Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

I raised the issue of what are "rights' and what are "wishes". That topic was apparently a little too intellectual for you since you gave no response to this topic, and consistent with your past practice, instead resorted to calling me names and then you tried to change the topic.

If you respond to this post, I again request that you do so without yelling at your computer or calling me names.

---

See post 1290. But I will spell it out for you. I believe that we, as a society, have an obligation to insure that all members of society have their basic needs met with respect to food, housing, education, and healthcare. These are not Constitutional rights, as I stated in another earlier post, but rather rights as members of our society...entitlements, if you prefer. Now will you answer my question....do you believe that we have an obligation to all members of our society with respect to these basic needs? And if so, what is the basis for your position? And if not, just say so and we will all know exactly where you stand. But if you say yes, know also that you are admitting the bankruptcy in the "access" position taken by House Republicans who are supporting Trumpcare.

Wow, you wrote all that without getting mad or calling me names. Well done.

My intent was not to get into a lengthy discussion on this board re: the role of government in people's lives. Needless to say, I believe in limited government with limited interference in people's lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

Wow, you wrote all that without getting mad or calling me names. Well done.

My intent was not to get into a lengthy discussion on this board re: the role of government in people's lives. Needless to say, I believe in limited government with limited interference in people's lives.

---

So what is your position with respect to government programs giving our least well off access to food, shelter, education, and healthcare? I still don't see an answer to that question. And if your answer is "yes", on what basis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X-man

The silence is deafening whenever you ask such question from posters supporting Trumpcare. I am still waiting for a response from XU87, and I'm guessing you will have the same experience trying to get an answer from Juice.

---

Jesus dude. Some of us have a life outside of dealing with your ass.

1) I don't support Trumpcare, and I didn't vote for Trump. I don't support Obamacare either.
2) Very short answer. Increase competition. Open up insurance across state borders. Less government oversight. Tax deductions for health care spending. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

I've said it a number of times, but what I find confounding is the "We shouldn't force people to pay for others' insurance." argument, because we already do. If someone absolutely needs healthcare, they get it. That's a simple fact. So why not do that more efficiently and effectively?

---

Because you think it's more efficiently and effective while others do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

Jesus dude. Some of us have a life outside of dealing with your ass.

1) I don't support Trumpcare, and I didn't vote for Trump. I don't support Obamacare either.
2) Very short answer. Increase competition. 1. Open up insurance across state borders. 2. Less government oversight. 3. Tax deductions for health care spending. 4. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

---

1. This is already enacted. States have the authority to sanction sales across state lines as mandated by section 1333 of Obamacare. Five States already offer it. Georgia has allowed it since 2011 and 0 companies have chose to do so. The only time it would be advantageous was if the states had varied consumer protection laws and health regulation. Also, insurance is by nature local. To succeed, insurance companies need a significant toe-hold with hospitals and other providers in their local market; an out-of-state insurer would lack that.

2. What do you mean by this? Deregulate insurance? How?

3. That's just simply not how any of this works. The only serious way to decrease costs is to decrease drug costs. The only way to do this is through government intervention. Either in negotiating with drug companies on behalf of the entire public, limiting the number or duration of patents, or getting the FDA to loosen drug requirements. The last one is a bad idea for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

Jesus dude. Some of us have a life outside of dealing with your ass.

1) I don't support Trumpcare, and I didn't vote for Trump. I don't support Obamacare either.
2) Very short answer. Increase competition. 1. Open up insurance across state borders. 2. Less government oversight. 3. Tax deductions for health care spending. 4. Shit like that so costs decrease for everyone so when poor people or people who don't get insurance through work have to get care that when the government/other people have to cover their shit, it's not as much.

---

Your last line is really a doozie. A huge part of government subsidized insurance is helping the government and tax payers pay less by having more people contribute to the pool and assisting in prevention. When people have access to check ups, clinics, etc. we prevent major medical intervention and ER visits. You talk about insurance like it's this mythical realm we can't comprehend. Insurance is a pretty simple business model. Everyone pitches in so no one gets sunk. It works for massive companies, it could work for the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

Your last line is really a doozie. A huge part of government subsidized insurance is helping the government and tax payers pay less by having more people contribute to the pool and assisting in prevention. When people have access to check ups, clinics, etc. we prevent major medical intervention and ER visits. You talk about insurance like it's this mythical realm we can't comprehend. Insurance is a pretty simple business model. Everyone pitches in so no one gets sunk. It works for massive companies, it could work for the country.

---

And in fact it does work in other countries, as the data cited earlier in this thread so clearly shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

Your last line is really a doozie. A huge part of government subsidized insurance is helping the government and tax payers pay less by having more people contribute to the pool and assisting in prevention. When people have access to check ups, clinics, etc. we prevent major medical intervention and ER visits. You talk about insurance like it's this mythical realm we can't comprehend. Insurance is a pretty simple business model. Everyone pitches in so no one gets sunk. It works for massive companies, it could work for the country.

---

For one, don't tie it all to employment.

And that didn't work because young people weren't signing up to pay for old and shitty people. Premiums were going up for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

For one, don't tie it all to employment.

And that didn't work because young people weren't signing up to pay for old and shitty people. Premiums were going up for everyone.

---

Again, ACA is extremely flawed. What you pointed out is correct. However, it's not because young people didn't want to pay for "shitty people", it was because the penalty was cheaper than insurance. The more people made that choice, the more expensive premiums got.