VOX: "Obamacare’s individual mandate is unpopular. But it’s crucial to making Obamacare work"

[MadChemist]

Hey, guy, here's what history tells me-

EVERY COUNTRY THAT HAS SINGLE PAYER HAS MADE IT WORK!

But I'm sure you'll babble some horseshit about the USSR and "Eeek, Socialism" or some such. I have no time or patience for that bullshit. ''

Yeah we won the Cold War. We lasted a whole 20 years longer than the USSR before the whole thing fell apart in 2008.

To bad there are no metrics for what decides what "works".

You just need to make that claim so you preserve your fantasy.

 

[JoeB131]

To bad there are no metrics for what decides what "works".

sure there are.

I list them all the time.

Here's my metrics.

Life Expectancy - The US is usually last among industrialized nations.

Infant Mortality- again, the US is often last among industrialized nations.

See, that was fucking easy. Now, the Insurance Apologists have a whole shitload of excuses about why we spend the most money and get the worst results. But they are exactly that, excuses.

We have the worst results because it costs too much and not everyone has access. Period.

 

[MadChemist]

To bad there are no metrics for what decides what "works".

sure there are.

I list them all the time.

Here's my metrics.

Life Expectancy - The US is usually last among industrialized nations.

Infant Mortality- again, the US is often last among industrialized nations.

See, that was fucking easy. Now, the Insurance Apologists have a whole shitload of excuses about why we spend the most money and get the worst results. But they are exactly that, excuses.

We have the worst results because it costs too much and not everyone has access. Period.

That isn't anything, let alone easy.

What insurance apologists ? I have no idea who you are talking about.

What we agree on is that we spend way to much money regardless of the results.

But, that was not the question. The question was metrics.

And you provide two of the more useless and controversial statistics in response.

Why American infant mortality rates are so high

This was just one I picked as it covers a few of the key points......

Perhaps not surprisingly, babies born to wealthier and better educated parents in the United States tended to fare about as well as infants born in European countries. On the other hand, those babies born to mothers in the United States without these advantages were more likely to die than any other group, even similarly disadvantaged populations in the other countries.

Which only says that such statistics hide trends and information that would be useful to the conversation.

Which eveyone pretty much knows.

I can't tell if you are a simpleton, a hack, or just lazy.

 

[JoeB131]

And you provide two of the more useless and controversial statistics in response.

Actually, those are probably the best statisitics, but the apologists always have racism tinged excuses as to why they are so, other than the obvious one.

If you can't access health care because it's too expensive, you are more likely to get bad results.

 

[MadChemist]

And you provide two of the more useless and controversial statistics in response.

Actually, those are probably the best statisitics, but the apologists always have racism tinged excuses as to why they are so, other than the obvious one.

If you can't access health care because it's too expensive, you are more likely to get bad results.

As you say, it isn't that complicated.....

Life expectancy is not a single statistic and the general numbers are not filtered.

An example: suicide....generally, young people so it can really skew the numbers. Has nothing to do with health care. Murder...same thing. The country is not uniform in it's murder rates.

Another example: obesity.....not related to health care. Still a big factor in heart attacks and strokes.

Pull that out and revisit the numbers.

 

[HenryBHough]

A cute artifact of Obamacare is the 3% Health Insurance Tax (appropriately called "HIT") that will clobber insured Americans in January. A built-in feature that was deferred to get past the election but you can be sure won't be deferred again. But you liberals will love paying more for insurance, won't you?

 

[MadChemist]

And you provide two of the more useless and controversial statistics in response.

Actually, those are probably the best statisitics, but the apologists always have racism tinged excuses as to why they are so, other than the obvious one.

If you can't access health care because it's too expensive, you are more likely to get bad results.

BTW: I find it funny the way you poison the well with regards to other points of view. Calling apologists racists.

Heaven forbid that you have a reasonable discussion with other perspectives.

 

[debbiedowner]

A cute artifact of Obamacare is the 3% Health Insurance Tax (appropriately called "HIT") that will clobber insured Americans in January. A built-in feature that was deferred to get past the election but you can be sure won't be deferred again. But you liberals will love paying more for insurance, won't you?

Keep in mind the republican congress had all year to repeal this tax.

Health Insurer Tax (HIT) Will be Back in Effect in 2018 - Leavitt Group News & Publications

 

[dblack]

A cute artifact of Obamacare is the 3% Health Insurance Tax (appropriately called "HIT") that will clobber insured Americans in January. A built-in feature that was deferred to get past the election but you can be sure won't be deferred again. But you liberals will love paying more for insurance, won't you?

Keep in mind the republican congress had all year to repeal this tax.

Health Insurer Tax (HIT) Will be Back in Effect in 2018 - Leavitt Group News & Publications

I haven't seen anything to convince me Republicans want to do anything but adjust ACA to suit their sponsors instead of the Democrat's. And the insurance industry plays both ends against the middle, goading Democrats into regulating customers (not only telling them what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy, but forcing them to buy it!), and the getting the Republicans to remove the provisions they don't like.

And the individual mandate isn't one of those provisions.

Trump is the wildcard in all of this. Republicans in Congress will never get rid of the mandate on their own. And if Trump does it by executive order or something, they will immediately replace it with a tax incentive - ie the exact same fucking thing. I'd like to think Trump would veto that kind of attempt, but I'm not sure he gets it.

 

[JoeB131]

As you say, it isn't that complicated.....

Life expectancy is not a single statistic and the general numbers are not filtered.

An example: suicide....generally, young people so it can really skew the numbers.

Okay, except there aren't enough suicides to skew the general numbers, and most industrialized nations have about the same suicide rates.. Japan actually has a higher one, but the Japanese live 4 years longer than we do on average.

Murder...same thing. The country is not uniform in it's murder rates.

Again, while the US has an appalling number of murders, (thanks to it be way to easy to get a gun in this country), we aren't having enough murders to really skew the statistics that much. 16,000 homicides a year aren't going to bump a population of 300,000,000 that far.

BTW: I find it funny the way you poison the well with regards to other points of view. Calling apologists racists.

Heaven forbid that you have a reasonable discussion with other perspectives.

I kind of find it hard to have 'discussions' with people who basically are okay with big insurance screwing us over. But of course, many apologist arguments boil down to racism. "If you take minorities out, the numbers are closer to europe". that kind of shit.

And then individual mandate isn't one of those provisions.

No, it isn't. Because once you've told them they can't deny on the basis of pre-existing conditions, everyone will just buy insurance when they get sick. It would collapse the system.

 

[debbiedowner]

A cute artifact of Obamacare is the 3% Health Insurance Tax (appropriately called "HIT") that will clobber insured Americans in January. A built-in feature that was deferred to get past the election but you can be sure won't be deferred again. But you liberals will love paying more for insurance, won't you?

Keep in mind the republican congress had all year to repeal this tax.

Health Insurer Tax (HIT) Will be Back in Effect in 2018 - Leavitt Group News & Publications

I haven't seen anything to convince me Republicans want to do anything but adjust ACA to suit their sponsors instead of the Democrat's. And the insurance industry plays both ends against the middle, goading Democrats into regulating customers (not only telling them what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy, but forcing them to buy it!), and the getting the Republicans to remove the provisions they don't like.

And the individual mandate isn't one of those provisions.

Trump is the wildcard in all of this. Republicans in Congress will never get rid of the mandate on their own. And if Trump does it by executive order or something, they will immediately replace it with a tax incentive - ie the exact same fucking thing. I'd like to think Trump would veto that kind of attempt, but I'm not sure he gets it.

The mandate can only be changed by congress it was written into law.

 

[debbiedowner]

As you say, it isn't that complicated.....

Life expectancy is not a single statistic and the general numbers are not filtered.

An example: suicide....generally, young people so it can really skew the numbers.

Okay, except there aren't enough suicides to skew the general numbers, and most industrialized nations have about the same suicide rates.. Japan actually has a higher one, but the Japanese live 4 years longer than we do on average.

Murder...same thing. The country is not uniform in it's murder rates.

Again, while the US has an appalling number of murders, (thanks to it be way to easy to get a gun in this country), we aren't having enough murders to really skew the statistics that much. 16,000 homicides a year aren't going to bump a population of 300,000,000 that far.

BTW: I find it funny the way you poison the well with regards to other points of view. Calling apologists racists.

Heaven forbid that you have a reasonable discussion with other perspectives.

I kind of find it hard to have 'discussions' with people who basically are okay with big insurance screwing us over. But of course, many apologist arguments boil down to racism. "If you take minorities out, the numbers are closer to europe". that kind of shit.

And then individual mandate isn't one of those provisions.

No, it isn't. Because once you've told them they can't deny on the basis of pre-existing conditions, everyone will just buy insurance when they get sick. It would collapse the system.

Wouldn't matter if the mandate was there or not you can only purchase insurance during open enrollment periods, insurance companies now can sell anytime of the year if they wanted to do so, but they followed the marketplace for the very reason you stated.

 

[HenryBHough]

Keep in mind the republican congress had all year to repeal this tax.



Health Insurer Tax (HIT) Will be Back in Effect in 2018 - Leavitt Group News & Publications

It's sad to see a supposed adult equate communistic RINOs with Republicans.

 

[JoeB131]

It's sad to see a supposed adult equate communistic RINOs with Republicans.

Ronald Reagan would be a :"RINO" by the crazy standards of today's GOP.

 

[MadChemist]

As you say, it isn't that complicated.....

Life expectancy is not a single statistic and the general numbers are not filtered.

An example: suicide....generally, young people so it can really skew the numbers.

Okay, except there aren't enough suicides to skew the general numbers, and most industrialized nations have about the same suicide rates.. Japan actually has a higher one, but the Japanese live 4 years longer than we do on average.

Murder...same thing. The country is not uniform in it's murder rates.

Again, while the US has an appalling number of murders, (thanks to it be way to easy to get a gun in this country), we aren't having enough murders to really skew the statistics that much. 16,000 homicides a year aren't going to bump a population of 300,000,000 that far.

BTW: I find it funny the way you poison the well with regards to other points of view. Calling apologists racists.

Heaven forbid that you have a reasonable discussion with other perspectives.

I kind of find it hard to have 'discussions' with people who basically are okay with big insurance screwing us over. But of course, many apologist arguments boil down to racism. "If you take minorities out, the numbers are closer to europe". that kind of shit.

And then individual mandate isn't one of those provisions.

No, it isn't. Because once you've told them they can't deny on the basis of pre-existing conditions, everyone will just buy insurance when they get sick. It would collapse the system.

They most certainly are. The article discusses it. But....you keep believing that.

It isn't racist to point out that certain peoples or even certain cities overly impact the numbers. Please tell me how citing numbers is racist. Don't bother....because it isn't.

And we go back to the fact that you really are not interested in discussions. You are interested in posting propaganda instead of data.

 

[JoeB131]

They most certainly are. The article discusses it. But....you keep believing that.

It isn't racist to point out that certain peoples or even certain cities overly impact the numbers. Please tell me how citing numbers is racist. Don't bother....because it isn't.

I'm sure that the fact that 400 years of racist oppression does skew the numbers. I just don't blame the victims like you do.

And we go back to the fact that you really are not interested in discussions. You are interested in posting propaganda instead of data.

I posted plenty of data on this thread. And you guys always have your wonderful excuses as to why our messed up, overpriced, under-performing system is okay.

 

[dblack]

A cute artifact of Obamacare is the 3% Health Insurance Tax (appropriately called "HIT") that will clobber insured Americans in January. A built-in feature that was deferred to get past the election but you can be sure won't be deferred again. But you liberals will love paying more for insurance, won't you?

Keep in mind the republican congress had all year to repeal this tax.

Health Insurer Tax (HIT) Will be Back in Effect in 2018 - Leavitt Group News & Publications

I haven't seen anything to convince me Republicans want to do anything but adjust ACA to suit their sponsors instead of the Democrat's. And the insurance industry plays both ends against the middle, goading Democrats into regulating customers (not only telling them what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy, but forcing them to buy it!), and the getting the Republicans to remove the provisions they don't like.

And the individual mandate isn't one of those provisions.

Trump is the wildcard in all of this. Republicans in Congress will never get rid of the mandate on their own. And if Trump does it by executive order or something, they will immediately replace it with a tax incentive - ie the exact same fucking thing. I'd like to think Trump would veto that kind of attempt, but I'm not sure he gets it.

The mandate can only be changed by congress it was written into law.

I have no idea whether Trump can, or will, do anything about the mandate. I'm just saying that if he does, Congress will quickly replace it. They have their lobbyists to think of.

 

[MadChemist]

They most certainly are. The article discusses it. But....you keep believing that.

It isn't racist to point out that certain peoples or even certain cities overly impact the numbers. Please tell me how citing numbers is racist. Don't bother....because it isn't.

I'm sure that the fact that 400 years of racist oppression does skew the numbers. I just don't blame the victims like you do.

And we go back to the fact that you really are not interested in discussions. You are interested in posting propaganda instead of data.

I posted plenty of data on this thread. And you guys always have your wonderful excuses as to why our messed up, overpriced, under-performing system is okay.

Sure you have.

 

[dblack]

They most certainly are. The article discusses it. But....you keep believing that.

It isn't racist to point out that certain peoples or even certain cities overly impact the numbers. Please tell me how citing numbers is racist. Don't bother....because it isn't.

I'm sure that the fact that 400 years of racist oppression does skew the numbers. I just don't blame the victims like you do.

And we go back to the fact that you really are not interested in discussions. You are interested in posting propaganda instead of data.

I posted plenty of data on this thread. And you guys always have your wonderful excuses as to why our messed up, overpriced, under-performing system is okay.

Sure you have.

The facts are, usually, irrelevant in an ideological debate.To wit, I oppose government controlling health care for the same reasons I oppose government controlling religions. So telling me about the awesome benefits of government health care isn't compelling. Just as telling me about the awesome benefits of state mandated religion wouldn't matter - even if you had rock solid proof. I'd still oppose it.

Likewise, folks like Joe won't be convinced by charts and figures showing that a free market in health care would be more cost efficient. They don't think health care should be a "commodity" for sale, and they'll oppose any policy that treats it as such.

 

[MadChemist]

They most certainly are. The article discusses it. But....you keep believing that.

It isn't racist to point out that certain peoples or even certain cities overly impact the numbers. Please tell me how citing numbers is racist. Don't bother....because it isn't.

I'm sure that the fact that 400 years of racist oppression does skew the numbers. I just don't blame the victims like you do.

And we go back to the fact that you really are not interested in discussions. You are interested in posting propaganda instead of data.

I posted plenty of data on this thread. And you guys always have your wonderful excuses as to why our messed up, overpriced, under-performing system is okay.

Sure you have.

The facts are, usually, irrelevant in an ideological debate.To wit, I oppose government controlling health care for the same reasons I oppose government controlling religions. So telling me about the awesome benefits of government health care isn't compelling. Just as telling me about the awesome benefits of state mandated religion wouldn't matter - even if you had rock solid proof. I'd still oppose it.

Likewise, folks like Joe won't be convinced by charts and figures showing that a free market in health care would be more cost efficient. They don't think health care should be a "commodity" for sale, and they'll oppose any policy that treats it as such.

I don't consider my debate position to be ideological. I have been a proponent for some form of change since 1993 when I saw several friends have to make significant choices just to get access to reasonable health insurance.

However, I don't get the claim that government is good and insurance is bad. Government and insurance are so intertwined you can't tell where one starts and the other ends.

If I could see the insurance industry separated from government and forced to survive on it's own.....and it still managed to pull the crap it pulls....I'd be open to some government intervention on the other side.

That isn't the case now and so I am totally unconvinced that government run health care (and I grow so tired of the "rest of the world does it" argument (most of Europe rolled over for Hitler too)) is all it is supposed to be.

But once you turn it on....you can't turn it off. No matter how pathetic it might be (as in the case of Obamadoesnotcare).