Obamacare

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]malonetd wrote:
borrek wrote:
You’re required to have car insurance to drive.

Uhhh, no you’re not. It depends on the state. It’s not a requirement in Wisconsin and I haven’t had auto insurance since I moved here in 2004. And I don’t plan on getting it any time soon.[/quote]

Q. Is auto insurance mandatory in Wisconsin?

Wisconsin has a financial responsibility law. It is designed to make sure that any motorist licensed to drive in Wisconsin has insurance or enough money to pay for damages to others that may be caused by a motor vehicle. These requirements may be met through a motor vehicle liability insurance policy, a surety bond, personal funds, or certificate of self-insurance. Details are available at the Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Hill Farms State Office Building, 4802 Sheboygan Ave., Madison, WI 53702.

62

[quote]borrek wrote:
malonetd wrote:
borrek wrote:
You’re required to have car insurance to drive.

Uhhh, no you’re not. It depends on the state. It’s not a requirement in Wisconsin and I haven’t had auto insurance since I moved here in 2004. And I don’t plan on getting it any time soon.

Q. Is auto insurance mandatory in Wisconsin?

Wisconsin has a financial responsibility law. It is designed to make sure that any motorist licensed to drive in Wisconsin has insurance or enough money to pay for damages to others that may be caused by a motor vehicle. These requirements may be met through a motor vehicle liability insurance policy, a surety bond, personal funds, or certificate of self-insurance. Details are available at the Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Hill Farms State Office Building, 4802 Sheboygan Ave., Madison, WI 53702.[/quote]

OK…I’m still not “required to have car insurance to drive.”

And I sure as hell don’t want to be REQUIRED to have health insurance either.

63

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Really though, who the heck do they think they are? They want to require…REQUIRE, me to have healthcare?! They go too far.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

You’re required to have car insurance to drive. How about you can opt out of health coverage if you promise to never step foot out of your house.

It’s funny how people will torture another human to save American lives, but a bill requiring everyone to have insurance is unconscionable. If you want people to pay for what they use, then you need to force everyone to pay into some sort of coverage, otherwise a population will choose zero coverage. In life threatening emergencies, those with zero coverage cannot be refused care, and we’ll still end up footing the bill.

As a side note, I think it is interesting that in a recent town-hall meeting, Obama said that single-payer health care is off the table because it is so antithetical to conservatives. Proves the man is a little more pragmatist than ideologue, which is more than I can say for most here.
[/quote]

Or, I could be totally and completely responsible for my own healthcare, and only my healthcare. Like a free man. I’m tired of seeing people coming onto this forum talking liberty before security, then seeing them support FORCING other people into the clutches of the nanny state.

64

[quote]pwilliams wrote:
dhickey wrote:

A principled rebuttal based on I agree with on principles, but completely removed from reality.

Don’t make it personal. I agree with your principles more than you think. The last bit I posted with gun control parody was, well, parody.

Based on ideal principles, America would allow persons the freedom to be responsible for their actions across the board (from executing and imprisoning criminals in accordance with sentences, taking everything from people if they file bankruptcy, eliminating governmental bailouts, and suffering the self-imposed ill effects of personal health choices). We would enforce the borders, deport all illegal aliens, and let the free-market truly be free without government interference. I’d even consider eliminating public education for total private education as long as there were minimum standards. I believe in all that on primciple.

Unfortunately, reality won’t allow this anytime soon.

You mentioned identifying the problem. Here is the problem as far as I’m concerned. America has become a nanny-state and too many Americans rely on it to cover their asses. How did we get here? We got here suffering the 80-ish year death of a thousand paper cuts of liberal societal engineering. Now to get to where you and I think we need to be as a country (individual responsibility), we need to overcome this massive nanny-state mentality.

America simply won’t make huge leaps away from a nanny state to undo this damage. The liberals won’t allow it. The mob won’t allow it.

This can only be undone with baby-steps. If you don’t agree with me, make an informed counter-arguement, not just a personal attack.

The mob will not tolerate the current status quo much longer, and baby steps won’t generate enouch personal accountability fast enough to prevent the problem from getting to a point where the mob demands drastic, ultimate nanny-statism.

The only logical option is a lateral move to nanny-statism that sets the stage for personal accountability. Making unhealthy choices monetarily painful to those that would choose them will be a step maybe not in the right direction, but at least it’s a step off the crazy train to a failed single party payer here in the US.

Follow on actions would have to be gradual implementation of effective criminal reform by executing and imprisoning according to the crimes and sentences, 100% border enforcement, education to free market, and economic reform to free market.

Like it or not, liberalism has engineered our current nanny-state society through hijacking of the public and university education system, the media, Hollywood, and massive welfare programs. Conservatives have been outclassed in this liberal creep and before it can be reversed it must be slowed then stopped. They must regain and maintain a foothold, then work towards re-establishing a long-term conservative shift without selling out to personal interests.

If the best you can respond with is another ad hominum without articulating realistic means to an end you’d like to see, then bless your heart.

[/quote]

You are talking about more gov’t control, not less. The idea is stupid. Call that ad hominum if you like, the idea is still stupid.

65

oops borrek beat me to it.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Or, I could be totally and completely responsible for my own healthcare, and only my healthcare. Like a free man. I’m tired of seeing people coming onto this forum talking liberty before security, then seeing them support FORCING other people into the clutches of the nanny state.[/quote]

This sounds great, but you will never ever be responsible for only your healthcare. We will never allow people to die because they zero or insufficient coverage.

67

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Or, I could be totally and completely responsible for my own healthcare, and only my healthcare. Like a free man. I’m tired of seeing people coming onto this forum talking liberty before security, then seeing them support FORCING other people into the clutches of the nanny state.

This sounds great, but you will never ever be responsible for only your healthcare. We will never allow people to die because they zero or insufficient coverage.
[/quote]

That is true but when government is in control all the decisions are political. I prefer charity to handle it as opposed to bureaucracy.

The flaw in your thinking is that free people aren’t capable of taking care of the less fortunate – the bigger flaw is that you think government is somehow better at it and can make decisions outside of the their own best interest when in fact this is not true of any living person.

68

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
That is true but when government is in control all the decisions are political. I prefer charity to handle it as opposed to bureaucracy.

The flaw in your thinking is that free people aren’t capable of taking care of the less fortunate – the bigger flaw is that you think government is somehow better at it and can make decisions outside of the their own best interest when in fact this is not true of any living person.[/quote]

The big flaw in your thinking is that you ignore the “someone else will take care of it” side of human nature.

And, when charity is responsible, you rely on people feeling sympathetic to give.

69

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Or, I could be totally and completely responsible for my own healthcare, and only my healthcare. Like a free man. I’m tired of seeing people coming onto this forum talking liberty before security, then seeing them support FORCING other people into the clutches of the nanny state.

This sounds great, but you will never ever be responsible for only your healthcare. We will never allow people to die because they zero or insufficient coverage.

That is true but when government is in control all the decisions are political. I prefer charity to handle it as opposed to bureaucracy.

The flaw in your thinking is that free people aren’t capable of taking care of the less fortunate – the bigger flaw is that you think government is somehow better at it and can make decisions outside of the their own best interest when in fact this is not true of any living person.[/quote]

nail on the head. We didn’t always have expansive gov’t programs and guess what? people weren’t dying in the streets.

70

Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke…and we actually have people who want the same faliure of a government tackle this 800 lb gorrilla?

That line of thinking is insanity defined.

71

[quote]borrek wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
That is true but when government is in control all the decisions are political. I prefer charity to handle it as opposed to bureaucracy.

The flaw in your thinking is that free people aren’t capable of taking care of the less fortunate – the bigger flaw is that you think government is somehow better at it and can make decisions outside of the their own best interest when in fact this is not true of any living person.

The big flaw in your thinking is that you ignore the “someone else will take care of it” side of human nature.

And, when charity is responsible, you rely on people feeling sympathetic to give.

[/quote]

this is how the poor and needy have been taken care in all but the most recent history. Was life really that brutal and unforgiving before welfare, medicade, medicare, and SS? The answer is no. Communities took care of their own. Gov’t, by forcably taking over this responsibilty, has destroyed the sense of community we once had. Instead of supporting and relying on our families, neighbors, churches, social organizations, etc, we are all little piggies sucking at the teet of big gov’t.

72

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke…and we actually have people who want the same faliure of a government tackle this 800 lb gorrilla?

That line of thinking is insanity defined.[/quote]

This is what I don’t get. Other than the occasional possible exception of the military, what government run organization excels at what they do? Courthouses and DMV’s are unorganized and waits take forever. It takes me almost 3 months to get a replacement social security card or a passport. Airport security is a joke. Even the organizations that are decent, I assure you, a privately run company could do a better job.

I collected unemployment in California for a couple months in early 2004 before I decided to move to Milwaukee and get a job. I got a letter 2 weeks ago saying I was overpaid and I owe some of that money back. My unemployment was FIVE YEARS AGO!! And they’re just sending me this notice now? This is the type of organization people want running health insurance?

I can’t believe people would think things would be better with the same kind of people in charge of health related issues. No fucking thanks!

73

[quote]borrek wrote:
The big flaw in your thinking is that you ignore the “someone else will take care of it” side of human nature.

And, when charity is responsible, you rely on people feeling sympathetic to give.

[/quote]

So? Then it is voluntary and not theft. Then it is completely moral as opposed to how government does everything by force and coercion.

Someone else will take care of it if it needs to be taken care of so long as there is not some intervening force in the market. Government takes responsibility out of the hands of the people that are best able to handle charity. Political solutions are no solutions at all.

I have a problem believing any of the money that is stolen from me is being spent on proper charity and not building more bombs.

74

[quote]malonetd wrote:

I got a letter 2 weeks ago saying I was overpaid and I owe some of that money back. My unemployment was FIVE YEARS AGO!! And they’re just sending me this notice now? This is the type of organization people want running health insurance?

![/quote]

Dear Malone:

The US Government is under review of your request to have heart surgery. We will notify you in 90-120 days of the result, and provide you with a doctor if your request is approved.

Dear Malone:

Obamacare International regrattably infroms you that your employer coverage cost will increase due to your frequent purchases at fast food establishments. We are also concerned that your soda intake is well above the standard 3 12 oz sodas per week, so we are moving you to the High risk category, which will require you to attend re-education classes on better eating habits to maintain your insurance coverage.

Please make sure you are doing a stellar job at work, because you are now extra expensive to them!

Dear Malone:

The Obamacare International system has categorized your requested surgical procedue as “Non-Essential”. Please visit our website for more details about alternative care.

These are the kinds of things that will happen to Health Care if Socialized and mandated…

75

Rockscar, bravo!

76

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
malonetd wrote:

I got a letter 2 weeks ago saying I was overpaid and I owe some of that money back. My unemployment was FIVE YEARS AGO!! And they’re just sending me this notice now? This is the type of organization people want running health insurance?

!

Dear Malone:

The US Government is under review of your request to have heart surgery. We will notify you in 90-120 days of the result, and provide you with a doctor if your request is approved.

Dear Malone:

Obamacare International regrattably infroms you that your employer coverage cost will increase due to your frequent purchases at fast food establishments. We are also concerned that your soda intake is well above the standard 3 12 oz sodas per week, so we are moving you to the High risk category, which will require you to attend re-education classes on better eating habits to maintain your insurance coverage.

Please make sure you are doing a stellar job at work, because you are now extra expensive to them!

Dear Malone:

The Obamacare International system has categorized your requested surgical procedue as “Non-Essential”. Please visit our website for more details about alternative care.
[/quote]

I don’t doubt this will happen at all.

PS I love Little Debbie Fudge Rounds

77

If this happens, I will support the complete government control/restrictions of everthing we put into our bodies. Food, tobacco, sugar, fats, alcohol, etc.

78

So I just came from the driver’s license office. I look around wonder, do people really want imbeciles such as these in charge of their health coverage? You have got to be fucking crazy…

79

How a formless policy is served by obfuscation:

80

I’m employed by a pharma/bio-tech company. I see the billions we pour into R&D just to have a chance at the product to be viable, and have a significant impact on a patient’s disease versus the other drugs on the market.

What’s the cost of more years on your life? To nullify patents would reduct incentives dramatically. My brother in law is dying of terminal brain cancer and his opportunity to live is coming down to a few drugs. I want the best and the brighest to be in the health care field, whether in research or a practicing physician.

We need significant improvements to improve the underinsured but nationalized health care is not the answer