If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some creationist social Darwinian)   The American Family Association says there is a very simple way to reduce healthcare costs: If you can't pay, hospitals should not have to treat you   (afa.net) divider line 415
    More: Obvious, American Family Association, Americans, family association, health savings account, needy  
•       •       •

5359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2012 at 2:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



415 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-24 05:22:14 PM

Virtuoso80: Not big on social conservatism, but I find this article pretty much spot on. Forget the social Darwinian crap. No one, or at least a contemptible few, actually want to see poor people suffer and die. I'm for doing it this way because I think it makes far more sense and that it will work better. I'm fine with Economic arguments to the contrary, but simply saying that these ideas are works of evil because they dare to suggest that not every idea we value is improved by being a Government mandate is silly.

I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people. Even the most left-leaning Economist couldn't deny that this can be the case in some situations. I'd love to see some in-depth analysis of why it wouldn't work, but it's not what I'm reading. Instead, I read a lot of facebook posts with smug satisfaction at another supposed Republican idiot, but those people themselves seem totally ignorant to any deeper level of the relationship between the law and the economy.


Or we could look at other countries who have socialized medicine and see that they have much lower costs and much healthier citizens. Their approach makes everyone get insurance and leads to more people in the system, lowering premiums and people practicing preventative care which decreases incidences of serious illnesses.

What he is proposing is decreasing the amount of people with insurance by killing the mandate, which leads to less people paying premiums, so higher premiums. He also says we should only use our health coverage for emergencies so people won't practice preventative medicine which means they won't nip health problems in the bud leading to more costly procedures.

He's basically proposing people stop brushing their teeth and just fill cavities as they come along. And if you can't afford to get the cavity filled you can ask the church to do it for free.

You want a study on the efficacy of socialized medicine vs. free market healthcare insurance? France is #1 in healthcare in the world, we are #37.
 
2012-06-24 05:23:19 PM

Virtuoso80: tWell, that's up to them. I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't give my money to a hospital that did that, but they can do and not do business with who they want. If most people don't like their policies, they will lose a ton of business another hospital that does things differently.


I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the profound stupidity of that comment.

/Read the link.
//Seriously.
 
2012-06-24 05:27:02 PM
I'm pretty cynical but that actually disgusted me. How could these people be so ... cruel? I dunno even what to think. I'm still kinda shocked something like this would be posted on a large institutional website. (Rando bloggers are one thing, but "American Family Association"? Sheesh)

I have friends from the Philippines, and one that died recently, where *each day* they had to pay *UP FRONT* for the costs of the stay, including paying for whatever medicines would be needed that day.


While what he is saying probably would not work now in this country at this time because we have become isolated and so self centered and removed from the communities in which we live but what he is saying is true. Government has become the god of choice and relied upon to support and product people when they have issues. Government was not supposed to be in this business. They are very very very bad at it. Social Security Disability is just one small example of how bad govt is for the task of helping people who need help. When you have to hire lawyers and wait years even when you really truly honestly need the help the system is broken. It is an example of what is coming with people counting on govt to be there for them when they need it. Only the scam artists know how to play and game the system. Only the connected and corrupt get the money and help. It is a terrible and inefficient system and has been proven every single time in history it has been tried. So here we go yet again.
 
2012-06-24 05:28:05 PM

Virtuoso80: taxandspend: Virtuoso80:

You're right. Get rid of the Government mandates for help, so many Catholic and Christian hospitals can can introduce mandates of their own.

Don't think it'll happen. Some already deny rape kits based on religious beliefs.

Well, that's up to them. I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't give my money to a hospital that did that, but they can do and not do business with who they want. If most people don't like their policies, they will lose a ton of business another hospital that does things differently. If people do like their policies, then all the hospital is doing is reflecting the values some part of society already had.


You act like there are hostpitals in every street corner.

When my parents lived in Prescott, AZ, there was the small hospital there, and then a few hours down the highway in Phoenix. It's not like people being picked up by ambulances have any choice in the matter, they are taken where they can get treatment the fastest.

Medical care should NOT be a "free market enterprise," it purpose and focus is to help people.
 
2012-06-24 05:29:29 PM

Mugato: Virtuoso80: I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people

Again, lawyer speak. "Well technically...this and that. The commandment doesn't say 'kill', it says 'murder' and that's highly negotiable."


That's completely false. It's not remotely semantics to suggest a you can be against a Government policy forcing something you personally believe on everyone else. Heck, our society is kind of based on that - 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and so forth. Obviously some see a divide when talking about social liberty vs. economic liberty, and some don't.

Some also believe that private charity has been shown to demonstrably work better to help people more efficiently than government-funded welfare. The point is not whether you agree with that or not, it's that there is no conflict, for example, for a Christian then to suggest something like ending Government welfare, even if he provides charity welfare through his church.
 
2012-06-24 05:29:49 PM

dehehn: You want a study on the efficacy of socialized medicine vs. free market healthcare insurance? France is #1 in healthcare in the world, we are #37.


And they pay 50% less* per person.

*Ok, Ok: 49.3% less.
 
2012-06-24 05:32:55 PM

walkingtall: I'm pretty cynical but that actually disgusted me. How could these people be so ... cruel? I dunno even what to think. I'm still kinda shocked something like this would be posted on a large institutional website. (Rando bloggers are one thing, but "American Family Association"? Sheesh)

I have friends from the Philippines, and one that died recently, where *each day* they had to pay *UP FRONT* for the costs of the stay, including paying for whatever medicines would be needed that day.

While what he is saying probably would not work now in this country at this time because we have become isolated and so self centered and removed from the communities in which we live but what he is saying is true. Government has become the god of choice and relied upon to support and product people when they have issues. Government was not supposed to be in this business. They are very very very bad at it. Social Security Disability is just one small example of how bad govt is for the task of helping people who need help. When you have to hire lawyers and wait years even when you really truly honestly need the help the system is broken. It is an example of what is coming with people counting on govt to be there for them when they need it. Only the scam artists know how to play and game the system. Only the connected and corrupt get the money and help. It is a terrible and inefficient system and has been proven every single time in history it has been tried. So here we go yet again.


My parents SS benefits came through with no issues. Which was good, since the investment funds of their 401(k)s had crashed, reducing their retirement funds by 1/3 and they really needed that money.

Fark private enterprise taking care of social benefits.
 
2012-06-24 05:34:00 PM

Virtuoso80: I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people.


Fine. Deal. But under this agreement that you and he are proposing, there should be no restrictions on alcohol, drugs, prostitution, porn, or abortion. That includes zoning laws prohibiting alcohol o rporn sales around churches or on weekends.
 
2012-06-24 05:37:38 PM
i.imgur.com

"Let 'em die!"
 
2012-06-24 05:38:11 PM

dehehn: Virtuoso80: Not big on social conservatism, but I find this article pretty much spot on. Forget the social Darwinian crap. No one, or at least a contemptible few, actually want to see poor people suffer and die. I'm for doing it this way because I think it makes far more sense and that it will work better. I'm fine with Economic arguments to the contrary, but simply saying that these ideas are works of evil because they dare to suggest that not every idea we value is improved by being a Government mandate is silly.

I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people. Even the most left-leaning Economist couldn't deny that this can be the case in some situations. I'd love to see some in-depth analysis of why it wouldn't work, but it's not what I'm reading. Instead, I read a lot of facebook posts with smug satisfaction at another supposed Republican idiot, but those people themselves seem totally ignorant to any deeper level of the relationship between the law and the economy.

Or we could look at other countries who have socialized medicine and see that they have much lower costs and much healthier citizens. Their approach makes everyone get insurance and leads to more people in the system, lowering premiums and people practicing preventative care which decreases incidences of serious illnesses.

What he is proposing is decreasing the amount of people with insurance by killing the mandate, which leads to less people paying premiums, so higher premiums. He also says we should only use our health coverage for emergencies so people won't practice preventative medicine which means they won't nip health problems in the bud leading to more costly procedures.


And you know what? I'm totally fine with people making that argument in support of socialized healthcare. That's an argument based on Economics and results, that understands something beyond "thing good, therefore Government mandate for thing good."
 
2012-06-24 05:39:10 PM

Virtuoso80: Mugato: Virtuoso80: I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people

Again, lawyer speak. "Well technically...this and that. The commandment doesn't say 'kill', it says 'murder' and that's highly negotiable."

That's completely false. It's not remotely semantics to suggest a you can be against a Government policy forcing something you personally believe on everyone else. Heck, our society is kind of based on that - 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and so forth. Obviously some see a divide when talking about social liberty vs. economic liberty, and some don't.

Some also believe that private charity has been shown to demonstrably work better to help people more efficiently than government-funded welfare. The point is not whether you agree with that or not, it's that there is no conflict, for example, for a Christian then to suggest something like ending Government welfare, even if he provides charity welfare through his church.


And just how many people really do willingly provide enough assistance for the millions of unemployed in this nation right now? Do you really think a family can keep a roof over their gead because your church has a canned food drive.

How many good a faithful church goers write a 50$ check to the Salvation Army the same year they buy another gas guzzling SUV they don't need, or another massive flat screen TV?

There simply are not enough people willing to give enough to charity to compensate for the need.
 
2012-06-24 05:40:47 PM

puffy999: You know, I wish Timothy McVeigh and his ilk would target the AFA, not innocent people in big buildings.


Why would they attack people who hail them as heroes?
 
2012-06-24 05:43:32 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Virtuoso80: I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people.

Fine. Deal. But under this agreement that you and he are proposing, there should be no restrictions on alcohol, drugs, prostitution, porn, or abortion. That includes zoning laws prohibiting alcohol o rporn sales around churches or on weekends.


I'm cool with that. You assumed I was some kind of social conservative myself, huh? Nope, Libertarian.
 
2012-06-24 05:44:06 PM

Virtuoso80: Some also believe that private charity has been shown to demonstrably work better to help people more efficiently than government-funded welfare. The point is not whether you agree with that or not, it's that there is no conflict, for example, for a Christian then to suggest something like ending Government welfare, even if he provides charity welfare through his church.


Okay, fine. If you can create a twisted form of logic to reconcile all of that then good for you. In that case, keep religion out of our laws and government completely. This is something the Family Association is not willing to do.

I also find it interesting that the same people that say, "fark you, I got mine" about our own citizens don't bat an eyelash at the obscene amount of foreign aid we give to countries that hate us. And don't say you are also against that because even if you are, you people aren't nearly as loud about it.
 
2012-06-24 05:44:27 PM
Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.
 
2012-06-24 05:44:35 PM

PacManDreaming: FTA: "Most hospitals were started by Christians or Christian organizations, and will find a way to offer care to the indigent whether the federal government is standing over them with a cudgel or not. The American people, because of the spirit of Christianity, are the most generous people on earth, which they prove time after time when disasters hit anywhere in the world. Let's not insult our own people by saying they are not generous and compassionate enough to help the needy with medical care."

Matthew 25:

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. "

How does the Right always seem to miss thing like this in the Bible?


Did you miss where it specifically says the left? Jeez, try to pay attention.
 
2012-06-24 05:45:18 PM
All libertarians need to move to Somalia to see their ideal government in action.
 
2012-06-24 05:45:55 PM
The following is not mine: Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:

What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.

New ways to stop fraud are created.

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013

If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

1/1/2014

This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.

Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.

Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.

Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.

Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.

Cut some Medicare spending

Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.

Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.

A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.

The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015

Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

1/1/2017

If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).

A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

The elimination of the "Medicare gap"



Some farker posted this from reddit. Thought I would repost it before any other geniuses come to talk about the ACA without actually knowing what it does. This is by far the best short version I've seen.
 
2012-06-24 05:46:22 PM
unfollowingjesus.com
 
2012-06-24 05:46:56 PM

Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.


Has the state requested Federal help?
 
2012-06-24 05:50:25 PM

KiplingKat872: How many good a faithful church goers write a 50$ check to the Salvation Army the same year they buy another gas guzzling SUV they don't need, or another massive flat screen TV?


I do hope you're not implying that the conservatives are somehow less likely or willing to give to charity than the liberals are because the opposite is true.

But I'm sure the same 20-30 year old liberals without health insurance because 'the government (ie, somebody besides me) should have to pay for that'... While they spend two or three times the cost of a health care premium on entertainment each month... Would be so willing to give up some of that entertainment cash to feed the poor and down trodden that liberals are so very concerned about.
 
2012-06-24 05:50:51 PM

KiplingKat872: Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.

Has the state requested Federal help?


Doesn't matter. He's black.
 
2012-06-24 05:51:42 PM
So what happens someone does not have insurance, but is injured by someone at no fault of their own? Who pays then?

Suppose I am struck by a hit and run driver who is not caught. Lets say I am between jobs and therefore without medical insurance.. Is it fair for me to die because of the criminal actions of another?

Come on people, we don't need to live in animals. We are wealthy enough as a nation to ensure everyone in America has access to medical care, shelter, and food. Do we really want our fellow Americans starving and dying in the streets?
 
2012-06-24 05:53:15 PM

randomjsa: KiplingKat872: How many good a faithful church goers write a 50$ check to the Salvation Army the same year they buy another gas guzzling SUV they don't need, or another massive flat screen TV?

I do hope you're not implying that the conservatives are somehow less likely or willing to give to charity than the liberals are because the opposite is true.

But I'm sure the same 20-30 year old liberals without health insurance because 'the government (ie, somebody besides me) should have to pay for that'... While they spend two or three times the cost of a health care premium on entertainment each month... Would be so willing to give up some of that entertainment cash to feed the poor and down trodden that liberals are so very concerned about.


My point is people in general are not charitable enough to compensate for the need, but only those "christian" conservatives complain about and want to stop contributing to a system that does far more for more people than private charities can.
 
2012-06-24 05:53:48 PM

KiplingKat872: Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.

Has the state requested Federal help?


Of course, and the sickening bureaucracy is working at a Snail's Pace. Hell, the Air Force Academy is in the range of one fire, and Peterson AFB is right nearby, and C-131tankers are up in Cheyenne Wyoming, and they're not even going to be dispatched until late tomorrow at earliest...
 
2012-06-24 05:53:58 PM

KiplingKat872: Virtuoso80: Mugato: Virtuoso80: I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people

Again, lawyer speak. "Well technically...this and that. The commandment doesn't say 'kill', it says 'murder' and that's highly negotiable."

That's completely false. It's not remotely semantics to suggest a you can be against a Government policy forcing something you personally believe on everyone else. Heck, our society is kind of based on that - 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and so forth. Obviously some see a divide when talking about social liberty vs. economic liberty, and some don't.

Some also believe that private charity has been shown to demonstrably work better to help people more efficiently than government-funded welfare. The point is not whether you agree with that or not, it's that there is no conflict, for example, for a Christian then to suggest something like ending Government welfare, even if he provides charity welfare through his church.

And just how many people really do willingly provide enough assistance for the millions of unemployed in this nation right now? Do you really think a family can keep a roof over their gead because your church has a canned food drive.

How many good a faithful church goers write a 50$ check to the Salvation Army the same year they buy another gas guzzling SUV they don't need, or another massive flat screen TV?

There simply are not enough people willing to give enough to charity to compensate for the need.


No, not right now there aren't, but that's partially because Government assumes control over taking care of much of that need. If there was a void left by doing away with that, then some will step in to fill it. They will also have more money available to fill it, because the Government would need to take less in taxes. This is turn would spur economic growth, giving people even more money to fill the void.

I concede I cannot prove that charity would be 100% capable of providing every penny necessary to compensate. It's impossible to really know. What I can point to is a over a century of history we have in this country in which the massive Government social net did not exist, and suggest that private charity today would almost certainly work even better than it did then.
 
2012-06-24 05:57:38 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dehehn: You want a study on the efficacy of socialized medicine vs. free market healthcare insurance? France is #1 in healthcare in the world, we are #37.

And they pay 50% less* per person.

*Ok, Ok: 49.3% less.


I've been told that Canadian/European style health care insurance can't work in the US because the US is different in a fundamental way that can't be clearly explained.
 
2012-06-24 06:01:09 PM

Friction8r: KiplingKat872: Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.

Has the state requested Federal help?

Of course, and the sickening bureaucracy is working at a Snail's Pace. Hell, the Air Force Academy is in the range of one fire, and Peterson AFB is right nearby, and C-131tankers are up in Cheyenne Wyoming, and they're not even going to be dispatched until late tomorrow at earliest...


Well on the one hand, you can make that claim. On the other hand, I've got this lovely little citation, from two weeks ago, with such nuggets as "federal agencies have made approximately 4,500 firefighters available to aid in efforts to suppress and contain the fires", "Yesterday, the Forest Service announced the agency has mobilized eight additional aircraft to its firefighting fleet ", and "FEMA has provided Fire Management Assistance Grants to states with active large fires".
 
2012-06-24 06:01:14 PM
www.ishkur.com
 
2012-06-24 06:01:19 PM

Virtuoso80: KiplingKat872: Virtuoso80: Mugato: Virtuoso80: I also don't get the 'this is against Jesus' argument. He's not saying people shouldn't help other people, he's saying a Government law mandating such may ultimately help less people

Again, lawyer speak. "Well technically...this and that. The commandment doesn't say 'kill', it says 'murder' and that's highly negotiable."

That's completely false. It's not remotely semantics to suggest a you can be against a Government policy forcing something you personally believe on everyone else. Heck, our society is kind of based on that - 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and so forth. Obviously some see a divide when talking about social liberty vs. economic liberty, and some don't.

Some also believe that private charity has been shown to demonstrably work better to help people more efficiently than government-funded welfare. The point is not whether you agree with that or not, it's that there is no conflict, for example, for a Christian then to suggest something like ending Government welfare, even if he provides charity welfare through his church.

And just how many people really do willingly provide enough assistance for the millions of unemployed in this nation right now? Do you really think a family can keep a roof over their gead because your church has a canned food drive.

How many good a faithful church goers write a 50$ check to the Salvation Army the same year they buy another gas guzzling SUV they don't need, or another massive flat screen TV?

There simply are not enough people willing to give enough to charity to compensate for the need.

No, not right now there aren't, but that's partially because Government assumes control over taking care of much of that need. If there was a void left by doing away with that, then some will step in to fill it. They will also have more money available to fill it, because the Government would need to take less in taxes. This is turn would spur economic growth, giving people even more money to fill the void.

I concede I cannot prove that charity would be 100% capable of providing every penny necessary to compensate. It's impossible to really know. What I can point to is a over a century of history we have in this country in which the massive Government social net did not exist, and suggest that private charity today would almost certainly work even better than it did then.


Yeah, and as a History major I can point to that history too, and to the appalling mortality rates, child labor, extreme poverty, higher illiteracy, highly unstable markets, etc. etc. etc.

And we don't even have the manfacturing base they did back then.

So yeah. Very happy with the government stepping in some areas to correct what private industry and churches either could not or would not.
 
2012-06-24 06:02:40 PM

Karac: Friction8r: KiplingKat872: Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.

Has the state requested Federal help?

Of course, and the sickening bureaucracy is working at a Snail's Pace. Hell, the Air Force Academy is in the range of one fire, and Peterson AFB is right nearby, and C-131tankers are up in Cheyenne Wyoming, and they're not even going to be dispatched until late tomorrow at earliest...

Well on the one hand, you can make that claim. On the other hand, I've got this lovely little citation, from two weeks ago, with such nuggets as "federal agencies have made approximately 4,500 firefighters available to aid in efforts to suppress and contain the fires", "Yesterday, the Forest Service announced the agency has mobilized eight additional aircraft to its firefighting fleet ", and "FEMA has provided Fire Management Assistance Grants to states with active large fires".


Oh, so massive Republican lie.

Why am I not surprised.
 
2012-06-24 06:02:40 PM

Virtuoso80: They will also have more money available to fill it, because the Government would need to take less in taxes. This is turn would spur economic growth, giving people even more money to fill the void.


Yes, because lowering taxes has proven to trickle down and create job growth. It's not like that plan has massively failed over the last 30 years.

Seriously though, "Fark our own citizens but three trillion to Israel, two trillion to Egypt? Six hundred billion for ICBMs that we have no one to shoot them at? That's about right. But the hell with universal healthcare that just about every other civilized nation has because socialism!"
 
2012-06-24 06:03:56 PM
PRO LIFE*
 
2012-06-24 06:03:57 PM

Corporate Self: So what happens someone does not have insurance, but is injured by someone at no fault of their own? Who pays then?

Suppose I am struck by a hit and run driver who is not caught. Lets say I am between jobs and therefore without medical insurance.. Is it fair for me to die because of the criminal actions of another?

Come on people, we don't need to live in animals. We are wealthy enough as a nation to ensure everyone in America has access to medical care, shelter, and food. Do we really want our fellow Americans starving and dying in the streets?


Why don't you like freedom and bootstraps?
 
2012-06-24 06:05:02 PM

mrshowrules: demaL-demaL-yeH: dehehn: You want a study on the efficacy of socialized medicine vs. free market healthcare insurance? France is #1 in healthcare in the world, we are #37.

And they pay 50% less* per person.

*Ok, Ok: 49.3% less.

I've been told that Canadian/European style health care insurance can't work in the US because the US is different in a fundamental way that can't be clearly explained.


The legislature is bought and paid for by for-profit hospitals, big pharma, and insurance companies?
 
2012-06-24 06:05:33 PM

Mugato: Virtuoso80: Some also believe that private charity has been shown to demonstrably work better to help people more efficiently than government-funded welfare. The point is not whether you agree with that or not, it's that there is no conflict, for example, for a Christian then to suggest something like ending Government welfare, even if he provides charity welfare through his church.

Okay, fine. If you can create a twisted form of logic to reconcile all of that then good for you. In that case, keep religion out of our laws and government completely. This is something the Family Association is not willing to do.

I also find it interesting that the same people that say, "fark you, I got mine" about our own citizens don't bat an eyelash at the obscene amount of foreign aid we give to countries that hate us. And don't say you are also against that because even if you are, you people aren't nearly as loud about it.


Again, I'm getting an assumption of association because I'm defending this guy. I don't remotely associate with the Family Association, and I don't know who 'you people' is. I'm also for keeping religion out of our laws (on the deepest level we do run into a problem with that because our laws are partially based on Judeo-Christian values), reducing/ending foreign aid, and being compassionate to other human beings. I think your anger is largely misdirected at me.
 
2012-06-24 06:08:24 PM

HeartBurnKid: MagnesDrachen: So...Christians will help the sick anyway, regardless of whether there's a law making them...but don't keep the law making them. What the fark?

It gets even better. Even though the Christians will continue helping them anyway, getting rid of the law making them will save money, somehow.


Getting rid of the law makes it possible for there to be loopholes to deny services to people who insist on receiving care/services without adopting the underlying dogma of the church.

The other piece of this is the push to have laws "protecting" people from having to do anything they claim isn't part of "their faith".
 
2012-06-24 06:08:44 PM

Ishkur: [www.ishkur.com image 640x480]


I love that verse. Pray in private and keep it short, God's farking busy.
 
2012-06-24 06:08:56 PM

mrshowrules: demaL-demaL-yeH: dehehn: You want a study on the efficacy of socialized medicine vs. free market healthcare insurance? France is #1 in healthcare in the world, we are #37.

And they pay 50% less* per person.

*Ok, Ok: 49.3% less.

I've been told that Canadian/European style health care insurance can't work in the US because the US is different in a fundamental way that can't be clearly explained.


I think it has to do with America being bigger and smaller than other countries while also being more densely and sparsely populated than them as well. Oh, and we're also more homogeneous and heterogeneous too.
 
2012-06-24 06:09:26 PM

LoneWolf343: Coelacanth: I think terminally ill people should strap bombs to their bodies, and walk into houses of worship, and ask the congregation therein if their god (small g) can perform a quick miracle or two.

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

Agrees


PLONK!

Get lost, Derek.
 
2012-06-24 06:09:41 PM

KiplingKat872: Friction8r: Not only is Obamacare gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, but he's going to lose Colorado in the next election. His handling of the fires in the state has been inept. Colorado is burning, and Obama has done nothing to help...the state won't forget, and he's screwed.

Has the state requested Federal help?


I grew up in Colorado. We had major forest fires at least every couple of years. Not once in over twenty years--I repeat, not once--was the president or federal government thought to be in any way responsible for dealing with it, or even mentioned in tangent.
 
2012-06-24 06:09:44 PM

Ringshadow: My brother, who is 23 and infected with College Libertarianism, told me a few days ago that you'd be better off investing the money that you'd normally put toward health insurance because "you're betting something is going to happen to you, and what if nothing does?"

I pointed out that'd make you a statistic anomaly. So hey worked out the math and said that after a decade or something, you'd have a quarter million dollars or some shiat. I don't know what logic he was using.

Needless to say he did not listen when I pointed out a quarter million dollars probably wouldn't pay for the hospital stay associated with a heart attack and, say, a stint placement.

He's never paid for his own insurance. He's on my parents' insurance still.

/I keep telling him that I'm not going to listen until he pays for his own shiat
//he replies that that's a "strawman argument"
///hoping he gets over his College Libertarianism soon


Ask your brother what he thinks about people that don't pay taxes who also vote. See how far he gets before he figures it out.
 
2012-06-24 06:13:08 PM

BarkingUnicorn: sprgrss: Why is that the organizations with the word family in it are usually the ones that are least interested in actually helping families?

They mean their own families, not yours!


They don't mean muslim families or hindu families or atheist families, and they certainly don't mean families with two mommies or two daddies.
 
2012-06-24 06:13:17 PM

Virtuoso80:
Again, I'm getting an assumption of association because I'm defending this guy. I don't remotely associate with the Family Association, and I don't know who 'you people' is. I'm also for keeping religion out of our laws (on the deepest level we do run into a problem with that because our laws are partially based on JudeoPseudo-Christian values), reducing/ending foreign aid, and being compassionate to other human beings. I think your anger is largely misdirected at me.


The anger is not misdirected: Leave us (Jews) out of your rationalizations for hateful, destructive policies.

/The people who use that term usually have two things in common: They aren't Jewish. They call themselves "conservative."
 
2012-06-24 06:13:50 PM

Virtuoso80: Again, I'm getting an assumption of association because I'm defending this guy. I don't remotely associate with the Family Association, and I don't know who 'you people' is. I'm also for keeping religion out of our laws (on the deepest level we do run into a problem with that because our laws are partially based on Judeo-Christian values), reducing/ending foreign aid, and being compassionate to other human beings. I think your anger is largely misdirected at me.


Alright but I've found that people are much louder when they speak up against healthcare than they are about the obscene amounts of money we spend on other things, most of which have nothing to do with the well being of our own citizens.
 
2012-06-24 06:15:40 PM

enry: Ringshadow: My brother, who is 23 and infected with College Libertarianism, told me a few days ago that you'd be better off investing the money that you'd normally put toward health insurance because "you're betting something is going to happen to you, and what if nothing does?"

I pointed out that'd make you a statistic anomaly. So hey worked out the math and said that after a decade or something, you'd have a quarter million dollars or some shiat. I don't know what logic he was using.

Needless to say he did not listen when I pointed out a quarter million dollars probably wouldn't pay for the hospital stay associated with a heart attack and, say, a stint placement.

He's never paid for his own insurance. He's on my parents' insurance still.

/I keep telling him that I'm not going to listen until he pays for his own shiat
//he replies that that's a "strawman argument"
///hoping he gets over his College Libertarianism soon

Ask your brother what he thinks about people that don't pay taxes who also vote. See how far he gets before he figures it out.


I had a libertarian friend who was complaining to me once about the number of toll roads in Massachusetts and how wrong it was. I pointed out that as a libertarian he should be ecstatic that government was employing user fees upon people who actually used its services, which fits the libertarian model for how government should provide services if it absolutely must. He told me that on the surface that would seem true, but in practice this was totally different.
 
2012-06-24 06:16:01 PM

czei: So let me see if I understand what he's proposing...

A man gets into a automobile accident, and the ambulance shows up. The guy is unconscious and bleeding profusely. The first thing the EMT does is fish around looking for the guy's wallet, to find proof of insurance. Whoops, no insurance card. The EMTs take off the cops tow the car out of the intersection and leave the guy to die? That's it?

Or do ambulances still have to take him to the hospital, and they leave him to bleed to death on the sidewalk outside? Or do they have a "death zone" where they leave the unconscious but still alive.


Presumably no one who could be involved would have to be involved if there wasn't cash up front. So the EMT wouldn't have to take him anywhere if there was no absolute assurance that they would be paid.

Note that companion law to this would allow the EMT to refuse service if he determined that doing so would in any way "enable" or "promote" any action against the EMT's interpretations of his religious beliefs. So even if you DID have an insurance card, if you also had a copy of your same-sex partner's picture in your wallet, it would be at the EMT's discretion to take you to the ER if he felt that doing so would in any way "promote" a lifestyle that was forbidden by his religion. I suppose he could call his minister to come to the scene to possibly witness your conversion as a requirement for service.

(I completely expect that within five years we WILL have a FARK headline concerning this or a similar incident, e.g., "I can/will only save your life if you first accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour" - either an EMT or surgeon or ER professional, etc.)
 
2012-06-24 06:16:07 PM

Gergesa: This guy doesn't go far enough in his proposals. First off, not only should hospitals not be required to treat critically injured individuals of minimal means, the critically injured poor should be thought of as a box of organs to take away and give to wealthier and worthier citizens. When we see a homeless person on the street we shouldn't feel any pity or compassion, we should immediately seize them and hand them over to skilled professionals for organ harvesting. It is outrageous that the good hardworking citizens of this republic should have their hard earned tax dollars stolen by no good poor people by means of hospital law.

If someone wants to give their money away frivolously so someone who was stabbed multiple times in an attempted mugging doesn't bleed to death, well that is their business. But under no circumstance should I have to pay for it. If they can't afford treatment that does not exempt them the principles of the free market and they can just be consumed by people with a higher income. If they don't like it, then they should have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and earned a decent wage.

Damn liberals and their sanctimonious, bleeding heart, must save everyone attitudes.


You're nothing but a weak-willed libtard who could only dream about becoming a RINO. Harvesting the homeless for organs? Way to limit the free market.

Everyone should have to walk around with their W-2 or 1099 and a card listing their blood type. When a rich guy needs organs or to drink some blood to keep them young, *BAM* --the cards get turned over, and your libtard ass loses.

One day, I'm going to be a billionaire and kick everyone's ass at this game.
 
2012-06-24 06:17:47 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: jake_lex: Ah, I love the "pro-life" movement. If you're a fetus or a vegetable, they got your back. Between those two times, however, go fark yourself, you're on your own.

Preborn, you're good, preschool, you're farked.

/George is oddly appropriate a lot today...


Birth is a pre-existing condition...
 
2012-06-24 06:17:50 PM

mrshowrules: Fireman service use to be free market also.

a) you could refuse to put out a fire if the owner couldn't pay


This is done in areas where people dont pay their taxes or fees for fire service.

As a set of policy recommendations, there are workable components to this type of solution. I am in favor of most health insurance covering only catastrophic medical loss, and the remainder covered by HSA with government subsidies where needed.

That doesn't mean we can't have single payer. It also doesn't relieve the necessity for how to get medical costs down through helping people live healthier lives, and reducing poverty, and it's attendant cost's on human health.
 
Displayed 50 of 415 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report