The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
10-18-2016, 06:29 PM
#7002
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington Hills, MI
Posts: 460
Total Cats: 15
I don't think you will find many people to argue that this part of the ACA is not helpful to many Americans. I also think you will find that this will put the burden of paying the extra costs on insuring sick people on those who don't have pre-existing conditions. So which is right?
The pre-existing condition market could be grandfathered in to a government paid health insurance system, but I would still expect those with pre-existing conditions to require private insurance for any new conditions that pop up. Also, once government is covering their pre-existing conditions that they didn't have insurance to cover in the first place, then the government gets to cover those pre-existing conditions in a way that is most cost effective to the government. Beyond that, we don't need coverage for pre-existing conditions - if you got a "condition" while you didn't have insurance, then there's no reasonable expectation that someone else should pay for it - meanwhile, if you got a "condition" while you were covered under insurance, then that insurance policy will permanently cover that condition, regardless of whether or not the following month you stop carrying insurance (providing you purchased the perpetuity coverage rider).
Reply
0
0
10-19-2016, 08:43 AM
#7003
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
And now an original joke, thought of and posted from the toilet:
Karl Marx was drunk at a wedding, in which he was making a bit of a scene. Insulting the bride, insisting on being the center of attention, etc.
Vladimir Lenin told him that he was being completely classless.
Marx was flattered by the compliment.
Karl Marx was drunk at a wedding, in which he was making a bit of a scene. Insulting the bride, insisting on being the center of attention, etc.
Vladimir Lenin told him that he was being completely classless.
Marx was flattered by the compliment.
Reply
0
0
10-19-2016, 09:06 AM
#7005
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
All of us were already paying for them through higher healthcare costs.
...you do realize that people have coverage that lapses for real reasons right? Loss of employment, reaching an age where you are no longer eligible for your parent's insurance, wanting to start your own business, etc. A previous surgery or major illness was pretty much an instant denial prior to the ACA.
...you do realize that people have coverage that lapses for real reasons right? Loss of employment, reaching an age where you are no longer eligible for your parent's insurance, wanting to start your own business, etc. A previous surgery or major illness was pretty much an instant denial prior to the ACA.
Imagine if you did wedding planning and after a few years of work, realized that every time you took on a bridezilla, you lost significant amounts of money (remember as a wedding planner you're exchanging your expertise for money for profit). You also have learned how to figure out who the bridezillas are and politely declined their requests for your services -- because it wouldn't benefit you (exercising voluntary, individual choice).
Then one day, a liberal bridezilla ran to Big Daddy G and cried. Big Daddy G doesn't want his child to cry and he ordered this wedding planner that he has to take on work from anyone who requests it -- regardless if he knows it will be for a loss.
So now the wedding planner has to increase costs to his good clients, for exactly the same work, in order to make up the losses from the clients he's required to serve under threat of violence/arrest.
Just imagine that kind of world...
but back to the serious ACA discussion in the random posts thread...
Reply
0
0
10-19-2016, 10:29 AM
#7006
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Crazy story, I know...
Reply
0
0
10-19-2016, 02:31 PM
#7007
The farmers won't like this...
Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol
High-Selectivity Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 to Ethanol using a Copper Nanoparticle/N-Doped Graphene Electrode - Song - 2016 - ChemistrySelect - Wiley Online Library
Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol
The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
High-Selectivity Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 to Ethanol using a Copper Nanoparticle/N-Doped Graphene Electrode - Song - 2016 - ChemistrySelect - Wiley Online Library
Reply
0
0
10-19-2016, 03:19 PM
#7008
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
This sounds conceptually similar to the situation which might arise if the state forced a small, privately-owned business (say, a bakery, for instance) to provide goods and services (say, a cake, for instance) for the wedding of a same-sex couple, despite the fact that this practice is highly objectionable to the moral and religious standards of the owners of the business, and may cause secondary harm to their reputation amongst their regular and similarly-minded clientele (Congrefs shall make no law...)
Crazy story, I know...
Crazy story, I know...
Reply
0
0
10-19-2016, 06:47 PM
#7009
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington Hills, MI
Posts: 460
Total Cats: 15
Imagine if you did wedding planning and after a few years of work, realized that every time you took on a bridezilla, you lost significant amounts of money (remember as a wedding planner you're exchanging your expertise for money for profit). You also have learned how to figure out who the bridezillas are and politely declined their requests for your services -- because it wouldn't benefit you (exercising voluntary, individual choice).
Then one day, a liberal bridezilla ran to Big Daddy G and cried. Big Daddy G doesn't want his child to cry and he ordered this wedding planner that he has to take on work from anyone who requests it -- regardless if he knows it will be for a loss.
So now the wedding planner has to increase costs to his good clients, for exactly the same work, in order to make up the losses from the clients he's required to serve under threat of violence/arrest.
Just imagine that kind of world...
Then one day, a liberal bridezilla ran to Big Daddy G and cried. Big Daddy G doesn't want his child to cry and he ordered this wedding planner that he has to take on work from anyone who requests it -- regardless if he knows it will be for a loss.
So now the wedding planner has to increase costs to his good clients, for exactly the same work, in order to make up the losses from the clients he's required to serve under threat of violence/arrest.
Just imagine that kind of world...
No one gets rushed to an emergency wedding. Wedding costs for those that can't pay for them don't get distributed to the rest of people wanting to have a wedding. The minister and everyone involved get paid before they perform their services and can refuse service. Oh, and wedding costs aren't sky high because people put off getting married for 20 years, turning a small wedding into a huge event.
This sounds conceptually similar to the situation which might arise if the state forced a small, privately-owned business (say, a bakery, for instance) to provide goods and services (say, a cake, for instance) for the wedding of a same-sex black couple, despite the fact that this practice is highly objectionable to the moral and religious standards of the owners of the business, and may cause secondary harm to their reputation amongst their regular and similarly-minded clientele (Congrefs shall make no law...)
Crazy story, I know...
Crazy story, I know...
I'll believe the "religious" argument from those bakeries when they start refusing business from anyone that is divorced or has children before marriage.
Reply
0
0
10-20-2016, 07:50 AM
#7010
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
It sounds like public education has failed you, but analogies are a form of inductive argument.
on the other hand:
I would consider this a argument fallacy. Red Herring -- trying to appeal to emotion.
Should I list out all the other fallacies from your argument? You're focusing on the costs and dismissing all the underlining things of what I said.
**** HAPPENS. That's what voluntarily paying a wedding insurance company hundreds of dollars each month, in case you are rushed to an emergency wedding.
They would if people performing wedding their services were forced to provide said services for people who couldn't pay.
Okay, I agree with you here. To solve health care: stop allowing those who cannot pay for services performed from being able to receive services.
who's fault is this?
said the SJW. What am I getting over? The entire history of mankind is made up of one person telling another what to do (typically through force/cohesion), then U.S. happened. Tell me again who's on the wrong side of history? It didn't because the world's greatest nation, providing the highest qualities of life for all levels of peoples, outputting the best inventions/achievements, in the shortest time-span ever recorded by a fluke.
But I guess Hitler got it right all along. ****.
All things can be sins, some sins can be worse than others.
the stem of the problem all begins with one person forcing (the govt) another to do something (a private business and now individuals).
on the other hand:
No one gets rushed to an emergency wedding.
Should I list out all the other fallacies from your argument? You're focusing on the costs and dismissing all the underlining things of what I said.
**** HAPPENS. That's what voluntarily paying a wedding insurance company hundreds of dollars each month, in case you are rushed to an emergency wedding.
Wedding costs for those that can't pay for them don't get distributed to the rest of people wanting to have a wedding.
At least 68 rural hospitals, or about 4 percent of all rural hospitals in the United States, have closed since 2010, according to the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. Four closed in the first two months of 2016 alone.
The causes of this decline in the availability of rural health facilities are legion, but at the root of the problem is the crushing weight of regulation through the Affordable Care Act.
The causes of this decline in the availability of rural health facilities are legion, but at the root of the problem is the crushing weight of regulation through the Affordable Care Act.
The minister and everyone involved get paid before they perform their services and can refuse service.
Oh, and wedding costs aren't sky high because people put off getting married for 20 years, turning a small wedding into a huge event.
FTFY. You guys are on the wrong side of history and probably should just get over it now.
But I guess Hitler got it right all along. ****.
I'll believe the "religious" argument from those bakeries when they start refusing business from anyone that is divorced or has children before marriage.
the stem of the problem all begins with one person forcing (the govt) another to do something (a private business and now individuals).
Last edited by Braineack; 10-20-2016 at 08:01 AM.
Reply
0
0
10-20-2016, 08:08 AM
#7013
The issue is not whether someone is on the wrong side of history - the issue is that you are on the wrong side of economics. Every comparison made is a valid comparison of economic theory - that's the issue with the single-payer advocates - they ignore actual economics, touting false principles which are "proven" by "economists" who have more business running a political campaign.
You probably think that the Democrat decree of "credit card companies can no longer jack up interest rates on people who miss payments" was a financially sound decision as well.
Done correctly, an insurance claim on a new condition (which then becomes a pre-existing condition for potential future insurance plans) would be permanently covered under the original insurance plan regardless of whether or not the injured dumped that insurance plan (or lost that insurance plan due to any number of factors) the following month. The patient would then be free to go pick up any other insurance plan which would cover him for every condition except the one now permanently covered by his previous insurance plan. "Pre existing condition" now no longer need apply, because those with uncovered "pre existing conditions" only have uncovered "pre existing conditions" because they didn't have health insurance when the condition occurred and are therefore not entitled to forcing someone else to pay for their needs.
With this plan, not only do we take away a disincentive to maintain coverage (pre-existing condition) but we add an incentive as well (permanent coverage for any condition experienced while in term coverage).
Here's a fundamental law of economics of which you seem unfamiliar: It is not possible for the government to have a net positive economic effect by altering the conditions of a free market system.
In case you didn't get that the first time, let me re-state it: No matter what item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., you can think of, the only possible effect that the government mandate or regulation can possibly have on that item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., is a negative one - every single law on the books which is solely related to the economics of the U.S. has a net negative effect on our economy, all the way down to the purchasing power that you have as an individual.
Now, there are things that the government does which are good for the economy, but those laws were never intended to have economic consequences or "fix" economic issues - examples: a massive road infrastructure which allows for transport of goods and services, a military and police force which protects our collective economic interests, fire service to minimize economic damage/destruction, EMS teams to reduce deaths and therefore reduce the uncertainty associated with fragile life, and *the availability* (but not the age requirements or actual mandate to attend) of primary education schools. You'll note that each of these things are for the benefit of everyone, and none of these things are for the benefit of only some at the expense of others.
You probably think that the Democrat decree of "credit card companies can no longer jack up interest rates on people who miss payments" was a financially sound decision as well.
Done correctly, an insurance claim on a new condition (which then becomes a pre-existing condition for potential future insurance plans) would be permanently covered under the original insurance plan regardless of whether or not the injured dumped that insurance plan (or lost that insurance plan due to any number of factors) the following month. The patient would then be free to go pick up any other insurance plan which would cover him for every condition except the one now permanently covered by his previous insurance plan. "Pre existing condition" now no longer need apply, because those with uncovered "pre existing conditions" only have uncovered "pre existing conditions" because they didn't have health insurance when the condition occurred and are therefore not entitled to forcing someone else to pay for their needs.
With this plan, not only do we take away a disincentive to maintain coverage (pre-existing condition) but we add an incentive as well (permanent coverage for any condition experienced while in term coverage).
Here's a fundamental law of economics of which you seem unfamiliar: It is not possible for the government to have a net positive economic effect by altering the conditions of a free market system.
In case you didn't get that the first time, let me re-state it: No matter what item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., you can think of, the only possible effect that the government mandate or regulation can possibly have on that item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., is a negative one - every single law on the books which is solely related to the economics of the U.S. has a net negative effect on our economy, all the way down to the purchasing power that you have as an individual.
Now, there are things that the government does which are good for the economy, but those laws were never intended to have economic consequences or "fix" economic issues - examples: a massive road infrastructure which allows for transport of goods and services, a military and police force which protects our collective economic interests, fire service to minimize economic damage/destruction, EMS teams to reduce deaths and therefore reduce the uncertainty associated with fragile life, and *the availability* (but not the age requirements or actual mandate to attend) of primary education schools. You'll note that each of these things are for the benefit of everyone, and none of these things are for the benefit of only some at the expense of others.
Reply
0
0
10-20-2016, 08:29 AM
#7014
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
The issue is not whether someone is on the wrong side of history - the issue is that you are on the wrong side of economics. Every comparison made is a valid comparison of economic theory - that's the issue with the single-payer advocates - they ignore actual economics, touting false principles which are "proven" by "economists" who have more business running a political campaign.
You probably think that the Democrat decree of "credit card companies can no longer jack up interest rates on people who miss payments" was a financially sound decision as well.
Done correctly, an insurance claim on a new condition (which then becomes a pre-existing condition for potential future insurance plans) would be permanently covered under the original insurance plan regardless of whether or not the injured dumped that insurance plan (or lost that insurance plan due to any number of factors) the following month. The patient would then be free to go pick up any other insurance plan which would cover him for every condition except the one now permanently covered by his previous insurance plan. "Pre existing condition" now no longer need apply, because those with uncovered "pre existing conditions" only have uncovered "pre existing conditions" because they didn't have health insurance when the condition occurred and are therefore not entitled to forcing someone else to pay for their needs.
With this plan, not only do we take away a disincentive to maintain coverage (pre-existing condition) but we add an incentive as well (permanent coverage for any condition experienced while in term coverage).
Here's a fundamental law of economics of which you seem unfamiliar: It is not possible for the government to have a net positive economic effect by altering the conditions of a free market system.
In case you didn't get that the first time, let me re-state it: No matter what item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., you can think of, the only possible effect that the government mandate or regulation can possibly have on that item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., is a negative one - every single law on the books which is solely related to the economics of the U.S. has a net negative effect on our economy, all the way down to the purchasing power that you have as an individual.
Now, there are things that the government does which are good for the economy, but those laws were never intended to have economic consequences or "fix" economic issues - examples: a massive road infrastructure which allows for transport of goods and services, a military and police force which protects our collective economic interests, fire service to minimize economic damage/destruction, EMS teams to reduce deaths and therefore reduce the uncertainty associated with fragile life, and *the availability* (but not the age requirements or actual mandate to attend) of primary education schools. You'll note that each of these things are for the benefit of everyone, and none of these things are for the benefit of only some at the expense of others.
You probably think that the Democrat decree of "credit card companies can no longer jack up interest rates on people who miss payments" was a financially sound decision as well.
Done correctly, an insurance claim on a new condition (which then becomes a pre-existing condition for potential future insurance plans) would be permanently covered under the original insurance plan regardless of whether or not the injured dumped that insurance plan (or lost that insurance plan due to any number of factors) the following month. The patient would then be free to go pick up any other insurance plan which would cover him for every condition except the one now permanently covered by his previous insurance plan. "Pre existing condition" now no longer need apply, because those with uncovered "pre existing conditions" only have uncovered "pre existing conditions" because they didn't have health insurance when the condition occurred and are therefore not entitled to forcing someone else to pay for their needs.
With this plan, not only do we take away a disincentive to maintain coverage (pre-existing condition) but we add an incentive as well (permanent coverage for any condition experienced while in term coverage).
Here's a fundamental law of economics of which you seem unfamiliar: It is not possible for the government to have a net positive economic effect by altering the conditions of a free market system.
In case you didn't get that the first time, let me re-state it: No matter what item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., you can think of, the only possible effect that the government mandate or regulation can possibly have on that item, service, good, hour of labor, etc., is a negative one - every single law on the books which is solely related to the economics of the U.S. has a net negative effect on our economy, all the way down to the purchasing power that you have as an individual.
Now, there are things that the government does which are good for the economy, but those laws were never intended to have economic consequences or "fix" economic issues - examples: a massive road infrastructure which allows for transport of goods and services, a military and police force which protects our collective economic interests, fire service to minimize economic damage/destruction, EMS teams to reduce deaths and therefore reduce the uncertainty associated with fragile life, and *the availability* (but not the age requirements or actual mandate to attend) of primary education schools. You'll note that each of these things are for the benefit of everyone, and none of these things are for the benefit of only some at the expense of others.
But think of all the poor red herrings.
Reply
0
0
10-20-2016, 09:44 AM
#7015
I like when fundamental rights are argued based on the sincerity of those involved. That seems like a completely safe way of determining these things and definitely won't have massive, far-reaching unintended consequences down the road.
Last edited by mgeoffriau; 10-20-2016 at 10:15 AM.
Reply
0
0
