ACA: ...call it the stupidity of the American voter

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Would you lie to your enemy?

Never say never.

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by AndyC

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?

You could ask the question the other way around too

Try it with Lois Lerner

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by AndyC

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?

I was challenging this statement, specifically:

"it's never right to lie even if you think the goal is worthy"


My personal opinion is that defending the ACA was not worth lying. I also understand that politicians lie habitually so this didn't particularly surprise or offend me.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by Clocker

This is a straw man. Insurance companies generally did not allow people with preexisting conditions to be insured as part of the general risk pool, because that would have increased the premiums of all of the healthy people. (Sound familiar?) Pre-ObamaCare, there were high risk pools for people with preexisting conditions, based on the fact that high benefits were not a risk, they were a certainty. These pools received government subsidies to keep premiums lower than they would otherwise be.

The issue was not and is not whether or not people with preexisting conditions could get health care, it was who was going to pay for it. The issue in the mind of liberals was "fairness". It just isn't "fair" to make people who are already sick to pay more for insurance. Which is just as rational as saying that drunk drivers shouldn't pay more for auto insurance. Or that Geico and the rest should cover preexisting damage. Everybody knows that, right?

Under high risk pools, the government pays for the higher risk. Under ObamaCare, the lowest risk people pay for it in the form of higher premiums. The unjustified higher premiums are in fact a tax, but not called that lest the stupid American voters figure out that they just got a tax increase.

You are comparing auto insurance with health insurance. IMO, driving an auto is a choice - a luxury. Being healthy is not a luxury somebody may choose. Being healthy is a necessity. Hence, in most of the civilized world, societies make sure their citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial status. Even if there is a tax increase!

I guess some people think it sucks to be civilized.

[ishman17]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Whenever I see someone post that quote by Pelosi, I question their understanding of how government works and how bills are passed. Nancy Pelosi is a lot smarter than you. That's not an insult; she is also a lot smarter than me. She understands how bills are passed and what happens after they are passed.

Changes are made to bills right up to the final vote, so while you might hope for a certain result; that is not guaranteed until the bill is passed. Even then there are no guarantees. Once the bill is passed and signed into law, it has to be implemented. The appropriate department has to publish rules relating to the new law. Sometimes these rules may change the meaning of parts of the law.

Someone may challenge the law in court. That has certainly been done in the case of the ACA. Courts must decide on how to interpret what Congress has written. Nancy Pelosi was wrong. We don't find out what is in the law after it passes. Sometimes we need to wait years longer to find out.

Lol Nancy pelosi is a smart woman...not sure I've ever heard anyone ever say that....oh wait that because she isnt....and I would greatly question the intelligence level of anyone who thinks she is....

[davew]

Originally Posted by AndyC

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?

when they were born in this country?

[davew]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

You are comparing auto insurance with health insurance. IMO, driving an auto is a choice - a luxury. Being healthy is not a luxury somebody may choose. Being healthy is a necessity. Hence, in most of the civilized world, societies make sure their citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial status. Even if there is a tax increase!

I guess some people think it sucks to be civilized.

What if someone chooses to smoke 3 packs of cigs a day, snorts coke a couple times a week, and most of their caloric intake is in the form of alcohol?

What if this person needs a heart or liver transplant, who decides what is routine and what is expected?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

You are comparing auto insurance with health insurance. IMO, driving an auto is a choice - a luxury. Being healthy is not a luxury somebody may choose. Being healthy is a necessity. Hence, in most of the civilized world, societies make sure their citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial status. Even if there is a tax increase!

I guess some people think it sucks to be civilized.

Do you really not understand, or are you are being deliberately obtuse?

You are talking about what care to provide. I am talking about how to pay for it. I don't compare health insurance with auto insurance. I compare funding them.

My opposition to ObamaCare is opposition to the means, not to the end. You keep trying to interject emotion into the argument, and attack the motive for opposition. My motive is the fairness that libs keep whining about. ObamaCare is hugely unfair and burdensome on those least able to afford it, which is why they had to lie about over and over to get it passed.

Attacking opponents of ObamaCare as being uncaring about the poor is as irrational as attacking opponents of any Obama policy as being racist. How about dropping the emotional heartless straw man and addressing the issues. The program is a financial train wreck and a hopeless burden on the health care providers.

[JustRalph]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Gruber should be arrested along with his accomplices

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Gruber should be arrested along with his accomplices

Ya, well, um, I think that law is to protect the government not the citizens. We're fair game for the the hucksters and the government con artists. BOHICA.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by davew

What if someone chooses to smoke 3 packs of cigs a day, snorts coke a couple times a week, and most of their caloric intake is in the form of alcohol?

What if this person needs a heart or liver transplant, who decides what is routine and what is expected?

Good questions for sure. I have no problem with a medical team of doctors deciding what is covered by basic insurance coverage and what isn't. If somebody needs something over and above basic coverage, they can buy it themselves privately if they can afford to. No system is going to cover every possibility.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Do you really not understand, or are you are being deliberately obtuse?

You are talking about what care to provide. I am talking about how to pay for it. I don't compare health insurance with auto insurance. I compare funding them.

My opposition to ObamaCare is opposition to the means, not to the end. You keep trying to interject emotion into the argument, and attack the motive for opposition. My motive is the fairness that libs keep whining about. ObamaCare is hugely unfair and burdensome on those least able to afford it, which is why they had to lie about over and over to get it passed.

I started buying health insurance through my federal government job when I was 23. I guess that made me at 23 one of " those least able to afford it". Well, I paid my premiums on time for years when I didn't need the coverage. Now - 41 years later - I need the coverage and it's there for me as promised all those years ago. So you can toss out words like "burdensome" and "unfair" all day long for all I care. The fact is the ACA can work as opposed to what this country had previously that had no shot of working for too many people.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

... The fact is the ACA can work as opposed to what this country had previously that had no shot of working for too many people.

One of those things that people say that just drives me nuts is "doing something is better than doing nothing!". This law demonstrates why.

That does not mean that what was in the past was good, it just means that once you convince yourself that something is bad, you'll get duped into anything under the pretense that something has to be better than nothing. All that something tends to be is something equally lousy, but different. And all that something does is waste time. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Substituting one bad idea (or, in my opinion on this matter, worse) for another is not a solution, it's an excuse. And in this case, a justification.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

One of those things that people say that just drives me nuts is "doing something is better than doing nothing!". This law demonstrates why.

That does not mean that what was in the past was good, it just means that once you convince yourself that something is bad, you'll get duped into anything under the pretense that something has to be better than nothing. All that something tends to be is something equally lousy, but different. And all that something does is waste time. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Substituting one bad idea (or, in my opinion on this matter, worse) for another is not a solution, it's an excuse. And in this case, a justification.

1) There are lots of good things about the ACA IMO.

2) The GOP was not going to do anything but continue to waste time. That something was finally attempted to make things better is a good thing IMO.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

I started buying health insurance through my federal government job when I was 23. I guess that made me at 23 one of " those least able to afford it". Well, I paid my premiums on time for years when I didn't need the coverage. Now - 41 years later - I need the coverage and it's there for me as promised all those years ago. So you can toss out words like "burdensome" and "unfair" all day long for all I care.

You still don't understand. Your response is totally irrelevant to the issue. I have to question whether you understand how ObamaCare works at its most basic level.

When you were 23, you were paying premiums based on your actuarial risk of getting benefits. You were paying a statistically fair share of the costs. As a simple example, your premiums were less than those of a 23 year old female, because the actuarial probability of you getting pregnant or having other health problems unique to women were much lower than that of a female.

Today, a 23 year old male pays the same as a 23 year old female, and both pay more than if their premiums were based on the actuarial probability of receiving benefits. Those higher premiums go to fund the benefits paid out to older, less healthy people who don't pay the actual cost of their insurance. In short, a 23 year old male under ObamaCare pays the cost of his own insurance and parts of the costs of females and of older, less healthy people.

Today, a 23 year old male is paying more than his fair share and a middle aged, lower income person is paying less than his fair share of the costs. If you (society) wants to subsidize that older person, what is fair: have the 23 year old pay for it, or have the general tax funds of the government pay for it?