2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate

[Full-Auto]

There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.

That is laughable. I have yet to hear anyone of the nuts say anything in that respect.

The idea was to control costs, the response from the left was OK more freebees.

Remember this from the party on the left.

Any cut is extreme. How much further will the debt take us, all the way to the crash.

The idea is to get EVERYONE health care. Cost is secondary to that goal. But cost is reduced by making sure EVERYBODY has access to quality health care. Fucking DUH!

Everyone does have access. you will need to try much harder.

 

[Claudette]

This bill does nothing to address the problem with HC, The cost.
.

How do you suggest we address this problem? Ration services or ration access?

That is certainly the Democratic approach.
A better one would be putting the individual in charge of his own health care, including costs. People are better spenders of their own money than of someone else's money.

It also wouldn't hurt to let these HC companies have to compete against each other country wide. Competition produces good prices.

Don't know about you but I would be going for the best coverage at the least cost.

 

[8537]

Except those costs are rising in part because of gov't interference. Obamacare will make that trend worse, much worse.

So in countries that have more government "interference", we should see more expensive health care costs?

Hmm...let's look around and see if that's the case, shall we?

All countries with socializes systems are seeing their health care costs exploding. They are all trying desperately to institute changes to control those costs.
Go right ahead and look and see.
Tool.

Per capita health care costs and the rate of growth of health care costs are lower in all of those countries than in the United States.

Keep reaching.

 

[8537]

This bill does nothing to address the problem with HC, The cost.
.

How do you suggest we address this problem? Ration services or ration access?

That is certainly the Democratic approach.
A better one would be putting the individual in charge of his own health care, including costs. People are better spenders of their own money than of someone else's money.

Yeah, people should all save enough money that they can pay for kidney failure, advanced cancer treatments and a quadruple bypass. How entirely reasonable!

 

[The Rabbi]

So in countries that have more government "interference", we should see more expensive health care costs?

Hmm...let's look around and see if that's the case, shall we?

All countries with socializes systems are seeing their health care costs exploding. They are all trying desperately to institute changes to control those costs.
Go right ahead and look and see.
Tool.

Per capita health care costs and the rate of growth of health care costs are lower in all of those countries than in the United States.

Keep reaching.

I've already shown you cannot compare rates because the populations are different.
You can compare costs in those countries from period to period. And those costs are skyrocketing. Just like MA.

 

[8537]

All countries with socializes systems are seeing their health care costs exploding. They are all trying desperately to institute changes to control those costs.
Go right ahead and look and see.
Tool.

Per capita health care costs and the rate of growth of health care costs are lower in all of those countries than in the United States.

Keep reaching.

I've already shown you cannot compare rates because the populations are different.

No you haven't. How are the "populations different"? Last I checked, we were from a gene pool that is 99.99% identical to the gene pool in those nations.

 

[The Rabbi]

How do you suggest we address this problem? Ration services or ration access?

That is certainly the Democratic approach.
A better one would be putting the individual in charge of his own health care, including costs. People are better spenders of their own money than of someone else's money.

Yeah, people should all save enough money that they can pay for kidney failure, advanced cancer treatments and a quadruple bypass. How entirely reasonable!

Moving the goalposts again?
Those are exactly the things people need insurance for. Not doctor visits or contraceptives.

You seem especially clueless this morning. Is it something you drank last night or have I just forgotten what a moron you are?

 

[8537]

That is certainly the Democratic approach.
A better one would be putting the individual in charge of his own health care, including costs. People are better spenders of their own money than of someone else's money.

Yeah, people should all save enough money that they can pay for kidney failure, advanced cancer treatments and a quadruple bypass. How entirely reasonable!

Moving the goalposts again?
Those are exactly the things people need insurance for. Not doctor visits or contraceptives.

Insurance? But that's not putting people in charge of the costs of health care. Instead, it's quite intentionally creating moral hazard.

But now that we agree that insurance is needed, maybe we should look at what drives down the cost of insurance. I'll start: A bigger pool of insured folks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Per capita health care costs and the rate of growth of health care costs are lower in all of those countries than in the United States.

Keep reaching.

I've already shown you cannot compare rates because the populations are different.

No you haven't. How are the "populations different"? Last I checked, we were from a gene pool that is 99.99% identical to the gene pool in those nations.

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Our entire mode of living is different owing to the age of the country vs Europe and its size. Our diet is different as well.
Keep reaching up there. Eventually you'll find something. Like your tonsils.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, people should all save enough money that they can pay for kidney failure, advanced cancer treatments and a quadruple bypass. How entirely reasonable!

Moving the goalposts again?
Those are exactly the things people need insurance for. Not doctor visits or contraceptives.

Insurance? But that's not putting people in charge of the costs of health care. Instead, it's quite intentionally creating moral hazard.

But now that we agree that insurance is needed, maybe we should look at what drives down the cost of insurance. I'll start: A bigger pool of insured folks.

How is providing insurance for catastrophic events a moral hazard? Do you even know wtf you're talking about?
Drive down costs? How about more choice? Like across state lines. How about no mandates on what must be included in a policy?
Surely you agree with that. You must support Ryan's proposal then.

 

[8537]

I've already shown you cannot compare rates because the populations are different.

No you haven't. How are the "populations different"? Last I checked, we were from a gene pool that is 99.99% identical to the gene pool in those nations.

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Our entire mode of living is different owing to the age of the country vs Europe and its size. Our diet is different as well.
Keep reaching up there. Eventually you'll find something. Like your tonsils.

Wait a second - are you saying that blacks, asians and hispanics require more expensive health care, genetically, than whites?

Please do explain why the color of one's skin impacts the amount required for health care. This should be *interesting*.

 

[8537]

Moving the goalposts again?
Those are exactly the things people need insurance for. Not doctor visits or contraceptives.

Insurance? But that's not putting people in charge of the costs of health care. Instead, it's quite intentionally creating moral hazard.

But now that we agree that insurance is needed, maybe we should look at what drives down the cost of insurance. I'll start: A bigger pool of insured folks.

How is providing insurance for catastrophic events a moral hazard?

Uh, because it incentivized negative behaviors? Methinks you don't understand moral hazard.

Drive down costs? How about more choice? Like across state lines. How about no mandates on what must be included in a policy?

Let's see...more choice across state lines. Kinda like a system of public exchanges where people can buy health insurance from numerous carriers?

 

[Polk]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.

Showing that "activist" has no meaning whatsoever.

 

[Polk]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.

No. They did not. There is no such rider and the question of severability is therefore debatable.

The ACA is certainly unworkable without it, though.

If the mandate falls, ObamaCare falls with it, since the alleged zero cost to the federal budget of the ACA all hinges on the mandate.

It would be interesting to see a poll that asks people if they would still like to see the mandate eliminated if it means all of ObamaCare goes with it.

The ACA can function without the mandate. Several states already have guaranteed issue with no mandate.

 

[The Rabbi]

No you haven't. How are the "populations different"? Last I checked, we were from a gene pool that is 99.99% identical to the gene pool in those nations.

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Our entire mode of living is different owing to the age of the country vs Europe and its size. Our diet is different as well.
Keep reaching up there. Eventually you'll find something. Like your tonsils.

Wait a second - are you saying that blacks, asians and hispanics require more expensive health care, genetically, than whites?

Please do explain why the color of one's skin impacts the amount required for health care. This should be *interesting*.

More fallacies from you. What a shocker.
You claim that costs ought to be comparable given we have comparable genes. I show we do not have comparable genes.
Blacks have a tendency to higher incidents of certain diseases than whites. This is simply fact. It isn't what the argument was--you have again shifted the goalposts. But it is the truth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Insurance? But that's not putting people in charge of the costs of health care. Instead, it's quite intentionally creating moral hazard.

But now that we agree that insurance is needed, maybe we should look at what drives down the cost of insurance. I'll start: A bigger pool of insured folks.

How is providing insurance for catastrophic events a moral hazard?

Uh, because it incentivized negative behaviors? Methinks you don't understand moral hazard.

Drive down costs? How about more choice? Like across state lines. How about no mandates on what must be included in a policy?

Let's see...more choice across state lines. Kinda like a system of public exchanges where people can buy health insurance from numerous carriers?

More canards.
How does catastrophic health insurance create moral hazard any more than car insurance or homeowner's insurance? Maybe we should outlaw insurance altogether?
Really you ought to reconsider your entire ability to argue. Every discussion consists of you making some inane statement, me refuting it, and you changing the terms of the discussion.
You fail in every single post.
Yes, it is kind of like a system of public exchanges. But not like the one enshrined in Obamacare,w hich mandated who must have which coverage and where they must buy it.
But nice try.

 

[Polk]

The biggest reason I think the court will uphold the law? Failure to do so would absolutely kill big chunks of the Republican legislative agenda.

 

[Too Tall]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

All ObamaCare does is spread the costs around a little more by forcing people into the system, subsidzing others, and reducing a few costs like eliminating the people who use emergency rooms as their family doctors.

Because we see Health Coverage as a form of compensation rather than as a public service like every other sensible country does, we come up with these creative concepts of how you've "earned" your health care when in fact, when you need it, you are taking more than you ever put in.

Are you sure everyone is taking out more than they ever put in?

 

[Truthmatters]

I guess we will have to do universal health care instead of mandated purchase of healthcare.

Its what all the smart countries are doing to decrease cost and assure their populations are healthy

 

[FA_Q2]

There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.

That is laughable. I have yet to hear anyone of the nuts say anything in that respect.

The idea was to control costs, the response from the left was OK more freebees.

Remember this from the party on the left.

Any cut is extreme. How much further will the debt take us, all the way to the crash.

The idea is to get EVERYONE health care. Cost is secondary to that goal. But cost is reduced by making sure EVERYBODY has access to quality health care. Fucking DUH!

Yes, that reduces cost by, well... because... ummm....

No, you don't reduce cost by simply giving access. That actually INCREASES cost. There are plenty of ways to reduce cost but Obama did not address cost at all.