Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Affect on artists by the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act-2  (Read 12532 times)
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2012, 02:18:27 PM »
ReplyReply

You now seem to agree that "Only if you CHOOSE to own a car..." isn't a relevant objection -- because we do live and so for your metaphor to work we do own a car.

sigh, not even close. You can Live and NOT own a car.

Quote
For example, in California, you can choose to provide a surety bond, or a cash deposit, or some form of commercial insurance or self-insurance; to establish "financial responsibility" with DMV.

And what does that "fiscal responsibility" protect?  Not you but rather anothers property.

Quote
Is your objection that no similar provision exists to deposit $million cash in lieu of insurance within ACA legislation?

My objection is quite clear.  It's none of the governments business.

Quote
No, my payments covered the health risks for an over-medicated overweight sedentary population ;-)

......

Quote
I think more will contribute than do now.

Nice attempt at a cop out.   The bulk will come form these who already contribute.

Quote
You've already acknowledged that the current situation is -- "we pay for those who are uninsured, both in increased taxes and increased insurance premiums".

One way to pay less, is to lower the health care cost of the currently uninsured.
One way to pay less, is to address the health care need before it reaches Urgent Care.
One way to pay less, is to provide access to basic preventative health care.

And ACA will do that how?  And if it does are sure it will LOWER costs and not INCREASE them?  

Quote
How what is working out?



Good question, you have avoided answering it.

I suggest we agree to disagree.  And let the ballot box decide.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 02:22:02 PM by Craig Lamson » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2012, 02:58:46 PM »
ReplyReply

You now seem to agree that "Only if you CHOOSE to own a car..." isn't a relevant objection -- because we do live and so for your metaphor to work we do own a car.
sigh, not even close. You can Live and NOT own a car.

Obviously you can live and not own a car - but that wasn't the problem with your metaphor.

I'm sure you agree that by virtue of owning a car we are exposed to various risks. You've told us that we can avoid those risks by choosing not to own a car.

Similarly, by virtue of being alive we are exposed to various risks - including risks to health. To follow your metaphor, we can avoid those risks by choosing not to be alive.

In your metaphor, choosing not to own a car corresponds with choosing not to be alive.
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2012, 04:40:46 PM »
ReplyReply

sigh, not even close. You can Live and NOT own a car.

Obviously you can live and not own a car - but that wasn't the problem with your metaphor.

I'm sure you agree that by virtue of owning a car we are exposed to various risks. You've told us that we can avoid those risks by choosing not to own a car.

Similarly, by virtue of being alive we are exposed to various risks - including risks to health. To follow your metaphor, we can avoid those risks by choosing not to be alive.

In your metaphor, choosing not to own a car corresponds with choosing not to be alive.


I told you you could avoid the mandated purchase of insurance choosing not to own a car.  And of course you can avoid the current silly law  by choosing to be dead.  Both are valid choices.  

However in both I'm alive in the first instance.  Being alive does not equate to owning a car.  

I have a choice to purchase a car.  

I'm mandated to purchase insurance if I own. Not if I don't.  

I have a choice to purchase healthcare services.  I'm mandated to purchase insurance if I use.  I'm mandated to purchase insurance if I don't.


You can also avoid the mandated car insurance while owning a car but CHOOSING not to drive it on public roads.  In addition unlike health insurance which provides personal financial protection, mandated car insurance only protects the other guy.  Choices...just like the choice NOT to seek medical care.   Except in your utopia we no longer have the personal choice to not purchase health insurance or face a penalty.  

Neither address the issues since most people won't choose to die.  And many voluntarily choose not to own a car.

Which begs the question in light of this new law that penalizes every person for the NON purchase of a commercial product.  Are non car owning persons being treated differently under the law?  A protected class?  And what about home owners who don't insure their houses.  How about renters who don't insure the contents of their apartment?  Lets extend this further.  How about those who choose not to purchase chewing gum?  Or those who choose not to purchase a Nikon?   Can you say slippery slope?  Is the ACA discriminatory?  

The long and short is I can still choose NOT to purchase car insurance.  The option to choose to not purchase health insurance without a incurring penalty is not available.

Maybe that's why we have the legal gymnastics to label the unconstitutional mandate a tax..oh wait, a penalty, no wait a tax....what ever it is.


A great quote that describes the difference between us.

"Free societies allow the citizens to make their choices...even freer ones allow the individual the dignity to incur the consequences of their choices"  

It will be sorted out at the ballot box.  

BTW, how is the healthcare thing working out for California?









« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 05:31:13 PM by Craig Lamson » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1766



WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2012, 10:26:58 PM »
ReplyReply

A great quote that describes the difference between us.

"Free societies allow the citizens to make their choices...even freer ones allow the individual the dignity to incur the consequences of their choices"  


Except that if you do choose not to carry health insurance and then have an illness you want treated (because you've made the choice not to die) then the rest of the people in your immediate community have to bear that cost. You are unilaterally imposing a "tax" on the rest of us in your community, especially on the lab techs, hospital orderlies, nurses, doctors, and other healthcare service and materials providers whose expenses you cannot pay and chose not to make prior arrangements for.

No matter what the politicians are saying now to get your money, your voice, and your vote the Affordable Health Care Act isn't going to be repealed or defunded. What GOP does not like is that the Democratic Party got it passed. It has been two years since it was passed, at least fifteen years since the debate about it started in earnest and the one plan the GOP has floated is what was basically enacted in the Affordable Heathcare Act. The GOP has had all that time to come with an alternative and what has been the result? A promse to study alternatives.

As a recent editorial cartoon pointed out: everyone one of the polititicians who have voted to do away with it have so far wasted nearly a billion dollars in the 31 votes the GOP leadership in the House of Representatives has called.

The Republican party has no plan unless you start calling "Obamacare" by its original name: "Romneycare".

This is a fight about money, but what is on the table isn't tax dollars, it's a fundraising war of for both political machines.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 11:46:02 PM by Ellis Vener » Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 517


WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2012, 11:02:09 PM »
ReplyReply


"Free societies allow the citizens to make their choices...even freer ones allow the individual the dignity to incur the consequences of their choices"  


Except that if you do choose not to health insurance and then have an illness you want treated (because you've made the choice not to die) then the rest of the people in your immediate community have to bear that cost. You are unilaterally imposing a "tax" on the rest of us in your community, especially on the lab techs, hospital orderlies, nurses, doctors, and other healthcare service and materials providers whose expenses you cannot pay and chose not to make prior arrangements for.


Great point.  I would also like to add to this that free societies also allow the citizens to make the choice of place of residence.  You CAN choose not to participate in ObamaCare.  You can refuse to pay for insurance.  You also can choose to move to a different country.
Logged

Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1766



WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2012, 12:12:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Also check out http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/?hpid=z5

Especially item 4.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 517


WWW
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2012, 01:45:30 AM »
ReplyReply


Thanks for the link Ellis.  Very interesting.  Congress is the problem, they run the country, not the president.  They are to blame for many of the USA's problems.
Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2012, 07:32:51 AM »
ReplyReply

A great quote that describes the difference between us.

"Free societies allow the citizens to make their choices...even freer ones allow the individual the dignity to incur the consequences of their choices"  


Except that if you do choose not to carry health insurance and then have an illness you want treated (because you've made the choice not to die) then the rest of the people in your immediate community have to bear that cost. You are unilaterally imposing a "tax" on the rest of us in your community, especially on the lab techs, hospital orderlies, nurses, doctors, and other healthcare service and materials providers whose expenses you cannot pay and chose not to make prior arrangements for.

No matter what the politicians are saying now to get your money, your voice, and your vote the Affordable Health Care Act isn't going to be repealed or defunded. What GOP does not like is that the Democratic Party got it passed. It has been two years since it was passed, at least fifteen years since the debate about it started in earnest and the one plan the GOP has floated is what was basically enacted in the Affordable Heathcare Act. The GOP has had all that time to come with an alternative and what has been the result? A promse to study alternatives.

As a recent editorial cartoon pointed out: everyone one of the polititicians who have voted to do away with it have so far wasted nearly a billion dollars in the 31 votes the GOP leadership in the House of Representatives has called.

The Republican party has no plan unless you start calling "Obamacare" by its original name: "Romneycare".

This is a fight about money, but what is on the table isn't tax dollars, it's a fundraising war of for both political machines.

Time will tell.  The majority wants this very bad bill gone.  The majority never wanted it in the first place.  It's simply very bad law.

You want to cut the cost of healthcare by greatly reducing the amount of extra money you pay in increased taxes and insurance premiums?

The first place to start is to reduce those abusing the system...the ones who are not even Americans.  How about we send all the illegals back to where they came from and close the borders?  Or is that not as politically comfortable as continuing to soak the taxpayers and legal working folks?  Pretty hard for a certain party to pander for votes?  How about we do that and then see where we stand?

And, for the record this is not about those who come here LEGALLY.  Immigration made this country and it will continue to shape it.  If you want to come here, just do it by the front door.

Oh btw, I  have no problem at all in denying service to those who choose not to have the ability to pay when they make that choice of their own free will.

Of course that's the point you miss when you read the quote.  

"...even freer ones allow the individual the dignity to incur the consequences of their choices" "


You seem quite happy a democratic controlled House, Senate and executive branch passed this mess since that's the way the system works.

I hope you are just as happy that the system works when a republican controlled House, Senate and executive branch toss it in the trash.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 09:34:17 AM by Craig Lamson » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2012, 07:49:48 AM »
ReplyReply


ROFLMAO!

If that's the true reason for number four, please explain the current job creation numbers. (which like the others are a bit of fantasy)

(btw if you want to turn this into a strictly political discussion, and we can take this to a more suitable venue and I'll be very happy to continue)
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2012, 07:51:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Great point.  I would also like to add to this that free societies also allow the citizens to make the choice of place of residence.  You CAN choose not to participate in ObamaCare.  You can refuse to pay for insurance.  You also can choose to move to a different country.

Ah yes, the if you don't like it...move...defense.  I'm more inclined to use the political system instead.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2012, 10:08:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I've been goggling as well.  

Exchanges are state run and there is no requirement I can find that makes the states set them up.  The feds reserve the rights to run them if the states decline (oh boy).  

There is a fear these exchanges will do the opposite of what is intended since the regulation  and minimum insurance requirements have increased. And there is also a fear policies in the exchanges will be skewed to higher price point coverage.

On self insurance it seems from limited study the same applies, much greater restrictions and regulation.

In any case lets just agree to disagree on the value of the ACA.  It will get sorted out one way or the other at the ballot box.


You made assertions. You can produce no facts to back your assertions up, and so you state 2x you are fearful of what *might* happen.

Thanks for sharing that. Iím fearful too, but can provide facts as to why.

Having paid into a system that has gone up over 135% in the last 10 years, while offering reduced services for my added expense, I shudder to see what the next 10 years could bring, without MAJOR changes to the system. Can you imagine a system that requires a typical healthy adult to pay over $1,000 per month, every month just for health insurance? That is where we are headed, without a major change.

Meanwhile, many of our local ďnon-profitĒ health providers have stock piled billions of dollars. They too claim being fearful. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017460805_surplus09m.html Iím pretty sure the same phenomena can be found across the country.

The insurance and medical industry is wealthy nearly beyond the ability to count largely because some people are just too fearful to think for themselves. These same people will believe anything these greedy groups tell them to believe.

As far as self-insurance, greater oversight of self-insurance plans is a good thing. I know of some groups who use self-insurance, and theyíve done extremely well as a consequence. The $$$ that would otherwise go into the coffers of insurance companies stays with the company and lets them re-invest it. That permits the company to grow more readily. Thatís fine with me.  

Any company that is big enough to self-insure, probably will, unless, their employee population puts them at risk for losing $$ due to being self-insured. That kind of risk is why strict oversight is important and the risk is why insurance exists in the first place.

The real tragedy is that that health care has become nearly guaranteed path to ruin for anyone who really needs it, especially without insurance. Heck, the cost of delivering a baby is over $30K per the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165279035493687.html

How about the cost of a trip to the ER to fix a simple broken arm? Accordingly that can be anywhere between $2.5K to over $16K. http://health.costhelper.com/broken-arm.html.

Now letís look at some fairly common life events. Roughly 80% of men will have serious lower back problems in their lives. Typical cost to repair a herniated disk can be between $8K and $150K. http://www.herniateddiscbacksurgery.com/spine-surgery-cost.shtml

Typical cost of some forms of cancer treatment: Lung cancer treatment: over $40K. Prostate cancer: over $18K. Recurrent breast cancer: around $55K. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061001987.html

There are endless examples. The point is if one doesnít have health insurance, entirely predictable life maladies can financially destroy nearly anyone. If people canít afford insurance, then ultimately the cost falls to the tax payers.

You really want this trend to continue unchanged? A political party that encourages that is what I fear.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 10:11:13 AM by Justan » Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2012, 11:03:48 AM »
ReplyReply

You made assertions. You can produce no facts to back your assertions up, and so you state 2x you are fearful of what *might* happen.

Thanks for sharing that. Iím fearful too, but can provide facts as to why.

snip....

You really want this trend to continue unchanged? A political party that encourages that is what I fear.


You really CAN'T read can you  Justan?

I suggest to go back upthread and do just that, and then climb on your high horse and ride off into the sunset.

I can supply all the "dueling" facts you can ever want to back my assertions and I'll be happy to do just that.  Lets just move this to a more suitable venue.  If the mods permits, coffee corner works just fine for me.

Then we can dance....
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2012, 12:07:21 PM »
ReplyReply

However in both I'm alive in the first instance.

Yes, and by virtue of being alive, we are exposed to health risks - it comes with the territory.
 
In contrast, as you have repeatedly stated, owning a car, and being exposed to various risks as a consequence, is a choice we make.


And what does that "fiscal responsibility" protect?  Not you but rather anothers property.

That's a good point - is there property of others that should be protected?

Yes there is - you've already agreed that "we pay for those who are uninsured, both in increased taxes and increased insurance premiums".

There's $42.7 billion in health care costs for people without insurance that is shifted onto higher premiums for the insured.


A great quote that describes the difference between us.

You presume you know my opinion - you don't know my opinion.


BTW, how is the healthcare thing working out for California?

Which "healthcare thing"?
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #53 on: July 14, 2012, 12:36:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, and by virtue of being alive, we are exposed to health risks - it comes with the territory.
 
In contrast, as you have repeatedly stated, owning a car, and being exposed to various risks as a consequence, is a choice we make.

LOL! you really don't deal with losing well do you?   And choosing to use healthcare being exposed to various risks as a consequence, is a choice we make.


[/quote]

That's a good point - is there property of others that should be protected?

Yes there is - you've already agreed that "we pay for those who are uninsured, both in increased taxes and increased insurance premiums".

There's $42.7 billion in health care costs for people without insurance that is shifted onto higher premiums for the insured.
[/quote]

We CHOOSE to accept those costs, we and also choose otherwise.


Quote
You presume you know my opinion - you don't know my opinion.

Fair enough.  So lets find out what your opinion really is.  Do you agree with the quote or not?

Quote
Which "healthcare thing"?

Why Isaac, its the same one why have avoided answering for four posts now....
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 765



WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 14, 2012, 01:10:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I've started a new thread in the coffee corner.  I'll comment there and leave this thread.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad