Draginol Draginol

The Health Care Bill passes

▼

The Health Care Bill passes

from JoeUser Forums

People tend to project their hopes and dreams onto things based on their name.

They hear “health care reform” and they see their ideological allies supporting it and they assume it does all kinds of magical things.

For those of you glad that the bill passed, be aware that what was passed resembles nothing like what is in Europe or Canada. 

Here’s what it does (you can read the details at CBS News):

1. It “provides” insurance to 30 million Americans. How does it do this? They made it illegal not to buy insurance. Voila.  Seriously. That’s how they did it. If you don’t, you’re fined $695 annually.

2. They make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. So the person with basic math skills who figures out that $695 annually is a lot less than $6,000 annually ($500 X 12 months) can wait until they get pregnant, diagnosed with diabetes or gets into an accident and THEN buy insurance.  Thus the cost will go far up.

3. They provide subsidies to make insurance cheaper. In theory.  Since the insurance companies are barely regulated monopolies per state who now know they everyone has to buy insurance, they can raise rates (this is what happened with car insurance when it became mandatory).

The right-wingers are going crazy about it because it socializes health-care.  The left-wingers are currently happy because they don’t realize just how much they got screwed. If/when this program starts to get implemented, I think they’ll start to realize how badly they got screwed.

People on the Internet who are from overseas tend to have no real understanding of America’s healthcare system. They don’t realize that the poor already get medical coverage for free (Medicaid) and that the elderly already get medical coverage (Medicare). 

So in effect, all this bill really does is make it illegal to not have insurance. 

Maybe they should use the same system to eliminate poverty. Just make it illegal to be poor.

60,400 views 163 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is why car insurance was made mandatory because people could not afford or refused to pay for the other persons pain and suffering and were probably sued in order to get something out of them.
End of quote

So they went to court. That's what they can continue to do.

Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top

One man's news report is another man's propaganda.
End of quote

How easily some forget (or never knew) the reason our founders put so much effort into protecting freedom of the press.  Certainly, the sycophantic press is clueless.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #78 from Stardock Forums Top

So they went to court. That's what they can continue to do.
End of quote

Yea and he with enough money can afford a better lawyer and get away with the crime. The insurance allows for those who get hit to at the least have the car paid for if it's new and a total loss. The car insurance will also pay for medical needs.

Again, so you can finally get it, health insurance is meant to help the person who owns the insrance, car insurance is meant to pay for the person that gets hit.

Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top

I (and all US citizens) will be required to have health insurance, even if we never leave our homes or private property.

Well, last time I checked, you won't be treated in your private home for cancer.
End of quote

Nice of you to take my comment out of context in it's comparison with auto insurance. I guess no body will be driving on chemo either (yeah that's how idiotic your comment sounds when you play quote part of a statement, to take a cheap shot).

Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top

How easily some forget (or never knew) the reason our founders put so much effort into protecting freedom of the press. Certainly, the sycophantic press is clueless.
End of quote

There is *still* freedom of the press. Up to a point, off course. I mean, except for the government-owned news media (is there any in the USA?), they have to answer to their owners, which might be partisans.

Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top

It appears you fall into the 'never knew' category, Ciko, but no time for edumication just now.

Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top

It appears you fall into the 'never knew' category
End of quote

May I know what you mean by that?

Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top

Cikomyr,

Perhaps to clear things up...

I am all for forced health insurance for everyone. But I don't think it has anything in common with "forced" car insurance. You really really don't have to drive. And if you do, you do create a risk for others.

But you do have to live.

However, and that's the problem with the healthcare bill, if the fines are much lower than the price of health insurance, people still won't get insurance until they face medical bills. That's against the solidarity principle. It's also a type of fraud. And if insurance companies can only act within state borders, there won't be much competition and hence a legal duty to buy insurance will drive prices up. It will essentially be a government-mandated monopoly. Plus I don't see how the federal government even has authority over health insurers if they don't trade over state borders.

 

Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 73
Or, you know, be a cranial enema to the republicans (Fox News) or free to be objective (the rest of news media).

YOU claim that Fox News is objective. But it's an opinion far from making unanimity.

How do you establish objectivity beyond a doubt?
End of Cikomyr's quote

YOcannot.  NOr is it even possible.  Everyone has biases, and it shows in how they do their work.  It is especially apparent with media outlets.  As I said, I really do not want anyone to "do" anything about it.  What I would like to see is some honesty however.  Tell us "we are bioased".  Most people can see it anyway, but to pretend impartiality is to just lie.  Which is what most are doing.

As for Fox, their news is very straight forward.  What you contend that is "far from unanimity" is actually about their commentary.  Which is very conservative (I would not even say pro-republican, just a meeting of the minds as they are often the same).  We Expect commentary to be biased, and most commentators are very honest in that regard.  However the news people are some of the most dishonest in that regard.

Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 80
There is *still* freedom of the press. Up to a point, off course. I mean, except for the government-owned news media (is there any in the USA?), they have to answer to their owners, which might be partisans.
End of Cikomyr's quote

NPR - they "claim" not to be, but when your pay check has uncle sam's signature on it, you are their mouth piece like it or not.

 

Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top

NPR - they "claim" not to be, but when your pay check has uncle sam's signature on it, you are their mouth piece like it or not.

End of quote

The BBC somehow managed to have a very left-wing bias in its news and sometimes a right-wing bias in its entertainment.

Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top

NPR - they "claim" not to be, but when your pay check has uncle sam's signature on it, you are their mouth piece like it or not.
End of quote

Funny. Here, Radio-Canada is probably one of the most objective news media. Every time the government tries to influence them for X or Y, there is quite a bit of outrage about it, as they are purposed to be independant.

I think trusting the state to have government-funded competition to the private sector makes the public more likely to actually have it be neutral. I don't know.. maybe if the people don't have a cynic mindset about their government, they won't accept any interference on their part. While in the USA, you.. well, I think your commentary speaks for itself.

Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top

Funny. Here, Radio-Canada is probably one of the most objective news media.

End of quote

How would you measure that?

 

Every time the government tries to influence them for X or Y, there is quite a bit of outrage about it, as they are purposed to be independant.

End of quote

Yes, Minister explains that. In Commonwealth countries public networks are loyal to the civil service, not the elected government.

 

Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top

They made it illegal not to buy insurance. Voila.  Seriously. That’s how they did it. If you don’t, you’re fined $695 annually.

End of quote

I'm not sure I get this.

Didn't they say that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't (rather than wouldn't) get it?

How will fining those people help?

(Unless of course it was a lie that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't get it.)

 

Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top

How will fining those people help?

(Unless of course it was a lie that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't get it.)
End of quote

Now you're seeing beyond the mist! ;)

Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 87
I think trusting the state to have government-funded competition to the private sector makes the public more likely to actually have it be neutral. I don't know.. maybe if the people don't have a cynic mindset about their government, they won't accept any interference on their part. While in the USA, you.. well, I think your commentary speaks for itself.
End of Cikomyr's quote

And that is the problem - or difference - between the US and Canada.  We cannot MAKE the media do anything they do not want.  They are the ONLY priivate enterprise that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and as such the courts have made sure that no one can "make" them do anything.  It is up to them to perform their job.  We can hope they do it well, but there is not a damn thing we can do if they don't.

As for competition, if the government allows it, the government entity always loses and goes belly up.  Witness the USPS versus FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.  if government does not like it, then it kills the competition.

Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 89
I'm not sure I get this.

Didn't they say that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't (rather than wouldn't) get it?

How will fining those people help?

(Unless of course it was a lie that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't get it.)
End of Leauki's quote

hehehe.  Leauki, you are one of the smartest people I have read.  But do not feel less so because you do not get it.  The truth is very few do, and least of all the ones that voted for it.

The only truth that has been spoken by the democrats on this bill was on March 23, 2010 at 11:15am.  When they said it was now a law.

Reply #93 from Stardock Forums Top

We cannot MAKE the media do anything they do not want. They are the ONLY priivate enterprise that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and as such the courts have made sure that no one can "make" them do anything. It is up to them to perform their job. We can hope they do it well, but there is not a damn thing we can do if they don't.
End of quote

It's the peoples responsibility to educate themselves and question whether the news is truth or opinion. Of course people these days refuse to be responsible for anything and want everyone else to do it for them.

Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's the peoples responsibility to educate themselves and question whether the news is truth or opinion. Of course people these days refuse to be responsible for anything and want everyone else to do it for them.

End of quote

Would the constitution really rule out forcing the media to tell the truth about something?

After all, advertising apples is speech to yet if someone sells poisened apples and advertises them as "healthy apples", we'd call it fraud. Why is it not fraud if the media tell us a lie? They are selling news. The news should be true and real. Otherwise, I would think, it's fraud because the product is not what they promised it was.

 

Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 94

Would the constitution really rule out forcing the media to tell the truth about something?
End of Leauki's quote

They are still subject to the same laws we all are, but as everyone knows, trutn and poltiics is an oxymoron.  A spending cut means that you do not increase spending by as much as you did the previous year.  That is a lie in normal speak, but the truth in political speak.

After all, advertising apples is speech to yet if someone sells poisened apples and advertises them as "healthy apples", we'd call it fraud. Why is it not fraud if the media tell us a lie? They are selling news. The news should be true and real. Otherwise, I would think, it's fraud because the product is not what they promised it was.
End of quote

There are occassions where the media is forced to print (or make) a retraction.  However, on the front page the Headlines blare "Alar to kill millions", but 2 weeks later, on page A-39, a small story in the lower left hand corner reads "Alar safe in moderation - kills bugs only".

The damage has been done.  But they did say they were sorry (in their own convuled way - and BTW - the above is what actually happened and the Washington State Apple growers could do nothing).

Reply #96 from JoeUser Forums Top

health insurance is meant to help the person who owns the insrance, car insurance is meant to pay for the person that gets hit.
End of quote

What if you have a contagious disease?

Reply #97 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Infidel, reply 96

health insurance is meant to help the person who owns the insrance, car insurance is meant to pay for the person that gets hit.
What if you have a contagious disease?
End of Infidel's quote

Your insurance still pays for your care, not everyone else's that may contract it.

Reply #98 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 97


Your insurance still pays for your care, not everyone else's that may contract it.

End of Dr's quote

The point, though, is that receiving care sooner prevents the disease spreading from the person who has it into the wider community. There is a public interest in them being treated as quickly and effectively as possible. Somebody choosing to "opt out" of a system that prevents them from spreading contagion to others is not merely choosing to take their own risks at their own cost; they are imposing risks and costs on others.

Reply #99 from JoeUser Forums Top

Life sucks, then you die.  People 'opt out' in lots of ways, most of them having nothing to do with medical insurance.  You'll never have the hermetically sealed utopia.  And if you could, at what cost?  Not just in dollars.

Reply #100 from Stardock Forums Top

It's a bit of leap from saying that someone with whooping cough should be treated as quickly as possible to demanding a "hermetically sealed utopia". A perfect solution to all tragedy of the commons problems is likely to be overly expensive, but not making any attempt to solve any of them is going to be pretty inefficient too. To me it seems the question is not, "always solve vs never solve", it's, "empirically, which mix delivers the best results?"