Thanks Obamacare

Leonthecat said:
Those who don't own cars take the bus or taxis. The insurance to cover their share is built into those fares.
Everyone pays.
All insurance is socialism.
Click to expand...


But what about those who walk or ride a bicycle??
Unless you're trying to say that they also pay for car insurance. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
But what about those who walk or ride a bicycle??
Unless you're trying to say that they also pay for car insurance. :dunno:
Click to expand...

The system of insurance is based on the socialistic principle that there is security from harm for all when resources are pooled.
Children don't drive or pay as the walker or bicycle rider may choose to do, but they can still benefit from the socialistic principal of auto insurance if they are injured by a car.
The important part of the principal is that everyone is protected from the consequences of auto accidents. Those liable for being bad drivers as well as those who may become their victims.

If you buy or use auto insurance you are a socialist.
 
Leonthecat said:
The system of insurance is based on the socialistic principle that there is security from harm for all when resources are pooled.
Children don't drive or pay as the walker or bicycle rider may choose to do, but they can still benefit from the socialistic principal of auto insurance if they are injured by a car.
The important part of the principal is that everyone is protected from the consequences of auto accidents. Those liable for being bad drivers as well as those who may become their victims.

If you buy or use auto insurance you are a socialist.
Click to expand...

Pray tell how someone who walks or rides a bicycle may CHOOSE to have car insurance??

The rest of your post appears to be based on the false premise of you thinking those who walk or ride bicycles can CHOOSE to have car insurance.
 
CFM said:
Can you prove to me that any costs I would pay by it being single payer would be the same or less than I pay now for me and my family? If you can't, that's all I need to know. I'm not in the business of placing higher costs on myself in order that someone else pays a lower costs.

There is a difference between what insurance companies offer and Obamacare. Not joining a particular insurance group didn't have a consequence. I bet you're one of those that equates auto insurance with health insurance. They're nothing alike in their purpose.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can say about the cost would be theoretical. We've already seen the cost growth from health care in the 80's to now. Single Payer won't be a magic bullet to reduce all the costs, and get our spending back down to what other countries are paying, but it would control costs going forward so that we won't see more extreme growth, and has the potential to cut out a few other things (like insurance industry profits and administrative fees). With the cost growth we have had in the health care industry, the medical community spent more, creating an environment that was less efficient and more costly to them as well. However, we would be able to cut out some of the administrative costs, as well as have more leverage in reducing costs in certain areas that the insurance industry lacked. For an example on leverage, Dr's could choose what insurance they would honor. They could easily tell an insurance company that they wouldn't accept patients with a certain insurance because that insurance company wouldn't pay $125 for band-aids. I'm sure if you've been to the doctor enough, you would have seen a few questionable charges billed to your insurance company at some point. Insurance companies would rarely fight them, because without doctors who accept their insurance, patients are more willing to drop that insurance. So the insurance company err's on the side of long-term profits and rates rise.

I'm not getting anything as to why I shouldn't support single payer, which I asked you for. You can choose to promote your point of view or not, but I have mine already. Can you, or can you not, provide enough evidence or some theory of your own that could convince me, or at least make me second guess, that we shouldn't go to single-payer? "You're one of those" types of arguments don't work on me, and frankly it's a very flaccid tactic to try and dissuade from discussing facts or ideas. I'm not relating this to auto-insurance in any way at all, don't be disingenuous.
 
CFM said:
Only responsible for 3%? You assume that a .0000001% would be acceptable. What you don't get is that the government has no place in healthcare. If you think someone that couldn't afford it should have had it, you could have very easily solved that problem by finding them and paying their coverage for them. As a typical Liberal, that's not how you work. You think the rest of us should incur a 3% cost when a 0% cost increase would have been the result if you bleeding hearts actually care as much as you claimed you do.
Click to expand...

Stop babbling and deal with the reality. The insurance company was going to raise your rates AS AN REGULAR PRACTICE BEFORE THE ACA BECAME A TWINKLE IN THE CONGRESSIONAL EYE. If there were NO government oversight or regulation in healthcare, you'd have a series of corruption and incompetence that would make the current situation pale in comparison. Or are you that ignorant to think that the level of healthcare (quality of medicine, practice, care, etc.) all just developed out of the goodness of the hearts of private industry? LEARN YOUR HISTORY, YOU DOLT! Or better yet, check out what Wendell Potter and Dr. Peelo had to say on the subject. Stop wasting everyone's time with your idiotic supposition and conjecture that ignores reality.

And remember, the ACA was the COMPROMISE THE GOP AGREED UPON! Deal with it.
 
reason10 said:
You're a fucking MORON.

Obamacare has jacked up the cost of health care, the cost of premiums, and has cost the taxpayers a TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS.

Fewer people can see their doctors. They are all standing in line.

FUCK YOU, NAZI BITCH.
Click to expand...

LIE ALERT!!!!
​[TABLE="class: topic, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: c_postfoot"]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: c_post"]

https://wallethub.com/edu/rates-of-uninsured-by-state-before-after-obamacare/4800/#main-findings

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...us-census-data-shows-uninsured-americans-drop

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/obamacare-uninsured-gallup/[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: c_sig"]There are none so blind as those who will not see.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: c_postfoot"]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD="class: c_footicons"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
christiefan915 said:
That's obscene. Especially this one.

2013_09_HealthCareCosts3.png
Click to expand...

The obscene part is that you Liberal idiots think someone getting a subsidy in order to buy something they couldn't buy before means they bought the coverage. Just like all other social welfare programs, hard working people had what they earned taken in order to have it handed to some freeloader.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Stop babbling and deal with the reality. The insurance company was going to raise your rates AS AN REGULAR PRACTICE BEFORE THE ACA BECAME A TWINKLE IN THE CONGRESSIONAL EYE. If there were NO government oversight or regulation in healthcare, you'd have a series of corruption and incompetence that would make the current situation pale in comparison. Or are you that ignorant to think that the level of healthcare (quality of medicine, practice, care, etc.) all just developed out of the goodness of the hearts of private industry? LEARN YOUR HISTORY, YOU DOLT! Or better yet, check out what Wendell Potter and Dr. Peelo had to say on the subject. Stop wasting everyone's time with your idiotic supposition and conjecture that ignores reality.


And remember, the ACA was the COMPROMISE THE GOP AGREED UPON! Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I deal with reality. I look at people like you who say you care yet the only way you show it is by supporting someone else being forced to fund what you won't do and could do yourselves.

Since no GOP members in either house voted for it, your claim that they agreed to it is a lie. Deal with being a liar. We both know you are. The thing is I will admit it and you, the lying piece of shit, hide from it.
 
DigitalDave said:
The only thing I can say about the cost would be theoretical. We've already seen the cost growth from health care in the 80's to now. Single Payer won't be a magic bullet to reduce all the costs, and get our spending back down to what other countries are paying, but it would control costs going forward so that we won't see more extreme growth, and has the potential to cut out a few other things (like insurance industry profits and administrative fees). With the cost growth we have had in the health care industry, the medical community spent more, creating an environment that was less efficient and more costly to them as well. However, we would be able to cut out some of the administrative costs, as well as have more leverage in reducing costs in certain areas that the insurance industry lacked. For an example on leverage, Dr's could choose what insurance they would honor. They could easily tell an insurance company that they wouldn't accept patients with a certain insurance because that insurance company wouldn't pay $125 for band-aids. I'm sure if you've been to the doctor enough, you would have seen a few questionable charges billed to your insurance company at some point. Insurance companies would rarely fight them, because without doctors who accept their insurance, patients are more willing to drop that insurance. So the insurance company err's on the side of long-term profits and rates rise.

I'm not getting anything as to why I shouldn't support single payer, which I asked you for. You can choose to promote your point of view or not, but I have mine already. Can you, or can you not, provide enough evidence or some theory of your own that could convince me, or at least make me second guess, that we shouldn't go to single-payer? "You're one of those" types of arguments don't work on me, and frankly it's a very flaccid tactic to try and dissuade from discussing facts or ideas. I'm not relating this to auto-insurance in any way at all, don't be disingenuous.
Click to expand...


In other words, no you can't prove it will help ME. I'm yet to see any proof from you but you'll claim you have because you parroted what you've heard some Liberal piece of shit say.
 
Leonthecat said:
All you buy is mandatory car insurance?
Liar.
The insurance you buy for your cars protection is socialistic by nature. Just as you health insurance is. Everyone pays , those who need it, benefit.
The AHA protects everyone including you, should you fall on hard times.
Ever thought what you would do if you became disabled and could no longer afford to by health insurance?
You are a greed driven sociopathic racist.
And you seem to be proud of it.
Lol
Click to expand...

Oh, the typical if this ever happens to you argument.

I'm proud to be one, unlike you, that doesn't expect the government to look after me because I'm not willing to do it myself.
 
Leonthecat said:
All you buy is mandatory car insurance?
Liar.
The insurance you buy for your cars protection is socialistic by nature. Just as you health insurance is. Everyone pays , those who need it, benefit.
The AHA protects everyone including you, should you fall on hard times.
Ever thought what you would do if you became disabled and could no longer afford to by health insurance?
You are a greed driven sociopathic racist.
And you seem to be proud of it.
Lol
Click to expand...

Are you my insurance agent? Since you aren't, making claims about what I buy and what I don't buy makes you the liar.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
CFM is just another typical greedy Republican.

He's got his, everyone else can go fuck themselves.
Click to expand...

No retard, I EARNED mine and if you don't have what I have EARNED, you can fuck yourself. Because I can afford it and you can't doesn't, by default, mean it's my place to do it for you.
 
CFM said:
In other words, no you can't prove it will help ME. I'm yet to see any proof from you but you'll claim you have because you parroted what you've heard some Liberal piece of shit say.
Click to expand...

In other words, you aren't up to debate it's merits nor discuss anything that doesn't confirm your own beliefs on the subject. I didn't come here attacking you nor did I insult you in any way. I came to debate the topic and all I've gotten from you is feeble attempts to attack my character. If you want a system that helps you, then you need to try a little harder at getting that to happen. Until then, I'll focus my efforts on someone who actually has an argument other than 'Nah nee nah nee boo boo, you can't prove it!'

I gave my reasoning as to why it could reduce the costs, and should. I can't guarantee it because frankly, I feel the government could very easily set this up like they did with Medicare or the ACA if we, as a society, don't discuss this and get it right. We'll just let the Medical industry lobbyists decide.. right?
 
the right has no plans for anything



they merely seek the distruction of this government


they want government to fail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top