Supreme Court begins review of health-care law

2012-03-30 04:02:34

#201

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6933|Canberra, AUS

Pubic wrote:
OP, I've not read any post so far, but will do so.

About all of the insight I can offer is to say "100% private = shit, 100% public = shit" and offer up a description of the local situation, so here goes.

We have a reasonable taxpayer-funded health system. If you're fucked up, you can get "free" (tax-funded) health care. It might not be the best around and you may have to wait a little while sometimes, but you can get fixed up if you really need it. Going to the local doc for some pills to fix your cold or whatever will cost you 2-4 hours worth of wages. From what I've heard, the UK's NHS is the cream of the crop for public health systems, though ours is still pretty good. They fixed me up when I fucked up and cut my hand open a few years back.

Public health does need funding, which means either taxes, or a government which owns a lot of shares in a lot of companies. I don't mind paying a little more each month if it means more security.

We also have a private health system. Personally, I have health insurance because I got it free through a previous employer and was able to keep the policy after I left, at the discounted rate which they paid. The policy covers either a shitload of major surgery, or a bit of major surgery and some minor GP stuff, for about 12-20 hours waged work per quarter. This private policy has paid for my wisdom teeth, and after having left said former employer in 2009 the payments are only just starting to work in my insurer's favour. The insurer, BTW, is not a company, but a co-operative. The payments go to the doctors, not shareholders, and because of this its incredibly good value.

So yeah, private and public can co-exist quite peacefully. I'm happy with my hybrid health system.

And this surely is the most important point.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-03-30 04:05:10

#202

BVC: Member; +325|6954

Dilbert_X wrote:
To pay for wars, good point.

The war on poor health maybe. Seems to be going better than the war on drugs, which is also taxpayer-funded yet has far less taxpayer support.

Last edited by Pubic (2012-03-30 04:06:36)

2012-03-30 04:06:07

#203

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6364|eXtreme to the maX

Standing back and letting poor people die is the most important part of freedom surely.

Fuck Israel

2012-03-30 04:07:14

#204

BVC: Member; +325|6954

Sometimes if you want to preserve your own freedom, you have to help someone else preserve theirs.

2012-03-30 04:16:51

#205

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7033|Moscow, Russia

Pubic wrote:
Sometimes if you want to preserve your own freedom, you have to help someone else preserve theirs.

wat

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2012-03-30 04:51:32

#206

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6933|Canberra, AUS

Pubic wrote:
Sometimes if you want to preserve your own freedom, you have to help someone else preserve theirs.

dilbert was being facetious

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-03-30 05:01:59

#207

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

Shahter wrote:
Pubic wrote:
Sometimes if you want to preserve your own freedom, you have to help someone else preserve theirs.
wat

https://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2011/10/24/10/enhanced-buzz-1373-1319467578-31.jpg

https://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2011/10/24/10/enhanced-buzz-32098-1319467469-26.jpg

https://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10469414.jpg

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-03-30 05:18:10

#208

BVC: Member; +325|6954

Spark wrote:
Pubic wrote:
Sometimes if you want to preserve your own freedom, you have to help someone else preserve theirs.
dilbert was being facetious

I know that, but feeding trolls is fun.

Also...how do libertarians reconcile their beliefs against the harsh reality of human nature? Are libertarians selfish at heart?

Last edited by Pubic (2012-03-30 05:24:48)

2012-03-30 05:37:32

#209

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6364|eXtreme to the maX

Pubic wrote:
Spark wrote:
Pubic wrote:
Sometimes if you want to preserve your own freedom, you have to help someone else preserve theirs.
dilbert was being facetious
I know that, but feeding trolls is fun.

Also...how do libertarians reconcile their beliefs against the harsh reality of human nature? Are libertarians selfish at heart?

Fat, greedy and selfish

Fuck Israel

2012-03-30 07:08:04

#210

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Who's going to eat the cookie after you guys are done with the circle jerk?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-03-30 07:09:25

#211

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6974

Jay wrote:
Who's going to eat the cookie after you guys are done with the circle jerk?

2012-03-30 08:28:00

#212

13rin: Member; +977|6737

And we appreciate your country's contribution to the cause. Now SIT, STAY.... ROLLOVER!!!

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2012-03-30 08:55:45

#213

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5844

So we should be getting a ruling today. I hope they strike down the whole law. The 2.5 million who would lose their insurance don't need healthcare. They need freedom.

2012-03-30 09:18:18

#214

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

Macbeth wrote:
So we should be getting a ruling today. I hope they strike down the whole law. The 2.5 million who would lose their insurance don't need healthcare. They need freedom.

Justify forcing companies to cover grown adults that do not work for them.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-03-30 09:55:33

#215

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6890|949

If companies want to be treated like citizens they need to play the game. I pay taxes in plenty of places where I don't benefit. Maybe we should pay taxes for roads and infrastructure on a per use base. Same with police and fire. What's a social contract again?

By the way I don't agree with the first sentence but that's a justification/rationality/excuse

2012-03-30 09:58:43

#216

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If companies want to be treated like citizens they need to play the game. I pay taxes in plenty of places where I don't benefit. Maybe we should pay taxes for roads and infrastructure on a per use base. Same with police and fire. What's a social contract again?

Justify forcing companies to provide full health coverage to people aged 18-26 that they do not employ.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-03-30 10:01:00

#217

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6890|949

They don't and won't have to, unless you're referring to some other law.

My company doesn't even provide me full coverage, and you're saying the new law will force them to fully cover people who don't work for them?

2012-03-30 10:04:34

#218

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
They don't and won't have to, unless you're referring to some other law.

My company doesn't even provide me full coverage, and you're saying the new law will force them to fully cover people who don't work for them?

At least 2.5 million younger Americans now have health insurance as a result of a provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans until 26 years of age, the Associated Press reports. The Obama administration is expected to release additional data later this afternoon:

Using unpublished quarterly statistics from the government’s ongoing National Health Interview Survey, analysts in Sebelius’ policy office determined that nearly 36 percent of those age 19-25 were uninsured in the third calendar quarter of 2010, before the law’s provision took effect. That translates to more than 10.5 million people.

By the second calendar quarter of 2011, the proportion of uninsured young adults had dropped to a little over 27 percent, or about 8 million people. The difference — nearly 2.5 million getting coverage — can only be the result of the health care law, administration officials said, because the number covered by public programs like Medicaid went down slightly. Overall, nearly 30 million Americans are between the ages of 19 to 25. For those who are little older, ages 26-35, the uninsured rate went up during the same period. “From September 2010 to June 2011, coverage rose only among those adults affect by the policy,” said the HHS report.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12 … ?mobile=nc

They get whatever coverage their parents have until they turn 26.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-03-30 10:14:42

#219

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6890|949

So their parents add them to the insurance plan...you're aware most people split healthcare coverage with their employers, right?

So then, you're post should read- justify forcing companies to offer the option for parents to extend coverage to their grown children (who are still going to school). I've never worked for a company that has covered 100% of the health insurance.

Did you glance over the part in the article that mentions the rolls for Medicaid went down slightly too?

2012-03-30 10:18:25

#220

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

So you're ok with forcing companies to pay for the majority of their employees adult childrens medical insurance. If that's your opinion then there's really no need to continue this conversation. You obviously feel entitled by your pulse to other peoples money and time.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-03-30 10:25:00

#221

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6890|949

Jay wrote:
So you're ok with forcing companies to pay for the majority of their employees adult childrens medical insurance. If that's your opinion then there's really no need to continue this conversation. You obviously feel entitled by your pulse to other peoples money and time.

Health insurance offered by a company is part of job compensation. It will probably mean companies won't offer as much in salary to prospective employees as they brace for the increased insurance costs.

You remind me more and more of lowing everyday. First, you either don't understand what you are talking about it being purposely ignorant for the sake of argument. Second, you tell me what my beliefs are so you can argue against them. Next youre going to change te subject to something completely different so you can continue arguing. Well done sir.

2012-03-30 10:35:11

#222

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jay wrote:
So you're ok with forcing companies to pay for the majority of their employees adult childrens medical insurance. If that's your opinion then there's really no need to continue this conversation. You obviously feel entitled by your pulse to other peoples money and time.
Health insurance offered by a company is part of job compensation. It will probably mean companies won't offer as much in salary to prospective employees as they brace for the increased insurance costs.

You remind me more and more of losing everyday. First, you either don't understand what you are talking about it being purposely ignorant for the sake of argument. Second, you tell me what my beliefs are so you can argue against them. Next youre going to change te subject to something completely different so you can continue arguing. Well done sir.

Your beliefs are fully on display. You hate corporations. You hate politicians. You hate rich people. You convey these opinions in every thread. Your response to me asking for justification was 'well, corporations wanted to be people' and 'social contract'. Am I failing to understand your viewpoint? I don't think so.

There is no justification for forcing companies to cover people that do not work for them. There's no justification for forcing them to cover anyone. Period. End of story. They offer health insurance as a PERK of employment. A healthy workforce is a productive workforce. Covering spouse and children is an extension of this; it increases office morale. It's an option that companies use as a recruiting tool. That's all it is meant to be.

There is no right involved here. Forcing companies to pay money to health insurance companies is as wrong as forcing individuals to shell out money to the greedy fucks. Forcing them to offer coverage to adults that do not work for them is just completely fucking asinine.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-03-30 10:37:53

#223

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6890|949

I hate corruption, cronyism, greed and exploitation. If any of those things that you say I hate fall into the catagories I listed above, then yes I will speak out against it.

Tell me what else I hate, lowing.

2012-03-30 10:41:33

#224

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5616|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I hate corruption, cronyism, greed and exploitation. If any of those things that you say I hate fall into the catagories I listed above, then yes I will speak out against it.

Tell me what else I hate, lowing.

Ahh, now I'm lowing. Cute.

What is greed? I call it wanting stuff that hasn't been earned. I'd call using the political process in order to extract wealth from others exploitation. I'd call forcing people to buy a good from private corporations cronyism and corruption.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-03-30 10:44:26

#225

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6890|949

Here's my viewpoint ( that i thought I explained in my first post in this thread)- if I have to pay a little more money to make sure people who can't otherwise afford healthcare get healthcare, I am more than willing. I welcome it. I don't mind paying taxes, I disagree with how they are divvied up. Ideally everyone would be personally responsible and this conversation wouldn't have to take place. That's not reality. I don't like people taking advantage of social benefits any more than I like corporations exploiting workers, or lobbying politicians for no-bid contracts, or receiving subsidies they don't need. I think it's better to attack the larger scale fraud and exploitation which is why I harp about it more than people using food stamps to buy beer and condoms.

BF2S Forums Supreme Court begins review of health-care law

Pubic wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Spark wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Spark wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Board footer