Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as ‘dogs.’

[DiveCon]

no, that would be called "healthcare reform"
not what you assholes want

the "floor" as you call it, should be set by those wanting to purchase

Hell no. The floor (minimum coverage) should be set by the government to not allow a race to the bottom.

so, you as a consumer are too fucking stupid to know what you want for coverage, you need a nanny state to tell you what you need?

 

[Varth Dader]

no, that would be called "healthcare reform"
not what you assholes want

the "floor" as you call it, should be set by those wanting to purchase

Hell no. The floor (minimum coverage) should be set by the government to not allow a race to the bottom.

so, you as a consumer are too fucking stupid to know what you want for coverage, you need a nanny state to tell you what you need?

Besides the fact you invent motives for me, you are ABSOLUTELY right.

Just like the fact that I want a minimum wage because I, like others, might be "too stupid to know" what kind of salary I want, just like I want the state to prevent kids from working in factories, cause some parents might be "too stupid to know" that it's bad for their kids, etc. Just like I want groups like the SEC monitoring corporations that they aren't stealing my money, because I might be "too stupid to know" where to not invest.

Please, give me the nanny state if that's what you want to call it. Because some people are just "too stupid" to know any better.

(or, more realitistically, the market doesn't always yield great results, so we need government to set some policies)

 

[DiveCon]

Hell no. The floor (minimum coverage) should be set by the government to not allow a race to the bottom.

so, you as a consumer are too fucking stupid to know what you want for coverage, you need a nanny state to tell you what you need?

Besides the fact you invent motives for me, you are ABSOLUTELY right.

Just like the fact that I want a minimum wage because I, like others, might be "too stupid to know" what kind of salary I want, just like I want the state to prevent kids from working in factories, cause some parents might be "too stupid to know" that it's bad for their kids, etc. Just like I want groups like the SEC monitoring corporations that they aren't stealing my money, because I might be "too stupid to know" where to not invest.

Please, give me the nanny state if that's what you want to call it. Because some people are just "too stupid" to know any better.

(or, more realitistically, the market doesn't always yield great results, so we need government to set some policies)

ah, so to hell with the constitution, you want you want

 

[Varth Dader]

so, you as a consumer are too fucking stupid to know what you want for coverage, you need a nanny state to tell you what you need?

Besides the fact you invent motives for me, you are ABSOLUTELY right.

Just like the fact that I want a minimum wage because I, like others, might be "too stupid to know" what kind of salary I want, just like I want the state to prevent kids from working in factories, cause some parents might be "too stupid to know" that it's bad for their kids, etc. Just like I want groups like the SEC monitoring corporations that they aren't stealing my money, because I might be "too stupid to know" where to not invest.

Please, give me the nanny state if that's what you want to call it. Because some people are just "too stupid" to know any better.

(or, more realitistically, the market doesn't always yield great results, so we need government to set some policies)

ah, so to hell with the constitution, you want you want

To hell with the constitution? Most of what I have written above has received the SCOTUS stamp of approval.

I know that simply because the SCOTUS says something is true it doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but you have a really weird vision of the constitution if you think that it's going to hell because the policies I have outlined above have been or will be (in the case of health care) implemented.

Added: Sometimes I feel like the constitution is some sort of hail mary pass....

 

[The Rabbi]

Which would tend to suggest that polciies ought to be availabel across state lines.

that would increase the risk pool

Yes, it's called a federally run health insurance program. Or "the public option".

If you allow policies to run across state lines without getting an opt-in from states, it seems to me that the federal government should dictate a strong minimum plan. If you are going to prevent states from exercising control about what is or isn't in a plan, then there should at least be a great floor.

The floor should be set by the market. The gov't should have no role in dictating what kinds of contracts companies should or should not write. Maybe someone wants a policy that only covers male breast cancer. As long as that is spelled out, its fine. WHy should he pay for anything more than what he wants? Yet this is what you guys want the gov't to do. This is why health policies are far more expensive in MA than in NH: gov mandates.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell no. The floor (minimum coverage) should be set by the government to not allow a race to the bottom.

so, you as a consumer are too fucking stupid to know what you want for coverage, you need a nanny state to tell you what you need?

Besides the fact you invent motives for me, you are ABSOLUTELY right.

Just like the fact that I want a minimum wage because I, like others, might be "too stupid to know" what kind of salary I want, just like I want the state to prevent kids from working in factories, cause some parents might be "too stupid to know" that it's bad for their kids, etc. Just like I want groups like the SEC monitoring corporations that they aren't stealing my money, because I might be "too stupid to know" where to not invest.

Please, give me the nanny state if that's what you want to call it. Because some people are just "too stupid" to know any better.

(or, more realitistically, the market doesn't always yield great results, so we need government to set some policies)

If you treat people like idiots, they act like idiots. We have seen people act increasingly like idiots over the last 40 years in part because they are increasingly being treated like idiots by the gov't.
The SEC is different from all the other cases. I believe anything ought to be legal as long as both parties understand what they are doing. This gives choice and competition, something even Barak Obama says he's in favor of.
The argument "some people are too stupid" is an insult to the American people and stinks of elitism.

 

[Varth Dader]

so, you as a consumer are too fucking stupid to know what you want for coverage, you need a nanny state to tell you what you need?

Besides the fact you invent motives for me, you are ABSOLUTELY right.

Just like the fact that I want a minimum wage because I, like others, might be "too stupid to know" what kind of salary I want, just like I want the state to prevent kids from working in factories, cause some parents might be "too stupid to know" that it's bad for their kids, etc. Just like I want groups like the SEC monitoring corporations that they aren't stealing my money, because I might be "too stupid to know" where to not invest.

Please, give me the nanny state if that's what you want to call it. Because some people are just "too stupid" to know any better.

(or, more realitistically, the market doesn't always yield great results, so we need government to set some policies)

If you treat people like idiots, they act like idiots. We have seen people act increasingly like idiots over the last 40 years in part because they are increasingly being treated like idiots by the gov't.
The SEC is different from all the other cases. I believe anything ought to be legal as long as both parties understand what they are doing. This gives choice and competition, something even Barak Obama says he's in favor of.
The argument "some people are too stupid" is an insult to the American people and stinks of elitism.

Are you trying to rewrite history? How many times have we seen the market, when left unchecked, yield result that are logically and morally bad. Minimum wages, preventing child labor, corporations being mismanaged by individuals (and affecting larges classes of investors or the market as a whole), etc.

This has nothing to do with treating people like idiots. It's the realization that not every situation yields an acceptable outcome. That's where government kicks in.

So if tomorrow, all airline companies decide to charge baggage fee, that might not be the end of the world. On the other hand, if every health insurance company decides to remove coverage for diabetic patients, well that might be a problem.

And hence the need for the federal government to set a floor with respect to health care especially if you will prevent states from controlling that right.

Maybe we need to get the "state rights" crowd in here...

 

[The Rabbi]

Besides the fact you invent motives for me, you are ABSOLUTELY right.

Just like the fact that I want a minimum wage because I, like others, might be "too stupid to know" what kind of salary I want, just like I want the state to prevent kids from working in factories, cause some parents might be "too stupid to know" that it's bad for their kids, etc. Just like I want groups like the SEC monitoring corporations that they aren't stealing my money, because I might be "too stupid to know" where to not invest.

Please, give me the nanny state if that's what you want to call it. Because some people are just "too stupid" to know any better.

(or, more realitistically, the market doesn't always yield great results, so we need government to set some policies)

If you treat people like idiots, they act like idiots. We have seen people act increasingly like idiots over the last 40 years in part because they are increasingly being treated like idiots by the gov't.
The SEC is different from all the other cases. I believe anything ought to be legal as long as both parties understand what they are doing. This gives choice and competition, something even Barak Obama says he's in favor of.
The argument "some people are too stupid" is an insult to the American people and stinks of elitism.

Are you trying to rewrite history? How many times have we seen the market, when left unchecked, yield result that are logically and morally bad. Minimum wages, preventing child labor, corporations being mismanaged by individuals (and affecting larges classes of investors or the market as a whole), etc.

This has nothing to do with treating people like idiots. It's the realization that not every situation yields an acceptable outcome. That's where government kicks in.

So if tomorrow, all airline companies decide to charge baggage fee, that might not be the end of the world. On the other hand, if every health insurance company decides to remove coverage for diabetic patients, well that might be a problem.

And hence the need for the federal government to set a floor with respect to health care especially if you will prevent states from controlling that right.

Maybe we need to get the "state rights" crowd in here...

No, you are trying to rewrite history here.
The market always eventually yields the correct result. It is politicians who screw things up.
CEO's running their companies into the ground? That's called the ability to fail. I hope you dont think businesses shouldnt be allowed to fail because of bad management or changes in society. Otherwise there would be a lot of gov't supported buggy makers out there.
Health insurance companies should be free to write policies wherever they think they can make money. If they decide that diabetics are too expensive to cover, they need to be allowed to drop them. Why would you force someone to do something against his own interest? Because if you do, EVERYONE suffers.
Child labor? Go and find a job today that a 10 year old could do. The labor market has progressed beyond that. But even so, what is terrible about it? It is a choice people make. It might mean the difference between keeping your own apartment and having to move into a homeless shelter. You want to make that choice for someone else? Think they are too stupid to take care of their own kids? You're an elitist if you do.

 

[Immanuel]

The thought that anyone could defend these bastards is stunning.

Who is defending them? We are simply saying that governmental bureaucrats are AS bad, if not worse than these people.

Also, the left wing mantra about replacing a bureaucrat if they don't do their job is ludicrous. Once a moron gets a government job, he/she has a job for life no matter how poorly he/she performs.

Immie

 

[Varth Dader]

If you treat people like idiots, they act like idiots. We have seen people act increasingly like idiots over the last 40 years in part because they are increasingly being treated like idiots by the gov't.
The SEC is different from all the other cases. I believe anything ought to be legal as long as both parties understand what they are doing. This gives choice and competition, something even Barak Obama says he's in favor of.
The argument "some people are too stupid" is an insult to the American people and stinks of elitism.

Are you trying to rewrite history? How many times have we seen the market, when left unchecked, yield result that are logically and morally bad. Minimum wages, preventing child labor, corporations being mismanaged by individuals (and affecting larges classes of investors or the market as a whole), etc.

This has nothing to do with treating people like idiots. It's the realization that not every situation yields an acceptable outcome. That's where government kicks in.

So if tomorrow, all airline companies decide to charge baggage fee, that might not be the end of the world. On the other hand, if every health insurance company decides to remove coverage for diabetic patients, well that might be a problem.

And hence the need for the federal government to set a floor with respect to health care especially if you will prevent states from controlling that right.

Maybe we need to get the "state rights" crowd in here...

No, you are trying to rewrite history here.
The market always eventually yields the correct result. It is politicians who screw things up.
CEO's running their companies into the ground? That's called the ability to fail. I hope you dont think businesses shouldnt be allowed to fail because of bad management or changes in society. Otherwise there would be a lot of gov't supported buggy makers out there.
Health insurance companies should be free to write policies wherever they think they can make money. If they decide that diabetics are too expensive to cover, they need to be allowed to drop them. Why would you force someone to do something against his own interest? Because if you do, EVERYONE suffers.
Child labor? Go and find a job today that a 10 year old could do. The labor market has progressed beyond that. But even so, what is terrible about it? It is a choice people make. It might mean the difference between keeping your own apartment and having to move into a homeless shelter. You want to make that choice for someone else? Think they are too stupid to take care of their own kids? You're an elitist if you do.

Personally, I would rather not live in a world where the rules of the pirates on the coast of Somalia apply.

on your "no government intervention" position. And on loving the law of the jungle so much. It's good. You won't even defend laws against child labor. Fantastic.

Now for the rest of us that want a civilized and modern society, we want the laws against child labor, we want the laws protecting kids from being harmed by unfit parents, we want mandatory schools, we want a fire department that covers everyone, we want public roads, we want a functioning government laying some solid foundations for society.

If you don't think there are some parents that are too stupid to parent their own kids, I strongly suggest you watch Jerry Springer or Maury Povich.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. you're a socialist elitist who think people are too stupid to raise their kids.
I think people generally can tell what is in their best interest and should be allowed to pursue their own happiness the way the Founders intended.
I guess there's no discussion possible. We've reached the end.

 

[Varth Dader]

OK. you're a socialist elitist who think people are too stupid to raise their kids.
I think people generally can tell what is in their best interest and should be allowed to pursue their own happiness the way the Founders intended.
I guess there's no discussion possible. We've reached the end.

Please come back to this thread after you watch next week's Maury Povich show.

If you don't like Maury Povich, why don't you go to the court house and see some real life cases dealing with real life situations where not everyone isn't as smart as you would like to.

 

[logical4u]

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
Michael Connelly,
Ret. Constitutional Attorney
08.24.09

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti on_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton , Texas

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. you're a socialist elitist who think people are too stupid to raise their kids.
I think people generally can tell what is in their best interest and should be allowed to pursue their own happiness the way the Founders intended.
I guess there's no discussion possible. We've reached the end.

Please come back to this thread after you watch next week's Maury Povich show.

If you don't like Maury Povich, why don't you go to the court house and see some real life cases dealing with real life situations where not everyone isn't as smart as you would like to.

If you think Maury Povich is typical of Americans then you have revealed yourself as an elitist snob who needs to go hide in a very dark place.
Your second sentence is practically incomprehensible.