"Obamacare" repeal- can ya justify it?

[RussellK]

Yeah the bill was watered down, horrible. And blocked, repeatedly.
Meanwhile people are getting filthy rich from other's suffering and death. That is FUCKED UP.
What makes people so cold? It's a scary country we live in. Nukes, crack babies, starvation. All in the name of freedom? That's not freedom.

I know right? How much better would we be if we didn't have this hanging over us like a damned albatross. Quality of life issues shouldn't even be debatable. How hard is it to follow your heart and do the right thing. How can people be such slaves to profit that they would deny a person coverage and yet kiss their own parent or child.

[Amskeptic]

Yeah the bill was watered down, horrible. And blocked, repeatedly.
Meanwhile people are getting filthy rich from other's suffering and death. That is FUCKED UP.
What makes people so cold? It's a scary country we live in. Nukes, crack babies, starvation. All in the name of freedom? That's not freedom.

I know right? How much better would we be if we didn't have this hanging over us like a damned albatross. Quality of life issues shouldn't even be debatable. How hard is it to follow your heart and do the right thing. How can people be such slaves to profit that they would deny a person coverage and yet kiss their own parent or child.

I fear it has been ever thus. At no time in history has it been any kinder or gentler.

I take heart from the fact that we really do have a new generation rushing up and they are so much more humane, and they will be tempered by the fact that the capitalist orgy just missed them.

The always fatal error of the self-important and the rich, is that they not only feel that they were the masters of their own destiny, but that they *deserve* their outlandish lifestyles while poor people just die. The math they always forget (this time will be different!) every time, look at every fallen empire in history, is that the oppressed outnumber them. When the American Underclass-Formerly-Known-As-The-Middle-Class does get pissed, watch what happens. Even the military which has been groomed to do corporate bidding, has a whole underclass of betrayed and exploited soldiers who will not cooperate.

If revolution must come to the American Experiment, I will work tirelessly to help maintain respect and dignity towards our system of government, all other people, and make sure we sweep the floors clean in Congress, of the people who lost all perspective.

Meanwhile the mean people, the self-centered who took America's pre-eminence for granted and even decided that they were a cause of it, will get old and dodder off the stage. They will find that pain finds the rich and poor alike, and friends will either show up to visit them or not. Even a billionaire like Bernie Madoff.

Live your individual life to your individual compass, love the people who have chosen to share their lives with you, and take heart, you *can* live far more simply than you may think. . . and be deliriously happy with nothing more than good company and a sunny day.
Colin

[ruckman101]

Why, if it is constitutional to enact legislation requiring all automobile drivers to carry insurance, is it unconstitutional to require all citizens to carry health insurance?


neal

[Sylvester]

Why, if it is constitutional to enact legislation requiring all automobile drivers to carry insurance, is it unconstitutional to require all citizens to carry health insurance?


neal

Don't you DARE compare the two! Why that very statement makes me so angry that you could ever think or say such a thing! What kind of American are you anyway? Besides I love my car more than I love my children! You should be ashamed!

(That was my TP radio response. Personally, that is a good question. I will ask my fellow workers whom I am surrounded by what that answer is tomorrow)

[BellePlaine]

Why, if it is constitutional to enact legislation requiring all automobile drivers to carry insurance, is it unconstitutional to require all citizens to carry health insurance?


neal

Isn't it because driving on public roads (thus requiring automobile insurance) is a choice?

[Amskeptic]

Why, if it is constitutional to enact legislation requiring all automobile drivers to carry insurance, is it unconstitutional to require all citizens to carry health insurance?


neal

Isn't it because driving on public roads (thus requiring automobile insurance) is a choice?

Isn't it because an irresponsible uninsured person showing up at the emergency room in an advanced state of disease is so much more expensive for the rest of us than making sure that person has at least paid in a little bit? What don't these anti-healthcare bill people understand? You want to enjoy the U.S. Medical System? Participate! It is a complete no-brainer. We do need to be dragged into adult behavior. We went through exactly the same arguments in California when car insurance became mandatory. Get over it, people. We live in a complex modern world. Participate in it! The more that do, the lower the premiums can/will get, particularly with mandated service-to-profit ratios for those corporate types who are unmoored from decency.
My only complaint is not having the single-payer option to help foster a competition that is badly needed.
Colin

[BellePlaine]

I wish that I had a good answer to satisfy you. We might have to consider that not everyone wants to participate in the U.S. Medical System, or have society pay their way. If our collective safety is not affected, who are we to judge an individual irresponsible and drag them into adult behavior?

[ruckman101]

Opt out and.....


neal

[BellePlaine]

Opt out and.....


neal

... pay a penality, right? That's not really opting out. Which is why the new health care law probably is unconstitutional, or at least it's the difference from auto insurance. Driving a car puts other folks saftey at risk, so we are required to carry liabitiy in the event of an acident to make the victim of our acident whole. Note that you are not required to carry comprehensive coverage on a car that you fully own. You are allowed to manage the risk to yourself and your own property. You can opt out.

[RussellK]

opt out and die if you can't afford the care. Or writhe in pain. your choice right? currently if you accept care you can't afford, your cost is spread to everyone else and that is part of why we see cost continue to rise. its about cost. so is mandatory auto insurance. its about who bears the cost. safety isn't part of it. just who bears the cost. so really i have no issue if you choose to go it alone and are willing to accept the ugly consequence. now what do we do about your children.

[Velokid1]

Step One: do whatever it takes to make medical care affordable to everyone. Everyone.

Step Two: make sure that anyone who still chose to not put themselves in a position to cover their own medical needs (either by having money in the bank or securing a good health insurance package) is denied anything more than very basic care.

So you come into the ER with a heart problem. Have insurance or are fabulously wealthy? You get full exams and surgery if you need it. You chose not to have insurance? You get a bottle of aspirin and a hug.

But for that to happen, we must first make Step One happen. Affordable coverage/medical costs for ALL.

[BellePlaine]

opt out and die if you can't afford the care. Or writhe in pain. your choice right? currently if you accept care you can't afford, your cost is spread to everyone else and that is part of why we see cost continue to rise. its about cost. so is mandatory auto insurance. its about who bears the cost. safety isn't part of it. just who bears the cost. so really i have no issue if you choose to go it alone and are willing to accept the ugly consequence. now what do we do about your children.

Our health care system will not remove pain or death. It's not like on one hand you've got someone to treat you and on the other you've got an "ugly consequence".

Some folks just might not want to participate, and it might be stepping on their rights by denying them that choice. Or perhaps a person might not wish buy the comprehensive plan that would cover diabetes treatment to a vegan, or maternity coverage to an elderly couple, or drug addition treatment to a bible thumper... I don't know. A person should be able to determine how much risk they are willing to assume and how much they want to have insured. That would bring down costs.

By "safety" I meant the driver is liable to the victim, an involuntary bystander, by crashing into them while driving a car. The driver will have to pay for the damages that were caused; for that, they need insurance. I didn't intend to imply that the bystander is less safe, just that a risk is being taken by someone else.

[BellePlaine]

Step One: do whatever it takes to make medical care affordable to everyone. Everyone.

What's "affordable to everyone"? The only answer to that is free medical care, and that, I'd guess is probably too expensive.

[Velokid1]

That means that nobody is left without insurance they can afford. And yes, because many people are impoverished, that means we're going to have to float the bill for many people.

Or, leave them out in the cold. After all, Darwin and all, right?

[RussellK]

opt out and die if you can't afford the care. Or writhe in pain. your choice right? currently if you accept care you can't afford, your cost is spread to everyone else and that is part of why we see cost continue to rise. its about cost. so is mandatory auto insurance. its about who bears the cost. safety isn't part of it. just who bears the cost. so really i have no issue if you choose to go it alone and are willing to accept the ugly consequence. now what do we do about your children.

Our health care system will not remove pain or death. It's not like on one hand you've got someone to treat you and on the other you've got an "ugly consequence".

Some folks just might not want to participate, and it might be stepping on their rights by denying them that choice. Or perhaps a person might not wish buy the comprehensive plan that would cover diabetes treatment to a vegan, or maternity coverage to an elderly couple, or drug addition treatment to a bible thumper... I don't know. A person should be able to determine how much risk they are willing to assume and how much they want to have insured. That would bring down costs.

By "safety" I meant the driver is liable to the victim, an involuntary bystander, by crashing into them while driving a car. The driver will have to pay for the damages that were caused; for that, they need insurance. I didn't intend to imply that the bystander is less safe, just that a risk is being taken by someone else.

We aren't trying to remove pain or death. That doesn't enter into it. The discussion is cost and how is that cost going to be distributed. Right now care isn't denied and I and everyone else is picking up the unpaid cost in higher premiums. My question is if you or anyone else is prepared to make that choice would they be agreeable to being left on the hospital steps? I don't think so. If we allow a person to determine their level of risk what do we do if they miscalculate? Do we cut them off at a level? I've noticed an individuals right to make a choice gets used a lot in the discussion. Let me ask a question. What about my rights? Shouldn't I have the right to pay a reasonable cost, a cost not influenced by someone's irresponsible decision?