare is a cause for the increase in costs, too.

I have heard on numerous radio programs, by callers who say they are doctors, that Medicare only pays a percentage (30% I think) of what the hospital charges.

So, hospitals need to charge more:
1. So they get a bigger reimbursement check from Medicare (or stop taking these patients)
2. To cover the difference they are still out by those that do pay the full cost, just like they do to make up for those that don't pay

Should we make the argument that government programs have increased the cost of healthcare, too? Just as guilty as those without insurance, right?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:38:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How dare you demean the act of sucking by comparing it to Obamacare.

Any actual objections to the calculations?
I didn't see any calculations, just numbers.

So refuse care to those who can't pay? Just let them die? Wow...
Um yeah. You could have figured that out when he said "freedom" instead of strawmanning.

Is that what America stands for?
If nothing stood between London and starvation except American taxes, the American Revolution would still have happened.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:42:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:38:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So refuse care to those who can't pay? Just let them die? Wow...
Um yeah. You could have figured that out when he said "freedom" instead of strawmanning.

And didn't you just say "yeah"? It's not a strawman; it's easy to champion whatever you want from your keyboard "herp derp dude just turn them away no prob" when you ignore the very next logical step in that progression: letting people die.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:44:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And on that note, it's hilarious when internet libertarians or whoever else play the role of doctor and say let's just turn some people away.

But hey, I guess it's a total lack of empathy that turns you into an internet libertarian in the first place, right?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:45:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:44:24 PM, LeafRod wrote:
And on that note, it's hilarious when internet libertarians or whoever else play the role of doctor and say let's just turn some people away.

But hey, I guess it's a total lack of empathy that turns you into an internet libertarian in the first place, right?

Quite the opposite.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:46:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:05:37 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:21:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Lol... You link the Gov website? That's the equivalent to me justifying Nazi ideals by linking the Nazi Party website.
Any actual objections to the calculations? And there have been numerous independent anylysis of the the ACA (none that I have seen on this particular thing).
And your analogy fails. We aren't talking about justifying ideals. These are numbers and estimate. Even independent studies are based on govt. numbers the majority of the time.

Give me independent analysis of these numbers plox.

As for the actual benefits that it bestows onto individuals, they are irrelevant. The bottom line of Obamacare is that it increases demand while keeping supply constant, therefore making a shortage.
Why would supply stay the same?

Why would it change (beyond regular economic growth)?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:46:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:42:58 PM, LeafRod wrote:
At 9/11/2012 10:38:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So refuse care to those who can't pay? Just let them die? Wow...
Um yeah. You could have figured that out when he said "freedom" instead of strawmanning.

And didn't you just say "yeah"? It's not a strawman
The post where he's all "I shouldn't have to pay for your health care" is.

it's easy to champion whatever you want from your keyboard "herp derp dude just turn them away no prob" when you ignore the very next logical step in that progression: letting people die.
That's not even a thang. "Letting." You're not doing anything. Nothing to ignore.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:50:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:44:24 PM, LeafRod wrote:
And on that note, it's hilarious when internet libertarians or whoever else play the role of doctor and say let's just turn some people away.

But hey, I guess it's a total lack of empathy that turns you into an internet libertarian in the first place, right?

Oh yes, god forbid somebody actually STAY logical and consistent in their statements without contradicting themselves whenever pressured for a viewpoint in extreme situations. There is absolutely no reason to place any emotional calculation, which is oxymoronic because emotion irrational, in an economic calculation.

The "internet libertarians" want to help people- just in a different way. That reminds me of a quote by Thatcher:

"Gentlemen, if we don"t cut spending we will be bankrupt. Yes, the medicine is harsh, but the patient requires it in order to live. Should we withhold the medicine? No. We are not wrong. We did not seek election and win in order to manage the decline of a great nation."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:51:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:46:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The post where he's all "I shouldn't have to pay for your health care" is.

Alright, whatever, I was just responding to what you wrote.

That's not even a thang. "Letting." You're not doing anything. Nothing to ignore.

I don't really know what you mean. Doctors do not let people die in front of them because they can't pay. Do you mean, then, that they are removed enough from the process that they are not really letting people die in front of them? I disagree; doctors will not support policies that in effect let people die because they do not pay.

Are you arguing some much weirder semantic point? Let me reword it then: doctors will not support policies that have the ultimate effect of death due to inability to pay.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:53:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:27:30 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 10:01:26 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 8:06:32 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
The issue is that Obamacare goes against what this country was founded on, mainly freedom. I should not be required to buy a product, which in turn is required to meet certain standards. That is counter-productive to freedom and liberty.
A law putting a video camera in every room in every house and on every street corner would have a good effect (no crime would go unnoticed and the offender would be caught), but it would cost us our freedom, and that makes it a bad law.
Freedom? You don't have the right to force me to pay for your healthcare.
If I don't have insurance and can't pay for my care (emergency or otherwise),

I want to point out that "otherwise" is not covered, you will only get emergency life-threatening care. You do not get kemo if you can't afford it or have insurance, but when you kidney fails due to your cancer, you will get help for that.
Also, these people get to file bankruptcy, which is hardly saying there is no cost for them.
Obamacare mandates more coverage than simply emergency care.
guess who pays the price? Either through higher premiums or taxes.

Same could be said about anything, therefore it is a poor argument.
That logic makes no sense and the first part isn't true.
Take a restaurant, if people's checks constantly bounce, the prices will raise to reflect the cost associated with that. Or, they'll take credit cards (which eat 2-4% for processing) and stop taking checks.
Exactly. Except it is the extent to which it occurs and the effect when it happens that makes it an issue in healthcare whereas it is a non-issue for restaurants.

If we wanted to do something about that, we could repeal the law that forces hospitals to offer care to those that can't afford it.
Why? That's a terrible alternative. Of course the cheapest healthcare is to not give care at all. Genius idea there. The issue is making care more widely available while controlling costs. Of course it's easier to let John die of a heart attack outside a hospital for being poor, but that shouldn't be the goal.

Tell me, why do I need to buy a policy that offers contraceptive services? My wife refuses them, and I don't need them. This costs more. In fact, there are many regulations that states currently have, and soon feds will, that increase the cost of care.
If I could just buy insurance to protect me from cancer, it would be about $15/month (four years ago), going from an Aflac agent's word. Sign me up for cancer, heart, and major accident (like appendicitius or falling from my roof), I'll pay the couple hundred per doctor visit in the meantime. This is what I want, and because of this law, I will never get it. And, by the way, what I want is ACTUALLY insurance as it's meant to be, not healthcare.

People confuse health insurance with health care. Why does the insurance model work for auto, property, and life insurance policies? The more you use it, the more it costs. The liklier you are to get into an accident, be robbed, or die, the more it costs. But, for some magic reason, this model doesn't work for medical insurance...
This increases costs in the long term. Preventative care and screenings are cheaper (in dollars and lives) than treating emergencies.

And there are differences between cars and people as well as the responsibilities they carry. Regardless, that is away from the point.

You say one has the freedom to not be able to pay for his/her care. The two options are mandate coverage or reuse care. Obviously the latter is ridiculous.

As far as your supply question goes. If more people have insurance, they will likely see the doctor, right? However, this law does nothing to foster an increase in the amount of doctors.
How does the government have absolute control of demand? If the demand for doctors goes up, more will become doctors or remain practicing as doctors. There are millions of doctors getting educated right now.
Demand (those seeking services) will go up due to Obamacare, and the supply (doctors) will stay the same. This causes a shortage.
Sapere Aude!
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:55:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:38:37 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So refuse care to those who can't pay? Just let them die? Wow...
Um yeah. You could have figured that out when he said "freedom" instead of strawmanning.
How is it a straw man. Refusing care to those who can't afford it means you refuse care to those who can't afford it. Really simple stuff.
Is that what America stands for?
If nothing stood between London and starvation except American taxes, the American Revolution would still have happened.
I don't see what you're getting at. I was referring to when Chaos implies America stood for poor dying because of not being able to afford care.
Sapere Aude!
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:50:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"Yes, the medicine is harsh, but the patient requires it in order to live. Should we withhold the medicine? No. We are not wrong."

Oh the irony...
Sapere Aude!
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:50:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/11/2012 10:44:24 PM, LeafRod wrote:
And on that note, it's hilarious when internet libertarians or whoever else play the role of doctor and say let's just turn some people away.

But hey, I guess it's a total lack of empathy that turns you into an internet libertarian in the first place, right?

Oh yes, god forbid somebody actually STAY logical and consistent in their statements without contradicting themselves whenever pressured for a viewpoint in extreme situations. There is absolutely no reason to place any emotional calculation, which is oxymoronic because emotion irrational, in an economic calculation.

The "internet libertarians" want to help people- just in a different way. That reminds me of a quote by Thatcher:

"Gentlemen, if we don"t cut spending we will be bankrupt. Yes, the medicine is harsh, but the patient requires it in order to live. Should we withhold the medicine? No. We are not wrong. We did not seek election and win in order to manage the decline of a great nation."

Great quote ^

As I like to say, with a growing economic pie, all of the slices are larger. This translates into higher incomes for the low income people.

A growing economy requires expanded reinvestment and innovation, and expanded production, all of which require labor which raises wages and incomes.

Helping people help themselves is much more helpful than a dependency on handouts. It is good for the economy (the former) as well. When you create a welfare transfer payment type system, you soak up private capital harming the economy, and leading to less efficiency and less job growth and lower wages. It may seem to help the poor, but in return they have no incentive for getting jobs, which further harms the economy. It is counter intuitive.

And this is called the negative sum fallacy, one party is supposedly helped, while all the others, and eventually the person receiving the charity, are all harmed.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 10:58:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:51:03 PM, LeafRod wrote:
At 9/11/2012 10:46:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The post where he's all "I shouldn't have to pay for your health care" is.

Alright, whatever, I was just responding to what you wrote.

That's not even a thang. "Letting." You're not doing anything. Nothing to ignore.

I don't really know what you mean. Doctors do not let people die in front of them because they can't pay.
Because some statist decided we need "duty to care laws." It's not some magical law of the physics of doctors, it's the result of stupid humans acting.

Do you mean, then, that they are removed enough from the process that they are not really letting people die in front of them? I disagree; doctors will not support policies that in effect let people die because they do not pay
Then let the doctor pay if they want. I'll patronize a different doctor mind, and I'm sure I'll find one who doesn't fit your example.


Are you arguing some much weirder semantic point? Let me reword it then: doctors will not support policies that have the ultimate effect of death due to inability to pay.
They don't have that effect. The policies have no effect. They aren't a thing. The libertarian answer to "What should the government do about health care?" is "No." Inaction doesn't have effects. The death is the effect of the illness.

How is it a straw man. Refusing care to those who can't afford it means you refuse care to those who can't afford it.
I already addressed this, the part before it was a straw man.

I don't see what you're getting at. I was referring to when Chaos implies America stood for poor dying because of not being able to afford care.
America stands for freedom.

Freedom means your care is your responsibility, until and unless someone else freely signs on the dotted line.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 11:04:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 10:58:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How is it a straw man. Refusing care to those who can't afford it means you refuse care to those who can't afford it.
I already addressed this, the part before it was a straw man.
It really isn't. When you don't pay for your healthcare, everyone else does.

I don't see what you're getting at. I was referring to when Chaos implies America stood for poor dying because of not being able to afford care.
America stands for freedom.

Freedom means your care is your responsibility, until and unless someone else freely signs on the dotted line.
Well then that is a fundamental difference between us. You deem it just and apt in our society for people to die outside hospitals for care they could easily have gotten but didn't because of financial issues.
Sapere Aude!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 11:17:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"If nothing stood between London and starvation except American taxes, the American Revolution would still have happened."
Which is horrible.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 11:22:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 11:04:43 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 10:58:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How is it a straw man. Refusing care to those who can't afford it means you refuse care to those who can't afford it.
I already addressed this, the part before it was a straw man.
It really isn't. When you don't pay for your healthcare, everyone else does.
Only when you strawman in "You should get health care you don't pay for."

Well then that is a fundamental difference between us. You deem it just and apt in our society for people to die outside hospitals for care they could easily have gotten but didn't because of financial issues.
Not "in our society." Justice has nothing to do with your phantasm "society."
How could it not be just, that man keep what he has created? What other result could possibly be just, i.e., contain the consequences of an action accruing to the actor?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.