ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

Uh, guys, rights can either be infringed upon or protected/upheld. That's pretty much it. They can't be "removed."

Just sayin'.

Its a moot point, particularly in the context of Nightstrike's argument that rights are things we get without depending on other people. If we don't have a system to uphold our rights, they plain just don't exist for us, whether an esoteric ideal says they do or not.

My position isn't relevant to NS's. Rights aren't something that one can grab or take away. They can be either upheld or infringed upon; therefore, the infringement and enforcement of one's rights depends on other people, so in that since NS is wrong.

OK

However, "if we don't have a system to uphold our rights, they plain just don't exist for us" is incorrect because rights are an idea, and ideas exist independently of the infringement or enforcement of rights. I would agree if you had said, "if we don't have a system to uphold our rights, then we would fail to enjoy the benefits granted to us by such rights." That doesn't mean that the rights somehow don't exist because a government, or system, fails to uphold them.

To claim that rights exist apart from the government's willingness and ability to uphold them is most particularly disengenuous. In a country, such as ours, where the government is literally formed by and of the people not some God-designated monarchy, this is particularly true.

Rights are an idea, which can be codified in a contract (e.g. a constitution). Even if they aren't codified, we can still talk about rights because they do exist apart from the government's willingness to uphold them. That's the nature of an idea. That's not disingenuous; that's just a fact.

As a semantic point, you are absolutely correct. I was simply saying that its a point that is rather irrelevant to people who cannot enjoy these rights that exist. It is a point that matters only to those powerful enough to enforce the rights for themselve or others.

America will never be attacked or conquered without its permission, but apathy will conquer the most powerful nation.

I agree on the underlined--especially if people think that rights exist due to the arbitrary decrees of government because they're bound to be apathetic toward the actions of the government (and its biased SC judges).

And, I have to admit one thing Nightstrike is not is apathetic. Perhaps I should have said ignorance or some such.

[Juan_Bottom]

[PLAYER57832]

I already said that I myself am one of those able to now get coverage.

But... that needs a clarification. See, part of the problem is that people now may THINK they have coverage, be paying for it.. only to find that a major illness was excluded under the old policy. And no, it did not require fraud or any such. Denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition when there was any kind of a gap, OR for insurers to go back and review a person's entire life history when they file for a major claim (the insurer would sometimes refund the policy.. but not the damage resulting from not getting other, real coverage because the person thought they were already covered).... all of that was perfectly legal, but now is not.

[Juan_Bottom]

My mother is in the hospital right now.

And that is one sad picture.

[Phatscotty]

Interestingly, I like a few things as well. Whereas perhaps it should not be scrapped, because there are some good things in there as I have conceded on many occasions, but those were just the things to get the bill passed, and those parts can survive a partial repeal. My only point on this issue has been that the good parts of the health care reform could of and should have been passed individually or in a smaller package, but the reality at the time was the Democrats had a supermajority, and supermajorities are not in the habit of getting away with less than they are able to get away with. "Never let a crisis go to waste"

Health insurance is a luxury. It is a luxury that someone is able to spend 10 years in school, become highly specialized and efficient with knowledge and tremendously expensive equipment. If the money does not keep coming in to sustain that knowledge and equipment, then people are not going to strive to be doctors and equipment is going to be downgraded or not replaced, and most likely certain coverages will continue to be dropped from the plan as time goes on.

I will stay consistent with what I have said all along about a great many issues. This does, can, and should be handled more at the state level. If a state wants to have Obamacare, then I support that, Hopefully the people will get to have a Democratic say on the matter.

This one size fits all Obamacare is not going to work. Again, it's not 100% about the program. A lot has to do with the manner and the level upon which it was imposed, the lies that were told by all sides, the liberties that will be infringed upon, further redistribution of wealth, and I could go on...

This is where I bow out of the discussion since its quickly going into details, and as you have said many times, why the hell do i care? (I only care at the high level because its an interesting debate, but dwelling on details of another countries medicial system is rather pointless).

But briefly:
- I think Americas most fundamental issue is not the size of the government, but the political structure on which the government is built - 2 party politics for a country of 280+ million is, in my opinion, beyond retarded
- Leading on from that I kind of agree with the states thing, however, my caveat is that, as always, the collective tend to be pretty rubbish at making decisions when it comes to human/civic rights issues so caution is advised

It's been good talking to you tonight. Did you get laid recently or something?

In order to maintain posterity my response is thus: Nah, its just you're more willing to engage in the conversation than usual

thanks Loot. Here is for being a good sport

[Phatscotty]

I already said that I myself am one of those able to now get coverage.

But... that needs a clarification. See, part of the problem is that people now may THINK they have coverage, be paying for it.. only to find that a major illness was excluded under the old policy. And no, it did not require fraud or any such. Denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition when there was any kind of a gap, OR for insurers to go back and review a person's entire life history when they file for a major claim (the insurer would sometimes refund the policy.. but not the damage resulting from not getting other, real coverage because the person thought they were already covered).... all of that was perfectly legal, but now is not.

who is paying for your coverage?

[Phatscotty]

My mother is in the hospital right now.

And that is one sad picture.

What are some of the things the rest of your family and her loved ones are doing to help out?

[PLAYER57832]

I already said that I myself am one of those able to now get coverage.

But... that needs a clarification. See, part of the problem is that people now may THINK they have coverage, be paying for it.. only to find that a major illness was excluded under the old policy. And no, it did not require fraud or any such. Denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition when there was any kind of a gap, OR for insurers to go back and review a person's entire life history when they file for a major claim (the insurer would sometimes refund the policy.. but not the damage resulting from not getting other, real coverage because the person thought they were already covered).... all of that was perfectly legal, but now is not.

who is paying for your coverage?

we are.. my husband and I, though part of the payment is the work we do. (that is, it is compensation just as much as our base salaries).

[Phatscotty]

I already said that I myself am one of those able to now get coverage.

But... that needs a clarification. See, part of the problem is that people now may THINK they have coverage, be paying for it.. only to find that a major illness was excluded under the old policy. And no, it did not require fraud or any such. Denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition when there was any kind of a gap, OR for insurers to go back and review a person's entire life history when they file for a major claim (the insurer would sometimes refund the policy.. but not the damage resulting from not getting other, real coverage because the person thought they were already covered).... all of that was perfectly legal, but now is not.

who is paying for your coverage?

we are.. my husband and I, though part of the payment is the work we do. (that is, it is compensation just as much as our base salaries).

then why couldn't you pay for it before?

[PLAYER57832]

I already said that I myself am one of those able to now get coverage.

But... that needs a clarification. See, part of the problem is that people now may THINK they have coverage, be paying for it.. only to find that a major illness was excluded under the old policy. And no, it did not require fraud or any such. Denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition when there was any kind of a gap, OR for insurers to go back and review a person's entire life history when they file for a major claim (the insurer would sometimes refund the policy.. but not the damage resulting from not getting other, real coverage because the person thought they were already covered).... all of that was perfectly legal, but now is not.

who is paying for your coverage?

we are.. my husband and I, though part of the payment is the work we do. (that is, it is compensation just as much as our base salaries).

then why couldn't you buy it before?

We could.. for $1300 a month. Of course, when you are making less than 30K, that's a bit of a stretch...

And, as I said, there was really no gaurantee, before, that Blue Cross would actually pay up if I got truly sick.

[Phatscotty]

I already said that I myself am one of those able to now get coverage.

But... that needs a clarification. See, part of the problem is that people now may THINK they have coverage, be paying for it.. only to find that a major illness was excluded under the old policy. And no, it did not require fraud or any such. Denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition when there was any kind of a gap, OR for insurers to go back and review a person's entire life history when they file for a major claim (the insurer would sometimes refund the policy.. but not the damage resulting from not getting other, real coverage because the person thought they were already covered).... all of that was perfectly legal, but now is not.

who is paying for your coverage?

we are.. my husband and I, though part of the payment is the work we do. (that is, it is compensation just as much as our base salaries).

then why couldn't you buy it before?

We could.. for $1300 a month. Of course, when you are making less than 30K, that's a bit of a stretch...

And, as I said, there was really no gaurantee, before, that Blue Cross would actually pay up if I got truly sick.

Why is it that you can afford it now, but could not before? I understand it was unaffordable, but how did it all of a sudden become affordable?

[Night Strike]

We could.. for $1300 a month. Of course, when you are making less than 30K, that's a bit of a stretch...

And, as I said, there was really no gaurantee, before, that Blue Cross would actually pay up if I got truly sick.

That's a lot of money, but people should pay different amounts based on the risk they are and the choices they make. Obamacare removes that price flexibility, which means all people pay more since some people can't be forced to pay more (or companies can't give incentives to pay less). Also, if the problem was that insurance companies would not actually pay out money, then there are plenty of ways to address that problem without the monstrosity that is Obamacare. For starters, the government can make sure to do their job in enforcing the contracts that two parties enter in. If people are paying their premiums, then it's the government's job to make sure the insurance companies uphold their end of the contract. It's basic contract law.

That picture says nothing about whether or not she would have actually survived with Obamacare. Obamacare is about how health care is paid for. It does nothing to make health care better, and in many cases it will probably make it worse.

[Phatscotty]

I already pointed that out to Juan, and I in fact asked him exactly what Obamacare would do to change anything considering his situation, and what that might be. I don't think he answered

He's just guilt tripping everyone with his bleeding heart, without shame...

[jj3044]

We could.. for $1300 a month. Of course, when you are making less than 30K, that's a bit of a stretch...

And, as I said, there was really no gaurantee, before, that Blue Cross would actually pay up if I got truly sick.

That's a lot of money, but people should pay different amounts based on the risk they are and the choices they make. Obamacare removes that price flexibility, which means all people pay more since some people can't be forced to pay more (or companies can't give incentives to pay less). Also, if the problem was that insurance companies would not actually pay out money, then there are plenty of ways to address that problem without the monstrosity that is Obamacare. For starters, the government can make sure to do their job in enforcing the contracts that two parties enter in. If people are paying their premiums, then it's the government's job to make sure the insurance companies uphold their end of the contract. It's basic contract law.

Completely incorrect. There are MANY provisions in the law that 1) increase access and 2) INCENT and provide companies/insurers the means to incent their subscribers to access the system properly. One such way is a provision increasing what percentage of the premium can be used AS an incentive. Anotherwords, A company can now form plan designs reducing the employee co-share up to (I believe) 30% of the premium if they engage in behaviors that would improve health such as getting an annual physical, taking a health risk assessment, talking to a health coach, enrolling in a smoking cessation program, etc.

Symmetry and Scotty had an interesting mini-convo a page or so ago regarding what the alternative would be. An easy(ish) way to go about this is take how much the US spends on healthcare in a year, find out the average % increase over the last ~10 years, and project it through 2020. If we are to assume that the provisions in the law will improve health outcomes and (hopefully) keep the % increase lower than it is currently trending (let's say just for argument, at a third of what it would be), we can compare the two, and see which option might be better for the country. Not an exact comparison of course, but it might put this into perspective a little.

[Phatscotty]

Coverage cures cancer?????

[GreecePwns]

Republicans then and now

1861: "Rights? HAHAHAHAHAHAH f*ck HABEUS CORPUS!"
2012: "Rights? HAHAHAHAHAHAH f*ck PRIVACY!"

[Symmetry]

Is there an equivalent to Godwin's law for how inevitable it is that Scotty or NS will compare a leading Democrat to a slave owner or a tyrant as a thread goes on?

[Juan_Bottom]

Coverage cures cancer?????

That picture says nothing about whether or not she would have actually survived with Obamacare. Obamacare is about how health care is paid for. It does nothing to make health care better, and in many cases it will probably make it worse.

You miss the point so badly. You're talking about triage.

What are some of the things the rest of your family and her loved ones are doing to help out?

What do you think I should be doing?

I already pointed that out to Juan, and I in fact asked him exactly what Obamacare would do to change anything considering his situation, and what that might be. I don't think he answered

You asked what was wrong, not what would change. She's in the hole for something like 30K and the hospital wont see her anymore until she pays that down. She's been told to go die of her treatable illness.
It's hereditary, so my sister and I have been flagged for having a pre-existing condition. We can't get coverage for cancer or heart disease. There's some other stuff, but I forgot what.
I dunno what's even left,... like, I'm only covered if I mauled by a feral animal or hit by a train? I still pay the same rate for my insurance as my co-workers but I'm not covered for the most common killers.

[Phatscotty]

Coverage cures cancer?????

That picture says nothing about whether or not she would have actually survived with Obamacare. Obamacare is about how health care is paid for. It does nothing to make health care better, and in many cases it will probably make it worse.

You miss the point so badly. You're talking about triage.

What are some of the things the rest of your family and her loved ones are doing to help out?

What do you think I should be doing?

I already pointed that out to Juan, and I in fact asked him exactly what Obamacare would do to change anything considering his situation, and what that might be. I don't think he answered

You asked what was wrong, not what would change. She's in the hole for something like 30K and the hospital wont see her anymore until she pays that down. She's been told to go die of her treatable illness.
It's hereditary, so my sister and I have been flagged for having a pre-existing condition. We can't get coverage for cancer or heart disease. There's some other stuff, but I forgot what.
I dunno what's even left,... like, I'm only covered if I mauled by a feral animal or hit by a train? I still pay the same rate for my insurance as my co-workers but I'm not covered for the most common killers.

I don't have any opinion on what you should be doing, but I would hope it's "something". It could be chipping in to pay down that 30k for starters. I was just curious what you guys are going through. If you want to talk about it, I am a good listener. what is it that the hospital is doing for your mom, or what is it that your mom needs to be done?

I really do wish there was a cure for your illness. Hopefully one day medicine will advance far enough to get a cure. The reality is, after all these years and all our advances, nothing has really changed.

With cancer, after centuries, treatment is still burn, cut, and poison.

[Woodruff]

With cancer, after centuries, treatment is still burn, cut, and poison.

Actually, that may very well be ending. There are a couple of treatments on the horizon that look to end those practices.

[Phatscotty]

With cancer, after centuries, treatment is still burn, cut, and poison.

Actually, that may very well be ending. There are a couple of treatments on the horizon that look to end those practices.

I wonder how power elitists who think the world has too many people in it feel about that

[Woodruff]

With cancer, after centuries, treatment is still burn, cut, and poison.

Actually, that may very well be ending. There are a couple of treatments on the horizon that look to end those practices.

I wonder how power elitists who think the world has too many people in it feel about that

I have absolutely no idea who you're referring to. Seriously.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's PS gift. He's for the Conservatives, but somehow is against them. . . and I never know what card he's going to play. Sometimes I don't even think the card is from the right deck. We're playing Polish Poker and he passes me the old maid. He's unpredictable, mostly. But for the Conservatives.

[Phatscotty]

That's PS gift. He's for the Conservatives, but somehow is against them. . . and I never know what card he's going to play. Sometimes I don't even think the card is from the right deck. We're playing Polish Poker and he passes me the old maid. He's unpredictable, mostly. But for the Conservatives.

That is easier to swallow if you could accept that I am an Independent. I know how it seems because all I have had to rail against is Democrats because they were the only ones in power most of the time I have been here.

If you need to label me one way or another, just mark me down with whatever you think Ron Paul is

Separately, how come you no respond to my previous posts about your mom and your family?

[Juan_Bottom]

Mostly for privacy.
I'm paying her mortgage and my sister is in college. We're all that's left. My mom is out of work, partially because she's sick. Partially because she lives in an area known as a black hole of job growth. And the mortgage costs me half my monthly earnings, so I can't participate in life a whole lot.
Obamacare is probably her best and only hope.

I need a revolution. =(