Associated Press Luncheon Speech

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Hamma

People who are employed pay full price for health care while those who are low income get it at a cut rate.

And people who by luck or accident of genetics who have some condition insurance wouldn't touch pay out the nose, while those who through luck or accident of genetics get it at a cut rate.

Best of all? If you don't get health care at all (which should be your choice) you pay a fine.

Because if you don't have insurance, we end up paying for it anyway. If you go to the emergency room after a car crash, they save your life. If that means spending $300k and 2 months in intensive care, thats what happens. If your baby is born with some serious birth defect that requires a lot of money, the baby is saved. They do their damnedest to take care of it. If anything happens, that you cannot afford, you end up not paying. Maybe you ruin your credit. Maybe you just file bankruptcy(medical bankruptcies are, btw, by far the most common). And then what happens? The hospital eats the loss, and raises its prices to cover.

And if you do have insurance? You're still participating in socialism. You're paying for their operations, their kids with cancer, their prescriptions, their frivolous use of the emergency room.

We are all already paying for everyones health care. Having an insurance mandate doesn't make things socialist.. it already is highly socialist. But it is implemented in the absolute worst, and most inefficient, possible way, because some people can't stand the thought of giving people something with no strings attached, they feel everything must be earned in some fashion. So we got the awesome mix where you still sometimes can get what you didn't earn(i.e. expensive emergency care), but you will be severely punished for it, and of course the massive inefficient bureaucracy intended to deny people.





As for the welfare state breeding entitlement whores? In the year 2000, national unemployment was less than 3%. People want to work when work is available. There may be a few people living happily off the public tit, but they are very few and far between, and have ridiculously low standards. Or possibly are disabled. Life on the dole(what little you can get these days) is a miserable existence.

And capital gains? Phooey. In the 90s, it was 28%, the economy was strong, unemployment low, and we even managed to balance the budget a few times. Maybe it helps a bit, but it certainly hasn't proven to have been all that helpful.

Originally Posted by Warborn

People talk about how social programs need to be annihilated and taxes on the wealthy and corporations needs to be reduced as much as possible as if that's the only way nations have ever achieved prosperity. And yet, the facts don't support that as far as I can tell.

It still amazes me that they can say UHC doesn't work when there are dozens of examples of it working absolutely fine. Or that socialism is pure evil and dooms you to failure, when places like norway/sweden/finland exist.

I mean.. those countries exist.. right now. You can open up wikipedia and read all about them. They are, right now, literally doing, and doing so quite successfully, what people here are saying is completely impossible and the worst idea ever. And then you point this out, and they say it wouldn't work, and you ask why. No real answer there, but pretty much the only reason it doesn't work is because a large portion of people do not want it to work.

A nice self fulfilling prophecy.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Malorn

It IS that simple. According to liberals all of those prisoners are being held illegally.

Return them to their country. Oh wait, that would destroy career and legacy if even one of them were to go on to commit another terrorist act against the US.

And putting them in US prisons would piss off every state. So what is he to do? The smart thing for him to do is nothing because every outcome is bad for him. He's a smart politician, so he's doing nothing and he'll weather the storm of criticism over it. That is the path of least political damage.

This was mentioned before the election that it was an impossible promise for that exact reason. Also I don't think liberals believe all of them are held illegally. Some of the cases though where innocent people were held for 7 years without a trial was getting fairly ridiculous. It wasn't illegal so much as unethical in a lot of cases. Basically kidnapping people and getting very confused on what to do with someone that is just a regular citizen of another country. Read this. Or this. It happens all too frequently. Or just watch this. It's very hard to justify these kinds of practices.

You're right that moving them all to the US would be a state problem. The bigger problem is actually finding out if they have evidence against the people they take. That information is secret though meaning for many people there it's impossible to be released even if you are falsely accused. That and the whole torture thing. Basically if you have to hold people in another country because what you're doing is so unethical then you probably are doing it wrong.

I think everyone else refuted most of the conservative talking points so I'll not reiterate those, but this one always irks me because people are so misinformed about it. I'm kind of surprised Malorn fell for the giving money to rich helps the poor succeed in the economy. There has been no supporting evidence for that. You would only gain that viewpoint from reading opinionated conservative media.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

We are all already paying for everyones health care. Having an insurance mandate doesn't make things socialist.. it already is highly socialist. But it is implemented in the absolute worst, and most inefficient, possible way, because some people can't stand the thought of giving people something with no strings attached, they feel everything must be earned in some fashion. So we got the awesome mix where you still sometimes can get what you didn't earn(i.e. expensive emergency care), but you will be severely punished for it, and of course the massive inefficient bureaucracy intended to deny people.

I often think this point is completely obvious, but I've met way too many people who don't realize this. Basically all some people want is a cleaner system of handling this problem.

Originally Posted by Hamma

This probably couldn't have been said any better. As someone who lived in Massachusetts at the tail end of when they implemented their shitty health care reform.. it's a joke. People who are employed pay full price for health care while those who are low income get it at a cut rate. Best of all? If you don't get health care at all (which should be your choice) you pay a fine. How does this make sense? And when does it end? If the government can tell us to buy health care what is the next thing they will tell us to buy.

It makes sense because healthy people are required for insurance to work. If healthy people decide they are too healthy to need insurance then the system fails. That is you can't fund insurance with sick people so you require everyone to have insurance. Using private insurance companies though is extremely inefficient, but until we can get the stigma out of a single-payer system where no one is fined, and it's a simple tax based system to support everyone we'll be stuck with these less than ideal models to support everyone. You can tell from listening to the Democrats that this is not really the system they want at all either. It's just the only thing that Republicans can see halfway and won't block. Basically we're trying to regulate a private industry (because private industry is better for this somehow) that decides who gets healthcare or not, but at the same time we can't let people just die on the streets since most people agree that's unethical in a modern society.

Also as mentioned a lot of healthcare related things are random occurrences that destroy one's savings. This happens on a daily basis with people that get their appendix removed. Even with insurance it can often cost up to $8K dollars. I believe it's around $20K-40K without insurance and that's assuming you get out of the hospital as soon as it's over and rest at home. (Meaning only staying for like 10 hours). I have amazing insurance because of where my dad works and I still paid $1K dollars after a surgery. I was only there for 3 hours. Quick walk in got knocked out in like 20 minutes and went under the knife then woke up and was wheelchaired out the door where my mom was waiting. (Couldn't drive since I was still out of it). That was a surgery that happened in a matter of a week from when I met a doctor about the problem. On top of that I had to pay like a 10 dollar deductible for the following 2 follow-ups to get the stiches removed which wasn't a problem, but seemed a bit odd since I've never seen a deductible that low. (I've only been sick like 3 times in my life and never been to a hospital before that point so maybe it's really common).

I'm hoping within our lifetime we don't have to deal with that, but I think it might be impossible convincing people that healthcare should be a right. For now Obamacare seems to be the most agreeable solution.

[Warborn]

Tim Krieder to the rescue. Here's the entire political debate wrapped up:

[Vecha]

I'm mixed on the health care issue.

On my cynical side, If people don't want the mandate...then they better fucking not let idiots who choose not to get health care go to the emergency room and jack up prices for the rest of us responsible folks.


On my softer side, I think everyone should have healthcare as a right. But I can understand how some would feel this goes against capitalism. Of course, I'd say we stopped being full capitalism over a century ago.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Vecha

I'm mixed on the health care issue.

I could go on the emotional side and start linking the recent influx of hundreds of Obamacare stories. This one was on reddit today.

I can understand the more capitalist idea that people in that situation should file for bankruptcy or receive poorer care</sarcasm>. I'd rather just forgo the whole bankruptcy problem if we can give someone the care they require then we might as well do all we can. It's a lot less stress on families who really should be focused on their own well being, not on their mounting bills because of something they can't control. Bit idealistic maybe.

[Sgt Shultz]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Basically you have him laying out the truth.

I am not going to comment on the rest of the post but I think you need to be a bit more honest with your assessment of Pres. Obama laying out "the truth" for his health care bill.

Originally Posted by Obama

Health care, which is in the news right now -- there's a reason why there's a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan. Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach.

The reason its in the news is because the Supreme Court has review the bill, and from all indications the Solicitor General did a piss poor job defending it. Furthermore there is a very significant chance the bill will be overturned, because the SG could not provide a clear definition as to how far Congress can go with the commerce clause. Without that definition, this bill would fundamentally change the relationship of the government to the citizen. In other words, if these bill is viable then is 2 servings a day of broccoli viable? What else can we force the public to purchase by calling it "commerce"?

Sure as hell sounds like an overreach to me. Whether you want to call it socialist or not is up to you.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

I am not going to comment on the rest of the post but I think you need to be a bit more honest with your assessment of Pres. Obama laying out "the truth" for his health care bill.

He stated the exact problem. To preserve a private insurance industry, like the Republicans want, while forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions for children (taking the burden away from Hospitals and others) among the other changes doesn't necessarily require that everyone buy insurance, but you're placing a huge burden on a private industry seeking profits if you suddenly say to them "oh yeah we know you don't want to help sick people", but we need you to cover their costs if they sign up with you.

The cost has to go somewhere. Currently in the US the cost just goes into everyone's premiums when Hospitals are hit with the bill. Pushing it into insurance companies raises rates potentially, but it's really not different than putting the burden on hospitals who then increase the prices of services to cover those bills.

So Obama did lay out the truth. It's just extremely complicated and most people don't fully grasp where the costs are going and coming from. When the costs are solely on hospitals to help poor people in the ER you're looking at a huge cost. So much so that it's difficult to use a doctor in the US without insurance. Something as "simple" as visiting a doctor to get something checked can be 100 dollars in most states. (Sometimes more. Free clinics I believe are cheaper like 60-80 dollars). It gets more expensive if you need a quick test done. Like a strep throat test. Easily 50 dollars for the test (though I heard some places do it for 20 dollars). Takes like 15 minutes for them to do in their labs. I had one done less than a year ago after my coworker got strep throat and brought it into work. I have insurance so I didn't have to deal with the full cost. Anyway the huge cost we see is caused because of how poorly hospitals are protected from liability and having to help people that can't pay. Redirecting that cost on insurance companies with a plan to force people to buy insurance is a fairly legitimate way to manage those costs so the healthcare system doesn't have to.

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

Sure as hell sounds like an overreach to me. Whether you want to call it socialist or not is up to you.

As much as socialism is thrown around, I would say it is borderline. You have the government dictating what a private company can and cannot do. Basically controlling an aspect of their distribution model which is one of the tenants of socialism. It happens all the time. I mean just look at the EU when they forced Apple to extend their warranties to two years a few days ago. (Though I believe there was a law related to that). Personally I'm a socialist so I have no problem with such controls to protect consumers. Especially when it comes to healthcare. It's a different way to view companies and people that the US hasn't embraced much.

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

The reason its in the news is because the Supreme Court has review the bill, and from all indications the Solicitor General did a piss poor job defending it. Furthermore there is a very significant chance the bill will be overturned, because the SG could not provide a clear definition as to how far Congress can go with the commerce clause. Without that definition, this bill would fundamentally change the relationship of the government to the citizen. In other words, if these bill is viable then is 2 servings a day of broccoli viable? What else can we force the public to purchase by calling it "commerce"?

Slippery slope logical fallacies really shouldn't be used, but you bring up a valid point by stating that. When you give the government the okay to do simple things they more often than not abuse that power which is a huge problem. This came up when people were discussing the "fat tax" which would classify unhealthy food in order to control proper eating via a taxation system. A novel idea, but extremely lobbied against and was ultimately destroyed. Not to mention most people were against the government interfering with our choices. By the way it should be mentioned the FDA already mandates school lunches so we already have a similar control in place to protect children from unhealthy choices. There's obviously a line where the government can say if you're going to do something you need to follow some requirements. That is normally for privileges though like driving a car, and not for things like simply being a citizen. I personally have no problem with the government placing requirements for working adults to pay into an insurance system, but much like others I don't care much for that money going to a private profit driven industry (often times connected to my employer). If it's crushed, and I really wouldn't care either way (other than that it'll hurt a lot of children that are currently using it) I hope it opens peoples eyes up that this problem isn't going away.

[Sgt Shultz]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

He stated the exact problem. To preserve a private insurance industry, like the Republicans want, while forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions for children (taking the burden away from Hospitals and others) among the other changes doesn't necessarily require that everyone buy insurance, but you're placing a huge burden on a private industry seeking profits if you suddenly say to them "oh yeah we know you don't want to help sick people", but we need you to cover their costs if they sign up with you.

The cost has to go somewhere. Currently in the US the cost just goes into everyone's premiums when Hospitals are hit with the bill. Pushing it into insurance companies raises rates potentially, but it's really not different than putting the burden on hospitals who then increase the prices of services to cover those bills.

So Obama did lay out the truth. It's just extremely complicated and most people don't fully grasp where the costs are going and coming from. When the costs are solely on hospitals to help poor people in the ER you're looking at a huge cost. So much so that it's difficult to use a doctor in the US without insurance. Something as "simple" as visiting a doctor to get something checked can be 100 dollars in most states. (Sometimes more. Free clinics I believe are cheaper like 60-80 dollars). It gets more expensive if you need a quick test done. Like a strep throat test. Easily 50 dollars for the test (though I heard some places do it for 20 dollars). Takes like 15 minutes for them to do in their labs. I had one done less than a year ago after my coworker got strep throat and brought it into work. I have insurance so I didn't have to deal with the full cost. Anyway the huge cost we see is caused because of how poorly hospitals are protected from liability and having to help people that can't pay. Redirecting that cost on insurance companies with a plan to force people to buy insurance is a fairly legitimate way to manage those costs so the healthcare system doesn't have to.


As much as socialism is thrown around, I would say it is borderline. You have the government dictating what a private company can and cannot do. Basically controlling an aspect of their distribution model which is one of the tenants of socialism. It happens all the time. I mean just look at the EU when they forced Apple to extend their warranties to two years a few days ago. (Though I believe there was a law related to that). Personally I'm a socialist so I have no problem with such controls to protect consumers. Especially when it comes to healthcare. It's a different way to view companies and people that the US hasn't embraced much.

Slippery slope logical fallacies really shouldn't be used, but you bring up a valid point by stating that. When you give the government the okay to do simple things they more often than not abuse that power which is a huge problem. This came up when people were discussing the "fat tax" which would classify unhealthy food in order to control proper eating via a taxation system. A novel idea, but extremely lobbied against and was ultimately destroyed. Not to mention most people were against the government interfering with our choices. By the way it should be mentioned the FDA already mandates school lunches so we already have a similar control in place to protect children from unhealthy choices. There's obviously a line where the government can say if you're going to do something you need to follow some requirements. That is normally for privileges though like driving a car, and not for things like simply being a citizen. I personally have no problem with the government placing requirements for working adults to pay into an insurance system, but much like others I don't care much for that money going to a private profit driven industry (often times connected to my employer). If it's crushed, and I really wouldn't care either way (other than that it'll hurt a lot of children that are currently using it) I hope it opens peoples eyes up that this problem isn't going away.

I am not debating if healthcare costs are going up and I certainly agree with you that it is a problem and is not going away. However, I take serious issue with how what is being presented. Obama is trying to pull the "Republicans want you to die" card, when the real issue is the bill that was written was a massive overreach.

Also I take issue with how the bill was presented initially as not a tax, and now the SG is trying to claim it is a tax and thus within the scope of the congress. The duplicity is pretty disgusting given the fact that it paves the way for further intrusion by the government.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I could go on the emotional side and start linking the recent influx of hundreds of Obamacare stories. This one was on reddit today.

I can understand the more capitalist idea that people in that situation should file for bankruptcy or receive poorer care</sarcasm>. I'd rather just forgo the whole bankruptcy problem if we can give someone the care they require then we might as well do all we can. It's a lot less stress on families who really should be focused on their own well being, not on their mounting bills because of something they can't control. Bit idealistic maybe.

Oh, believe me...I understand what many are going through.

I recently got on my Fiance's insurance...and they wanted me to wait 6 months due to a "pre-existing condition"

My comment was more towards some people who say, "I don't want insurance! I want to pay out of pocket!"

Who'd I would wager are in the same group that shout, "Get your government hands off my medicare!"

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

Sure as hell sounds like an overreach to me. Whether you want to call it socialist or not is up to you.

Maybe it is. Do you know whats hilarious? Single payer government run insurance, hell, even a National Health Service like Britain has.. Both of these things *would* be constitutional, because while the federal government may not have the power to force commerce, it most certainly has the power to tax.

Originally Posted by Art. 1 sec. 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Thats why medicare can exist.


The only thing invoking the constitution accomplishes is ensuring next time this comes up(and it will, seems to be a giant push every 10-15 years since the 60s), a mandate, the conservative compromise thats been peddled the last 4 times there was a massive health care push, will simply not even be on the table.

Declaring this unconstitutional will guarantee a single payer solution.

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

I am not debating if healthcare costs are going up and I certainly agree with you that it is a problem and is not going away. However, I take serious issue with how what is being presented. Obama is trying to pull the "Republicans want you to die" card, when the real issue is the bill that was written was a massive overreach.

In fairness, Republicans started that with the 'Death panel' talk. There is hyperbole on both sides of the aisle.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

I'd wager they have been rolling over in their graves for over 100 years...if not more.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

I think you forgot to turn on Fox this morning. You ran out of talking points. Also I wanted this to be a nice discussion without that kind of banter.

Did anyone watch that PBS thing I linked at the bottom of my first post? It's a good watch.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Commenting whether our founding fathers would like the direction of our country is not useless banter. History is important, as is the original intent of our rights and laws, and the context under which they were created.

I dont expect a liberal to understand.

The founding fathers themselves barely agreed on which direction the country should go.