Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

    Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

    Roy compared plan costs for a 25-year-old male buying insurance for himself: Under Obamacare, the cheapest (“catastrophic”) plan for an individual will cost an average of $184 a month; the next cheapest (“bronze”) will be $205 a month.

    The average cheapest plan before Obamacare? $92
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-of-obamacare/
    Keep in mind here I'm about to attack your source MT, not you.

    What ********. Lee is not making a misleading comparison, he is comparing the cost of plans with the same coverage. The author you are quoting is comparing stripped down bargain basement plans to full featured plans.

    Obama-care requires you to have health insurance that covers a reasonable range of coverage, the whole point being that you buy a plan that the state won't have to subsidize because common medical expenses are not covered by it. You are not allowed to have shitty insurance because its not going to accomplish much in covering your medical costs.

    If we were talking TVs, this guy is saying you are getting ripped off because the you will pay more for your 40' flat screen under ObamaTV than you could have paid if you bought a used 15 inch CTR at the local pawn shop. That is not a real price comparison for apples to apples. Your author is deceptive and full of ********.

    Its simply deceptive to say your opponent is not making an apples to apples comparison, and then turn around and make a completely apples to oranges comparison yourself. When you compare two products in price, you compare products that offer similar features, this author has not done anything like that. Its pure propaganda and deception to play up to the expectations of a certain political set. Its not conservative media, its ******** media. Lies for dollars.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Keep in mind here I'm about to attack your source MT, not you.
    Thanks, for a second.. I thought you had that thing pointed at me *J*

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What ********. Lee is not making a misleading comparison, he is comparing the cost of plans with the same coverage. The author you are quoting is comparing stripped down bargain basement plans to full featured plans.
    I think the comparison is "cheapest available VS Cheapest available".
    You know, because some people couldn't afford the Gold member plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Obama-care requires you to have health insurance that covers a reasonable range of coverage, the whole point being that you buy a plan that the state won't have to subsidize because common medical expenses are not covered by it. You are not allowed to have shitty insurance because its not going to accomplish much in covering your medical costs.
    See, I thought Obama care was about getting insurance to the uninsured.. not punishing people who were insured but not to a satisfactory level.
    Also that was catastrophic coverage only.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If we were talking TVs, this guy is saying you are getting ripped off because the you will pay more for your 40' flat screen under ObamaTV than you could have paid if you bought a used 15 inch CTR at the local pawn shop. That is not a real price comparison for apples to apples. Your author is deceptive and full of ********.
    Well, if the claim is that "insurance costs will decrease".. and I am purchasing the cheapest plan at $92 .. then obama care is passed .. and my costs go UP to $184.. then my costs haven't gone down, and my insurance costs have increased not decreased.


    Because there is a distinct change, it is always going to be "apples and oranges". The effects however will not be.

    For example.
    You are correct(I assume) that the two plans are vastly different, and it is in-fact a 40inch Plasma Vs a 16inch CRT (even though the CRT has better color *J*).

    The problem is, he isn't talking about the plan, nor is the article. They are talking about end cost to the user. The claim by the goberment is that it went down.

    Sort of like saying, we are going to sell you only 40inch Plasmas.. and your cost of T.V's are going to go down.
    Which is false and misleading. In the end, the guy from forbs is just saying "yea Plasma T.V.'s cost more".



    So, is it true or false that $92 is less than $184?
    If so, doesn't a cheaper plasma screen(at 184) cost more than the economic crt(at 92)?
    If so, isn't it true that the cost of insurance(T.V's) has gone up for the CRT users.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When you compare two products in price, you compare products that offer similar features,
    As an average consumer.. I disagree.
    When I compare toothbrushes.. I don't just look at features I look at total cost.
    If I have $1 to purchase a toothbrush. Then I am not looking for the cheapest Water Pic at $150 (on sale). I'm looking for the thing that will do the bare minimum .. because I only have $1. So not even a aerodynamic handle.


    edit--
    P.S. the article also directly addressed the very thing you are pointing out. So it isn't like it is some hidden assumption or deception.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.
    To serve man.

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thanks, for a second.. I thought you had that thing pointed at me *J*
    Though now that you are defending the article... its your turn on the hot seat

    I think the comparison is "cheapest available VS Cheapest available".
    The cheapest available currently is no insurance which costs $0.
    That is also not the comparison that was being made by the Forbes article which this article seeks to counter.

    The problem that Obamacare is trying to tackle is not, "does someone have a piece of paper claiming they have health insurance." It is, can every american get access to a decent standard of medical services? If you don't cover that standard then folks have to go to the emergency room when their conditions reach a critical stage and then dump that inflated cost on the tax payers who subsidize such care. Obamacare seeks to make sure everyone can have a decent level of health insurance that will cover all the basics you might need to stay healthy and not go bankrupt when emergencies strike. Bargain basement insurance with huge deductibles or very limited range of coverage simply won't meet that goal.

    Furthermore they want to ensure coverage of pre-existing conditions. The only way you can do that and cover the cost is to require everyone to be in the insurance market which is the reason for the mandate.

    The critics of Obamacare not only objected to it on philosophical grounds, but also claimed that it would stifle competition and drive up the costs of coverage for the type of insurance that Obamacare would require. Even the congressional analysis agreed that it would have that effect. However, we are discovering as these markets come on line, that their costs are actually below comparable insurance in the current market. Since the opposition is loosing that argument now, they've come up with a deceptive one that doesn't address the same issue.

    We know full well that the Obamacare standard policies are going to be more comprehensive than the cheapest policies available when there is no standard. No one would have suggested otherwise. They cost more because you get more. For those who can't afford to pay that much for insurance, there is a program to subsidize the cost so that it remains affordable despite its higher quality. Your article doesn't take that into account at all. If they were only interested in what people will pay, then they should include that information as well.

    But they aren't they are just interested in scoring political points because they are not journalists, they are ******** politicos.

    So they scoff at a comparison of like insurance plans, while complaining its too hard for them to do so, and then compare unlike plans claiming its all about the bottom line, while ignoring the fact that there is a program to help with the bottom line for those who don't have the scratch for a plan as well featured as the minimum standards under Obamacare.

    There is plenty of ground for honest examinations and criticisms, but this isn't one of them.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Though now that you are defending the article... its your turn on the hot seat
    I have the A/C on 60.. so I should be good. Crank up the heat man.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The cheapest available currently is no insurance which costs $0.
    That is also not the comparison that was being made by the Forbes article which this article seeks to counter.
    1) It is not proper to call the cheapest insurance a cost of $0. Because that is not purchasing insurance or "uninsured".
    If I try to price insurance plans and I am looking for the "cheapest" insurance. "Uninsured" is not going to ever be on the list.
    By your logic, you should counter that the "cheapest" insurance has not changed, because it is still costs $0.
    So I don't think even you hold that it is a valid comparison, as you did not actually argue from that position.
    2) This is a minor point, but the article I linked is not countering forbs, it is quoting forbs.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ums-by-64-146/
    It is Forbs that is claiming that insurance has gone up.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The problem that Obamacare is trying to tackle is not, "does someone have a piece of paper claiming they have health insurance." It is, can every american get access to a decent standard of medical services? If you don't cover that standard then folks have to go to the emergency room when their conditions reach a critical stage and then dump that inflated cost on the tax payers who subsidize such care. Obamacare seeks to make sure everyone can have a decent level of health insurance that will cover all the basics you might need to stay healthy and not go bankrupt when emergencies strike. Bargain basement insurance with huge deductibles or very limited range of coverage simply won't meet that goal.
    Sure that is what they are trying to do, but that does not give a right to make false claims.
    It caused rates to go up.. not down. It also caused what is covered to go up.. but is that relevant really.

    For example, lets say they now cover "per-existing conditions". Well, if I already had coverage, then that is a pretty useless feature, because I didn't have any "pre existing" I'm insured, and my price is going up over a non issue.

    So I think each of the new bells and whistles needs to be considered if that is going to be the defense. I am also unsure as to HOW much different the plans will be. They are both "Catastrophic" coverage.

    Quote Originally Posted by FORBS LINK
    Spinning a public-relations disaster

    It’s great that Covered California released this early the rates that insurers plan to charge on the exchange, as it gives us an early window into how the exchanges will work in a state that has an unusually competitive and inexpensive individual market for health insurance. But that’s the irony. The full rate report is subtitled “Making the Individual Market in California Affordable.”
    The point is countering the "spin". It is being billed as making individual insurance more affordable, when in actuality it is more expensive.

    Also, you are poo-pooing bargain insurance that doesn't have the coverage you like. That needs to be justified not simply assumed. Again, they are both called Catestrophic, so we are not talking about bare min coverage turning into a premium plan (necessarily).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Furthermore they want to ensure coverage of per-existing conditions. The only way you can do that and cover the cost is to require everyone to be in the insurance market which is the reason for the mandate.
    But they shouldn't make false claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The critics of Obamacare not only objected to it on philosophical grounds, but also claimed that it would stifle competition and drive up the costs of coverage for the type of insurance that Obamacare would require. Even the congressional analysis agreed that it would have that effect. However, we are discovering as these markets come on line, that their costs are actually below comparable insurance in the current market. Since the opposition is loosing that argument now, they've come up with a deceptive one that doesn't address the same issue.
    The problem is, as the article says" they are comparing two different markets.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Rather than comparing individual plans to individual plans, the state was comparing individual plans to small business plans. http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...ing-the-books/
    Quote Originally Posted by FORBS LINK
    But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.
    In other words, the objection is that there used to be an "individual market" and in that market the cheapest insurance was $98. (call it shopping at the dollar store). now everyone is forced to shop at Maces, where the product is(MAYBE) better, but the "cheapest" is a lot more. Then, the claim is made that I am going to spend less money. (which is false).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    We know full well that the Obamacare standard policies are going to be more comprehensive than the cheapest policies available when there is no standard. No one would have suggested otherwise. They cost more because you get more.
    BINGO! They cost more.. so don't spin it(not you the goberment) like they cost less, or that I am being given access to "cheaper" insurance. .. it's just cheaper insurance that cost more than what I was spending before... which isn't cheaper for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    For those who can't afford to pay that much for insurance, there is a program to subsidize the cost so that it remains affordable despite its higher quality. Your article doesn't take that into account at all.
    Actually, that is EXACTLY what they are talking about. This is the "insurance exchange" that individuals have access to.

    ... Is there some other mechanism that I am forgetting? Because I really thought the "insurance exchange" was supposed to be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So they scoff at a comparison of like insurance plans, while complaining its too hard for them to do so, and then compare unlike plans claiming its all about the bottom line, while ignoring the fact that there is a program to help with the bottom line for those who don't have the scratch for a plan as well featured as the minimum standards under Obamacare.
    Well, this is something I am curious to get into.

    In the example they are both called "catastrophic plan". So I don't think it is a safe assumption to think it is a significantly better plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by FORBS LINK
    If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (By “average,” I mean the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)
    [/QUOTE]

    It is still both the bottom of the available barrel, and is still covering "catastrophic" illness.
    So, I don't really know what the difference is between the plans. Nor do I think we should act like the "catastrophic" plan under Obamacare is more like the super premium plans before it.

    So, if you say they are significantly different, ... what are those specific significant difference? That seems very relevant.

    One difference that I did find was that the Obama care option has limited the Doctors and Hospitals that you can visit.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4396720.story

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    California, said its exchange customers will be restricted to 36% of its regular physician network statewide.
    The Pro side being that (and I assume this part), per-existing conditions would be accepted.

    There is much more to this comparison, and I would like to get my hands on a copy of the two plans side by side (that being the Catastrophic plane before Obama care, and one from the exchange.
    To serve man.

  5. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Predictions coming true?
    When Obama care was implemented opposition warned that it would drive Dr's out of business and out of the market. It appears that is at least half true.

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/16/smal...html?hpt=hp_t3
    The story is summed up nicely in it's final line.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Said Cobb, the oncologist: "We have a joke that there are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be sold." To top of page
    It seems that the only hope for Obama Care supporters is to spin this as a good thing. In that it is good that small private business are being made to be impossible or unprofitable to run by regulations and price controls.


    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    When a friend mentioned that she was doing insurance work and that they needed doctors, I jumped at the opportunity. I now work 20 to 25 hours a week and earn as much as I would working 50 to 60 hours a week in a primary care practice. It wasn't easy to walk away from patient care, but in my case the trade-off has been worth it. http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/...ex.html?iid=EL
    The moral of the above story is 1) Dr's aren't businessmen. 2) There are other professions that are willing to pay more for their time than the current state of healthcare is going to allow. 3) Maybe making it expensive and complicated to run a Dr's office and make money isn't the best way to go about "reforming" healthcare.
    To serve man.

  6. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Why has your state not chosen to set up the exchanges?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Why has your state not chosen to set up the exchanges?
    It doesn't need too. Obama care gave them the option to do it or have the fed do it, is there a problem with states working within Obama care?
    Why hasn't the Fed done it's job and fulfilled it's initial obligations under Obama-care? If it can't do that part right, why would you expect it to do any of the other parts right?
    To serve man.

  9. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  10. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    I agree, it doesn't. I'm just wondering. Has your governor said anything?

    I would think your state would want to head it up, no? Unless they can't, just don't have the resources or something or won't, "Nope, just don't like it, not going to do it."

    If there were widespread agreement to do so within the states controlled by a certain party, I'd call that a strategy of obstruction.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I agree, it doesn't. I'm just wondering. Has your governor said anything?

    I would think your state would want to head it up, no? Unless they can't, just don't have the resources or something or won't, "Nope, just don't like it, not going to do it."

    If there were widespread agreement to do so within the states controlled by a certain party, I'd call that a strategy of obstruction.
    As I understood it, by setting up the exchanges themselves the states became liable for things our state did not wish to be liable for.

    Your "charge" of obstruction is baseless, because acting according to the law is not obstruction. They are not stopping it, they are simply not going down a specific path.
    That you don't like it their actions and wish that the state would take on the responsibility it has no obligation too is the only reason you call it obstruction.

    It is more true that it is incompetence and inability of the fed to actually fulfill IT'S self imposed obligations. They counted on states to voluntarily make a decision that wasn't good for every state, when the law itself made it clear the states had no obligation to do so. It was a miscalculation on the part of the fed that has hurt the implementation. That falls on the fed not the states as a failure. You should let the responsibility fall on who it belongs too instead of trying to spin it to benefit a specific party. Further, it is not simply one state, many states (the majority) apparently see it the same way. It simply isn't worth setting up the exchanges themselves.
    To serve man.

  12. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    What is the party breakdown of those states that are not implementing the exchanges?

    It smells of a passive aggressive strategy at obstruction, but I have no evidence of any collusion, nor do I have of any cooperation. I agree they are following the law. As long as the feds are provided with the resources to implement it I don't see a failure.

    Especially since I am in favor of a single payer system anyway, looks like another 10 yards for my team!
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    What is the party breakdown of those states that are not implementing the exchanges?

    It smells of a passive aggressive strategy at obstruction, but I have no evidence of any collusion, nor do I have of any cooperation. I agree they are following the law. As long as the feds are provided with the resources to implement it I don't see a failure.

    Especially since I am in favor of a single payer system anyway, looks like another 10 yards for my team!
    Well, if they are following the law.. then your accusation of obstruction is exactly as I said, baseless.
    What it smells like is a pile of mess that it is.

    I mean if your plan is "if everyone acts irrationally, then my plan will work".
    Then you can hardly 1) Blame people for refusing to act irrationally, 2) Blame those rational people for your failed assumption.

    Obama care is having problems because it is not setting up the exchanges on time and as promised. That is a failed promise by the fed(among many).
    That is the definition of failure. This in the face of the fact that money continues to be no object for the gov even if they don't have it.

    As for single payer you are right we are close. My wife is looking forward to her future career as an underground Mid-wife for those who have their babies before their turn in line comes up. (fingers crossed)
    To serve man.

  14. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  15. #32
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    If there were widespread agreement to do so within the states controlled by a certain party, I'd call that a strategy of obstruction.
    Why would you make that unwarranted assumption? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the party members of the state disagree with the philosophy of the legislation and do not wish to govern their citizens in such a manner?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would you make that unwarranted assumption? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the party members of the state disagree with the philosophy of the legislation and do not wish to govern their citizens in such a manner?
    Your assumption is just as reasonable as mine. It could be both at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive. They're both obstructionist.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Your assumption is just as reasonable as mine. It could be both at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive. They're both obstructionist.
    The term "obstructionist" as you are applying it, is so vague as to be meaningless, because it applies to both parties equally well.
    The Republicans obstruct Democrats. Democrats obstruct Republicans. it is better known as "politics".

    By this point, your only using the word as a funny name for people/groups you don't agree with. All it really does is beg the question of if an action should be done to begin with.
    After all, the allies Obstructed Hitler after they stopped "appeasing" (IE "Compromising") with him.

    Those so willing obstructionist!
    Those so willing to compromise!

    Just those lines do not convey any context or meaning to the issue at hand or if it should occur or not. Can you almost hear the chants from those days of the opposing sides?

    So, you are free to use Obstructionist as you see fit, but I for one will not pay it any further attention because it is meaningless. All should register it for the attempt at ridicule that it is.
    To serve man.

  18. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  19. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    You're taking my words the wrong way...as if I'm ridiculing someone.

    That isn't the case. Obstructing your opponent is a legitimate tactic, as I've said before.

    The conversations we were having was as to its degree with Obama as President.

    ---------- Post added at 05:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    As for single payer you are right we are close. My wife is looking forward to her future career as an underground Mid-wife for those who have their babies before their turn in line comes up. (fingers crossed)

    Indeed, in 2012 I waited 9 months for a yearly physical covered under my insurance (3 of which, admittedly, was because my primary physician retired) but 3,4,5,6 months isn't unusual under insurance companies in my experience. Ever try to get a same-day appointment with an HMO? Good luck.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #36
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Your assumption is just as reasonable as mine. It could be both at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive. They're both obstructionist.
    I don't think you understand what this term means. You are using it as a general catch all for "disagreeing with my position." Obstructionism is not implementing policies even though you believe they are good ideas. There is no evidence, at all, that Republicans believe that the ACA is a good idea and are not implementing it in order to cause obstructions.

    If you are going to continue to maintain that they are being obstructionist in this action, please provide support.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Indeed, in 2012 I waited 9 months for a yearly physical covered under my insurance (3 of which, admittedly, was because my primary physician retired) but 3,4,5,6 months isn't unusual under insurance companies in my experience. Ever try to get a same-day appointment with an HMO? Good luck.
    A single payers system doesn't allow for private payments. So my objection is based on the idea that as long as you are waiting for someone else to pay for your care, you will have to wait at their leisure. The farther away from yourself it gets and the more control that they have (such as an HMO) the longer you are going to wait.

    If we had Canada's system of healthcare(or any other socialized version), my father-in-law would be partially paralyzed. Precisely because of the wait time for an MRI. He was able to get it within the week as a "precaution" (Ie they were not looking for anything, just checking).

    As to physicals, around here because of the oil field I suppose, there doesn't appear to be such long waits on physicals. And I bet that if you paid yourself, you could have had one within the week.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    You're taking my words the wrong way...as if I'm ridiculing someone.

    That isn't the case. Obstructing your opponent is a legitimate tactic, as I've said before.

    The conversations we were having was as to its degree with Obama as President.
    Yes, I was taking it as an observation of something bad, not an observation of a truism across all political boundaries.
    Squatch is right.
    Unless they are blocking something they otherwise agree with just so the other party doesn't get credit, then it isn't relevant IMO.
    That is specifically true in the case of implementing the exchanges.
    To serve man.

  22. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think you understand what this term means. You are using it as a general catch all for "disagreeing with my position." Obstructionism is not implementing policies even though you believe they are good ideas. There is no evidence, at all, that Republicans believe that the ACA is a good idea and are not implementing it in order to cause obstructions.

    If you are going to continue to maintain that they are being obstructionist in this action, please provide support.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wol...e-Constipation


    It's a completely plausible conclusion given their outlined strategy and refusal to compromise on the ACA (even though Obama did). Are you saying their position was to do nothing? Because I remember it differently with McCain looking pretty silly with that "blank sheet of paper".


    Do I have a smoking gun? No. But I didn't look for one either nor have I heard any explination from any of the states.

    ---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A single payers system doesn't allow for private payments. So my objection is based on the idea that as long as you are waiting for someone else to pay for your care, you will have to wait at their leisure. The farther away from yourself it gets and the more control that they have (such as an HMO) the longer you are going to wait.

    If we had Canada's system of healthcare(or any other socialized version), my father-in-law would be partially paralyzed. Precisely because of the wait time for an MRI. He was able to get it within the week as a "precaution" (Ie they were not looking for anything, just checking).

    As to physicals, around here because of the oil field I suppose, there doesn't appear to be such long waits on physicals. And I bet that if you paid yourself, you could have had one within the week.

    Which is exactly what the debate is about, not heathcare, but health INSURANCE. I already pre-pay for my healthcare, I give up salary for it and my employer saves on salary because we purchase in bulk. The problem is that from provider to provider the coverage is erratic.

    The argument that there'll be wait times under Obamacare is irrelavant, there's wait times (rationing) now, only it's done by the insurance companies and their "death panels" which do exist now in insurance companies (but do not appear in Obamacare) all in the name of profit.

    Profit in the pursuit of healthcare is, in my opinion, vile.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  23. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    No. But I didn't look for one either nor have I heard any explination from any of the states.
    I gave you one of the reasons earlier, granted it was an "as I understand it".
    So here is a link and story repeating what I said only from the gov of a state.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    New Jersey Governor Chis Christie gave the best reasons for why a state would not participate:

    In short, I will not ask New Jerseyans to commit today to a State-based Exchange when the federal government cannot tell us what it will cost, how that cost compares to our other options, and how much control they will give the states over this state-financed option. We will comply with the “Affordable Care Act,” but only in the most efficient and cost effective way for New Jersey taxpayers. Until the federal government gives us all the necessary information, any other action than this would be fiscally irresponsible.

    In essence, the federalist argument for not participating is that the state government is being directed by the federal government to take on yet another unfunded mandate and administer it according to federal rules and on a federal time table. http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/14/t...nce-exchanges/
    There you have it it. The reason is that it will make the state more beholden to the fed in regards to an unknown cost.

    ---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Which is exactly what the debate is about, not heathcare, but health INSURANCE. I already pre-pay for my healthcare, I give up salary for it and my employer saves on salary because we purchase in bulk. The problem is that from provider to provider the coverage is erratic.

    The argument that there'll be wait times under Obamacare is irrelavant, there's wait times (rationing) now, only it's done by the insurance companies and their "death panels" which do exist now in insurance companies (but do not appear in Obamacare) all in the name of profit.

    Profit in the pursuit of healthcare is, in my opinion, vile.
    That is a problem created by gov .. you realize that right?
    Why can't insurances compete across state lines? Gov regulation.
    Why can't a Dr accept a monthly payment and in turn offer all inclusive medication and services for one price? Gov regulation (they call him an insurer).

    Further, if your insurer does not give you what you were promised, then they have committed fraud. Which again falls under the gov, who's job it is to protect against fraud.
    If not, then you can't really cry about the product YOU purchase not covering ALL of your possible risks.

    Finally, because not all insurances are the same, you can't put them all in the same criticism. What "death panels" are you talking about? Your either covered or your not, that is not a "death panel" decision.
    Not all products are made equal.
    To serve man.

  24. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I gave you one of the reasons earlier, granted it was an "as I understand it".
    So here is a link and story repeating what I said only from the gov of a state.

    There you have it it. The reason is that it will make the state more beholden to the fed in regards to an unknown cost.[COLOR="Silver"]

    I'll concede that point with the stipulation that there is a political factor in the calculus. Idaho and Mississippi are setting up the exchanges, so my argument is very weak.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Finally, because not all insurances are the same, you can't put them all in the same criticism. What "death panels" are you talking about? Your either covered or your not, that is not a "death panel" decision.
    Not all products are made equal.
    It depends on what your definition of what a "death panel" is. I take it to be a group of bureaucrats who decide what the best practices, as in treatments, are. These exist in insurance companies now and their decisions are skewed by profit and claims adjustment.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: July 19th, 2012, 06:20 AM
  2. Mind Trapped by limited effects
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 24th, 2012, 08:15 PM
  3. Mind Trapped by Poll's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 25th, 2010, 01:31 PM
  4. Mind Trapped in a dream #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •