Politics

[phgreek]

One of the problems with the health insurance system is that consumers are detached from the cost of their care. If you're going to buy a pair of jeans, it might be relevant to know that Levis charges $60 and Wrangler charges $30. Weighing price versus quality and convenience would affect your decision. If you walk into a hospital, you likely don't give a damn what they charge because the insurance company is going to pay for it so you don't bother shopping around. Without shopping around, competetion can't function properly to drive prices down and the supplier can basically charge whatever they want. Most of the time when insured people actually pay for healthcare, it's because they assumed it would be covered by insurance but it was not.

agreed...

just like allowing/forcing/clearing the way for insurance companies to compete nationally w/o artificial geo-barriers. These are potential economy of scale things which help drive cost down through unbridled competition. Don't need a huge ACA to get that done, and evaluate its impact.

I'm great with putting the burden of shopping on the consumer a little...I wish my insurance company would require me to provide 3 bids for any non-emergency procedure or service. I will say that the reluctance to do that...I also understand, since I have come to know intimately the impact of low bidder on quality of service...tricky. But it is a reasonable thing to think about...Put it this way...I'd rather that than ACA.

 

[Buster Bluth]

1) Government cannot control cost of anything. Ever.

Food (commodities) prices stabilized thanks almost solely to the federal government taking a socialist approach to the matter. So, you're 100% wrong here.

2) Government cannot tell private companies how to run thier business.

This is just ignorant and not worthy of a response. There are about a billion examples to the contrary.

4) Nothing popular is ever mandatory, like this law is.

Social Security?

5) Telling person A (who has insurance) they are responsible for paying for person B (no insurance) is redistribution.

Sorta.

Redistribution is theft. Theft is immoral.

Again, total ignorance. Also a huge jump in logic. Taxes are theft too then huh?

6) The federal government started social security, medicare, and medicaid. All 3 had good intentions, all 3 are mandatory. All 3 of these programs are broke (CBA report) before 2030.

Social Security isn't going broke because of inherent program flaws, it's going broke because the politicians stole all of the money and issued IOUs. A huge distinction. It also didn't foresee the changes in growth rate, and as they change the program needs to change; it's actually quite simple. It's not broken, the rigidity of the federal government isn't allowing it to change (in fairness, as a private company can more easily).

Adding obamacare to this tripod $hitshow just pours gasoline on a fire. We are taking ourselves off the cliff financially. No pun intended.

I'd like to see the Republicans bitch about the other massive causes for our financial woes. The biggest waste of wherewithal in human history isn't the American Social Security experiment, it's suburban sprawl. We haven't balanced the budget since Eisenhower was President, he passed the Highway acts and now we are paying dearly for them on state and local levels. He destroyed the economies of nearly American city in the country.

The wars, and what we owe veterans as a result, aren't helping either.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, immoral. I'd have more respect for leftists if they came out and said, "Look, we're socializing medicine. We need one group of people to pay for another group of people. You young, healthy people are screwed, and we don't care about its impact on businesses and others."

Everything we were told about this mess was BS from the beginning and has already been proven. The only people this law benefits is the recipient class because they get "access" for nothing. All American children have "access" to "free" education too, right? And that's working out tremendously for us and everyone is equal, right? Please.

Poor people dying every day: what happened to Medicaid?
These sick people: was it a 5 year old with brain cancer or a 54 year old alcholic dying of liver cancer due to his own lifestyle choices?

If you spend a night in the hopsital, why do two Tylenol cost $25? Because some people in that hospital are paying for their care and others are not.

What do I plan to do to fix our healthcare system? Not a damn thing, my friend. I'm a business man, but here's what we know and why the ACA is a disaster from top to bottom:

1) Government cannot control cost of anything. Ever.

2) Government cannot tell private companies how to run thier business.

3) Access to service doesn't equal quality. See education in America.

4) Nothing popular is ever mandatory, like this law is.

5) Telling person A (who has insurance) they are responsible for paying for person B (no insurance) is redistribution. Redistribution is theft. Theft is immoral. If anyone has a story of a hospital throwing a sick person out on the street to die because they didn't have insurance gets a big "I'll eat crow, I was wrong" from this guy. I haven't heard of it.

6) The federal government started social security, medicare, and medicaid. All 3 had good intentions, all 3 are mandatory. All 3 of these programs are broke (CBA report) before 2030. Adding obamacare to this tripod $hitshow just pours gasoline on a fire. We are taking ourselves off the cliff financially. No pun intended.

I wish we were socializing healthcare because that would be a far more efficient and effective method of bringing down healthcare costs. But, alas we are not. Instead, we are bringing tens of millions of new customers to private insurance companies and, in return, we are ensuring that they treat people with some humanity and stop the practice of pricing people out of the market to maximize their own profits at the expense of American citizens. I am not a huge fan of the ACA, but it is a huge step in the right direction as it ensures that millions of Americans have access to health insurance. The GOP has tried more than 40 times to get rid of this law and they have failed at every turn. I'm hearing a lot of people say that Americans do not want this law. Forget the billions of dollars that have been spent on the massive misinformation campaign to confuse citizens about this law. Forget that during the debate over background checks that the GOP members of Congress fillibustered to block universal background checks when more than 90 percent of the population wanted them. Instead of this idiotic campaign block the law of the land, they should be offering alternatives or figuring out a way to make it work. I'd have a lot more respect for the righties if they could just admit when they have been defeated and stop embarassing themselves. If they shut down the government over this, it will be impossible for them to hide from the fact that they are nothing but obstructionists.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

 

[connor_in]

I wish we were socializing healthcare because that would be a far more efficient and effective method of bringing down healthcare costs. But, alas we are not. Instead, we are bringing tens of millions of new customers to private insurance companies and, in return, we are ensuring that they treat people with some humanity and stop the practice of pricing people out of the market to maximize their own profits at the expense of American citizens. I am not a huge fan of the ACA, but it is a huge step in the right direction as it ensures that millions of Americans have access to health insurance. The GOP has tried more than 40 times to get rid of this law and they have failed at every turn. I'm hearing a lot of people say that Americans do not want this law. Forget the billions of dollars that have been spent on the massive misinformation campaign to confuse citizens about this law. Forget that during the debate over background checks that the GOP members of Congress fillibustered to block universal background checks when more than 90 percent of the population wanted them. Instead of this idiotic campaign block the law of the land, they should be offering alternatives or figuring out a way to make it work. I'd have a lot more respect for the righties if they could just admit when they have been defeated and stop embarassing themselves. If they shut down the government over this, it will be impossible for them to hide from the fact that they are nothing but obstructionists.

What about the massive campaign that apparently confused HHS...IRS...Congress...those establishing state exchanges...etc who all seem to be confused on the implementation of the ACA....much less all those who supported passing the thing thenpromptly got in line in order to be exempted...why would they do that I wonder

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Food (commodities) prices stabilized thanks almost solely to the federal government taking a socialist approach to the matter. So, you're 100% wrong here.



This is just ignorant and not worthy of a response. There are about a billion examples to the contrary.



Social Security?



Sorta.



Again, total ignorance. Also a huge jump in logic. Taxes are theft too then huh?



Social Security isn't going broke because of inherent program flaws, it's going broke because the politicians stole all of the money and issued IOUs. A huge distinction. It also didn't foresee the changes in growth rate, and as they change the program needs to change; it's actually quite simple. It's not broken, the rigidity of the federal government isn't allowing it to change (in fairness, as a private company can more easily).



I'd like to see the Republicans bitch about the other massive causes for our financial woes. The biggest waste of wherewithal in human history isn't the American Social Security experiment, it's suburban sprawl. We haven't balanced the budget since Eisenhower was President, he passed the Highway acts and now we are paying dearly for them on state and local levels. He destroyed the economies of nearly American city in the country.

The wars, and what we owe veterans as a result, aren't helping either.

1) What food prices program/ project are you referring to?

2) Ignorant? Not worthy of a response stronger than a side swipe?

3) Not sorta. 100%

4) Social security: mandatory. It's popular because everyone living today knows nothing else. Wouldn't it be fun if we got rid of it and let people plan their own retirement? People in our age bracket, Buster, are royally screwed in this deal. We're not sniffing any of that money.

5) Taxes are legit if a) the tax falls under the enumerated powers and b) everyone pays in and has some skin in the game

6) OK, scratch social security for this conversation. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke and fast. We have to be outside our minds to believe that ACA will improve our healthcare system, meanwhile crushing us financially.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So why don't the crazy conservatives get over the fact that they lost, that their power base is shrinking, accept it and move on with trying to make it work? They really are speeding up their own demise.

Neither side has any solid numbers yet, so don't waste your time with that argument.

Immoral? Lol

Congress excluded themselves because the majority are dirtbags.

The law was written (excluding Congress and their union buddies) by Democrats and passed by Democrats. Not one Republican voted for it. So those dirtbags you refer to are all Democrats.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I wish we were socializing healthcare because that would be a far more efficient and effective method of bringing down healthcare costs. But, alas we are not. Instead, we are bringing tens of millions of new customers to private insurance companies and, in return, we are ensuring that they treat people with some humanity and stop the practice of pricing people out of the market to maximize their own profits at the expense of American citizens. I am not a huge fan of the ACA, but it is a huge step in the right direction as it ensures that millions of Americans have access to health insurance. The GOP has tried more than 40 times to get rid of this law and they have failed at every turn. I'm hearing a lot of people say that Americans do not want this law. Forget the billions of dollars that have been spent on the massive misinformation campaign to confuse citizens about this law. Forget that during the debate over background checks that the GOP members of Congress fillibustered to block universal background checks when more than 90 percent of the population wanted them. Instead of this idiotic campaign block the law of the land, they should be offering alternatives or figuring out a way to make it work. I'd have a lot more respect for the righties if they could just admit when they have been defeated and stop embarassing themselves. If they shut down the government over this, it will be impossible for them to hide from the fact that they are nothing but obstructionists.

What you call an idiotic campaign 52% (CNN poll) of Americans who oppose the law support doing, defunding obamacare. It's a healthcare disaster and a financial one. I'll be the first to admit we lost the 2012 election, but to lay down and let the statists "fundamentally transform the country" doesn't sit well with most of us.

The government has been shut down many times before and we all survived. Let's not paint it like Armageddon. If preventing the fast course to a nanny state gets me an obstructionist label, please sign me up.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What you call an idiotic campaign 52% (CNN poll) of Americans who oppose the law support doing, defunding obamacare. It's a healthcare disaster and a financial one. I'll be the first to admit we lost the 2012 election, but to lay down and let the statists "fundamentally transform the country" doesn't sit well with most of us.

The government has been shut down many times before and we all survived. Let's not paint it like Armageddon. If preventing the fast course to a nanny state gets me an obstructionist label, please sign me up.

Almost forgot...A LOT of those idiots with D behind their name and passed the law got their @$$es sent home in 2010, and obamacare had a lot to do with that. The 2010 election saw the biggest swing in the House since 1952.

 

[T Town Tommy]

What you call an idiotic campaign 52% (CNN poll) of Americans who oppose the law support doing, defunding obamacare. It's a healthcare disaster and a financial one. I'll be the first to admit we lost the 2012 election, but to lay down and let the statists "fundamentally transform the country" doesn't sit well with most of us.

The government has been shut down many times before and we all survived. Let's not paint it like Armageddon. If preventing the fast course to a nanny state gets me an obstructionist label, please sign me up.

Don't generally enter the political debate on IE but you are correct with the government shutting down. During the Clinton admin the Republican "Contract With America" had resounding effects. It caused Bill Clinton to move to the middle in fiscal policy and by doing so created the first surplus in years. It also benefitted Clinton in that it secured his second term in office as he readily accepted the credit for everything. Newt took heat for shutting the government down but ultimately it served as the catalyst for a very properous economy.

Can the conservative wing of the Republican party do it again? Highly unlikely. But if something is not done, this country will continue to creep along for the foreseeable future. And healthcare... well, who knows. The Obama plan is in shambles, and the employee mandate hasn't even kicked in. Our country will feel the effects of this for the next decade.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

What you call an idiotic campaign 52% (CNN poll) of Americans who oppose the law support doing, defunding obamacare.

And about 90% favor a ban on semi-automatic weapon sales and expanded background checks. Where are the Republicans who supposedly care about the will of the people on that one?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

And about 90% favor a ban on semi-automatic weapon sales and expanded background checks. Where are the Republicans who supposedly care about the will of the people on that one?

1) Show me the poll.

2) The government has no legal ground to be able to tell citizens they don't "need" certain guns, so I'd say the Republicans are on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

3) If that many people are pissed off at Republicans for their position on guns, they'll give them the boot. See: 2010 election and obamacare.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

1) Show me the poll.

2) The government has no legal ground to be able to tell citizens they don't "need" certain guns, so I'd say the Republicans are on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

3) If that many people are pissed off at Republicans for their position on guns, they'll give them the boot. See: 2010 election and obamacare.

84% want expanded background checks and 56% want an assault weapons ban.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...j4H4Dg&usg=AFQjCNESeVFvR8bRBzHiPQPjZNNE70lhfg

 

[Black Irish]

You can't have a *right* to someone else's labor. Rights of the individual do not require any action on the part of another individual. Rights are also timeless. Whatever rights a human being has today by virtue of being a human being, he or she had at the dawn of time when there was no such thing as healthcare. For you to get healthcare, someone else has to pay for medical school, attend and graduate from medical school, and then actually administer the healthcare. Your rights protect you from others causing you harm. Rights do not require someone to do you favors.

Well put. Reps.

 

[BobD]

The law was written (excluding Congrobvioustheir union buddies) by Democrats and passed by Democrats. Not one Republican voted for it. So those dirtbags you refer to are all Democrats.

I don't know what to say except no sh!t Sherlock or thank you capt obvious.

Are you assuming I'm a democrat or something?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

84% want expanded background checks and 56% want an assault weapons ban.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...j4H4Dg&usg=AFQjCNESeVFvR8bRBzHiPQPjZNNE70lhfg

Point taken, but earlier you said 90% want an assault weapons ban.

I favor expanded background checks but don't know where every R in Congress stands on them or an assault weapons ban. My theory is if people want to kill they're going to kill. You can eliminate all guns from every citizen in the country if you want to. People will use alternative means.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I don't know what to say except no sh!t Sherlock or thank you capt obvious.

Are you assuming I'm a democrat or something?

Just making sure we're all clear on who shoved this pile of crap down our throats, that's all. Not one Republican. But not one person who wrote/ passed it will suffer with it. What's good enough for thee is not good enough for me!

Same thing with progressives' theory on wealth: it's OK if I'm rich because I'm a Democrat for "the people" (Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, etc). Conservatives who are rich are mean, white people who hate the poor.

 

[GoIrish41]

Point taken, but earlier you said 90% want an assault weapons ban.

I favor expanded background checks but don't know where every R in Congress stands on them or an assault weapons ban. My theory is if people want to kill they're going to kill. You can eliminate all guns from every citizen in the country if you want to. People will use alternative means.

What sort of alternative means do you suppose people will use? I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I seriously would like to know what alternative means of killing you believe that people will use to commit a "mass killing" such as the one at the movie theater in Colorado, the school in Newtown, the Navy base in D.C. or the park in Chicago. There is a reason why all of these killings involve guns -- they are the most convenient and effective method of killing a lot of people quickly from a distance. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of these killers would have built and planted a bomb, because that requires too much prior planning and complex execution. A knife? Highly unlikely that these types of mass killings could be executed with a weapon that requires direct contact with victims. What types of alternatives are you suggesting?

 

[wizards8507]

What sort of alternative means do you suppose people will use? I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I seriously would like to know what alternative means of killing you believe that people will use to commit a "mass killing" such as the one at the movie theater in Colorado, the school in Newtown, the Navy base in D.C. or the park in Chicago. There is a reason why all of these killings involve guns -- they are the most convenient and effective method of killing a lot of people quickly from a distance. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of these killers would have built and planted a bomb, because that requires too much prior planning and complex execution. A knife? Highly unlikely that these types of mass killings could be executed with a weapon that requires direct contact with victims. What types of alternatives are you suggesting?

Are you serious? Is our national memory that poor?

Aurora, Newtown, Navy Base, Chicago - 51 fatalities total.

September 11, 2001 - 2,977 fatalities and not a single shot was fired.

Hell, the Boston Marathon guys killed five people with KITCHEN EQUIPMENT.

 

[GoIrish41]

Are you serious? Is our national memory that poor?

Aurora, Newtown, Navy Base, Chicago - 51 fatalities total.

September 11, 2001 - 2,977 fatalities and not a single shot was fired.

Hell, the Boston Marathon guys killed five people with KITCHEN EQUIPMENT.

Most of these incidents are when a crazy person goes over the edge and conceniently has at his disposal weapons that can cause lots of damage. You are describing polictically/religiously motivated terrorist acts that required an incredible amount of planning, coordination and funding. You are describing apples when we are talking about oranges.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What sort of alternative means do you suppose people will use? I'm not trying to be a contrarian, I seriously would like to know what alternative means of killing you believe that people will use to commit a "mass killing" such as the one at the movie theater in Colorado, the school in Newtown, the Navy base in D.C. or the park in Chicago. There is a reason why all of these killings involve guns -- they are the most convenient and effective method of killing a lot of people quickly from a distance. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that all of these killers would have built and planted a bomb, because that requires too much prior planning and complex execution. A knife? Highly unlikely that these types of mass killings could be executed with a weapon that requires direct contact with victims. What types of alternatives are you suggesting?

1) Bombs are not hard to make and the materials are cheap at any Home Depot. You don't need a PhD in Chemistry to put this together. Any nutjob with $50 to spend and Internet access can put this together in a day. If the same nutjob wanted to do serious damage, he/ she could put the bomb in a book bag and leave it in a college lecture hall of a couple hundred, school setting, subway, public setting, etc.

2) Ever notice that a lot of these shootings occur at "gun free zones"??

3) Boston Marathon...could have done a lot more damage than it did.

 

[GoIrish41]

1) Bombs are not hard to make and the materials are cheap at any Home Depot. You don't need a PhD in Chemistry to put this together. Any nutjob with $50 to spend and Internet access can put this together in a day. If the same nutjob wanted to do serious damage, he/ she could put the bomb in a book bag and leave it in a college lecture hall of a couple hundred, school setting, subway, public setting, etc.

2) Ever notice that a lot of these shootings occur at "gun free zones"??

3) Boston Marathon...could have done a lot more damage than it did.

If it is that easy and effective, why are there sssoooo many more incidents involving guns? That is the point I'm trying to make. The weapon of choice is a gun because it is so easy to get them and half of the population rallies to the defense of continuing to make it easy to get them -- even crazy people who hear voices through hotel room walls. Is the argument against this that we should continue to make it easy for people to get guns because the people who want to kill will just make a bomb if they don't have access to a gun? Do you seriously believe that to be the case? I just don't see it.

 

[wizards8507]

84% want expanded background checks and 56% want an assault weapons ban.

The poll is ignorant down to its very premise. There's no such thing as an "assault weapon." Usually people use "assault weapon" to refer to an automatic military-style weapon that shoots continuously when the trigger is held down. These weapons are ALREADY banned. The idiots in Congress call anything that *looks scary* an "assault weapon" or, my favorite, an "AK-47."

 

[T Town Tommy]

As the owner of several guns I would readily accept more stringent background checks and more laws to close the loopholes surrounding gun purchases. What I will not tolerate is someone else telling me I can't own guns.

Bottom line, if one were to make guns illegal a few things happen. People will resort to other methods to carry out their form of justice (right or wrong) and those that want to purchase guns illegally will continue to do so.

Let's outlaw forks and butter knives. They are readily available and can do a lot of damage if used properly.

 

[wizards8507]

If it is that easy and effective, why are there sssoooo many more incidents involving guns? That is the point I'm trying to make. The weapon of choice is a gun because it is so easy to get them and half of the population rallies to the defense of continuing to make it easy to get them -- even crazy people who hear voices through hotel room walls. Is the argument against this that we should continue to make it easy for people to get guns because the people who want to kill will just make a bomb if they don't have access to a gun? Do you seriously believe that to be the case? I just don't see it.

I answered that ten minutes ago.

Are you serious? Is our national memory that poor?

Aurora, Newtown, Navy Base, Chicago - 51 fatalities total.

September 11, 2001 - 2,977 fatalities and not a single shot was fired.

Hell, the Boston Marathon guys killed five people with KITCHEN EQUIPMENT.

 

[wizards8507]

As the owner of several guns I would readily accept more stringent background checks and more laws to close the loopholes surrounding gun purchases. What I will not tolerate is someone else telling me I can't own guns.

Bottom line, if one were to make guns illegal a few things happen. People will resort to other methods to carry out their justice and those that want to purchase guns illegally will continue to do so.

Let's outlaw forks and butter knives. They are readily available and can do a lot of damage if used properly.

Exactly. Last I checked, cocaine is illegal in all 50 states, yet plenty of people do a lot of cocaine. I don't want to live in a world where the only people WITH firearms are the people who IGNORE laws.

 

[GoIrish41]

I answered that ten minutes ago.

And I responded:

Most of these incidents are when a crazy person goes over the edge and conceniently has at his disposal weapons that can cause lots of damage. You are describing polictically/religiously motivated terrorist acts that required an incredible amount of planning, coordination and funding. You are describing apples when we are talking about oranges.

 

[GoIrish41]

As the owner of several guns I would readily accept more stringent background checks and more laws to close the loopholes surrounding gun purchases. What I will not tolerate is someone else telling me I can't own guns.

Bottom line, if one were to make guns illegal a few things happen. People will resort to other methods to carry out their form of justice (right or wrong) and those that want to purchase guns illegally will continue to do so.

Let's outlaw forks and butter knives. They are readily available and can do a lot of damage if used properly.

This is sensible. What is not sensible is the perceived line in the sand that somehow gets drawn (largely through NRA lobbying and misinformation campaigns) that "the government is trying to take away our guns" and "if we agree to more stringent background checks, we are giving up ground." Those arguments are just nonsense and they ensure the status quo that is simply not accepatable to a wide majority of the population. Nobody is advocating for outlawing guns altogether, but instead doing things that might help to make it more difficult for deranged people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons. The "forks and knives" argument is just silly. Tell me when the last time someone brought a fork into a movie theater and killed a bunch of teenagers. You are better than that Tommy.

 

[wizards8507]

And I responded:

My mistake, I missed that one.

Most of these incidents are when a crazy person goes over the edge and conceniently has at his disposal weapons that can cause lots of damage. You are describing polictically/religiously motivated terrorist acts that required an incredible amount of planning, coordination and funding. You are describing apples when we are talking about oranges.

What does motivation have to do with it? Let's take Sandy Hook for example. They guy stole his mother's gun. What would background checks have done? The mother would have likely passed the background check and the situation would have been exactly the same. The Bushmaster he used *looks* like a military weapon but functions like a hunting rifle (one bullet per trigger pull not "pull-and-hold"), so an assault weapons band wouldn't have done anything either.

 

[wizards8507]

This is sensible. What is not sensible is the perceived line in the sand that somehow gets drawn (largely through NRA lobbying and misinformation campaigns) that "the government is trying to take away our guns" and "if we agree to more stringent background checks, we are giving up ground." Those arguments are just nonsense and they ensure the status quo that is simply not accepatable to a wide majority of the population. Nobody is advocating for outlawing guns altogether, but instead doing things that might help to make it more difficult for deranged people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons. The "forks and knives" argument is just silly. Tell me when the last time someone brought a fork into a movie theater and killed a bunch of teenagers. You are better than that Tommy.

Obviously he was using hyperbole. What about airplanes? Cars? Pressure cookers? Fertilizer? Baseball bats?

Per the FBI, from 2007 tol 2011, there were 8,967 knife murders and 3,918 long gun murders.