http://gamingtrend.com
December 20, 2014, 09:50:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Health Care Law  (Read 4207 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
papasmurff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1399


View Profile
« on: November 08, 2010, 02:40:40 AM »

I remember reading statements earlier this week from Republicans that were something to the effect of congress should have focused on jobs and not health care.  I was just reading another news article on Fox News (yes I do occasionally read Fox News) with statements regarding the Health care legislation and an attempt to repeal it, even though they know it won't happen or will be vetoed by the President.  So my question is this:  Why is the Republican leadership focusing in on repealing health care legislation when THEY have all said the reason the democrats lost the house was because of the health care legislation?  This seems counter productive to them staying in office, using their own logic?

My second question is what is the difference between Medicare and what is proposed by the new legislation?  There were several ads, here in missouri, put out by the republican party about how horrible government run health care is and how bad the democrats are for wanting to cut back medicare to fund the initiatives of the new legislation... again this doesn't make sense to me because Medicare is nothing but government run health care.  Roll one program into the other and nothing is actually lost...
Logged

Gaming Tag: papa smurff 4
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3685


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2010, 06:04:29 AM »

Quote from: papasmurff on November 08, 2010, 02:40:40 AM

So my question is this:  Why is the Republican leadership focusing in on repealing health care legislation when THEY have all said the reason the democrats lost the house was because of the health care legislation?  This seems counter productive to them staying in office, using their own logic?


Republicans have framed Health Care Reform as something that will not only destroy the American economy, but also give liberal bureaucrats the authority to put citizens to death based on their health, race, perceived value to society, or voting history.  Under that logic -- that Democrats yearn to murder the voters who put them into office -- Republicans need to promise a complete repeal because anything less would mean that they're either complicit in this crypto-eugenic plot...or total liars.


Quote from: papasmurff on November 08, 2010, 02:40:40 AM

My second question is what is the difference between Medicare and what is proposed by the new legislation?


The HCR bill includes a lot of changes to parts of Medicare and the private insurance industry.  Different provisions come into effect at different times, but some of the highlights include:

  • Private insurers can no longer deny coverage for children due to preexisting conditions, rescind coverage for existing clients after they become sick, or impose lifetime limits on their care.  In short, your insurance provider can't decide to eliminate your policy in the event that you actually need it.  They'll also be required to spend at least 80-85% of the premiums on actual health care services as opposed to "administrative costs."

  • Adults with preexisting conditions that render them "uninsurable" will have access to a new government-run program to help them meet their costs.  The specifics of this will vary from state to state, but starting on January 1st, 2014, a new federal health insurance exchange will be established to offer plans for people who can't find them elsewhere.

  • All new insurance plans must provide coverage for preventative care like colonoscopies and mammograms that can catch cancers early.

  • Medicaid and Medicare are being expanded in a few different ways, including more federal money for states to cover more low-income families who don't qualify under existing plans, helping to close the senior citizen medication "donut hole," and allocating more funds for investigating fraud.

  • There are a number of tax credits for businesses, based on their size, that provide health coverage to their employees.


Quote from: papasmurff on November 08, 2010, 02:40:40 AM

There were several ads, here in missouri, put out by the republican party about how horrible government run health care is and how bad the democrats are for wanting to cut back medicare to fund the initiatives of the new legislation... again this doesn't make sense to me because Medicare is nothing but government run health care.


Yes, Republicans oppose government-run health care on two major fronts:

1) Government-run health care is so hopelessly inefficient that covering more Americans will result in intense rationing, extreme wait times, and ballooning costs that will require massive tax increases that will kill our economy!  This is, by and large, the same rhetoric that was used to oppose the creation of Medicare in the first place, and other "safety net" programs like Social Security.

2) Government-run health care is so amazingly efficient that it would swiftly drive private insurers out of business, put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, and kill our economy!  This is like arguing that the United States Postal Service has destroyed FedEx and UPS, the public library system has destroyed Barnes & Noble and Amazon, NASA has destroyed the aeronautics industry....


If the idea of simultaneously arguing those two diametrically-opposed rationales sounds incredibly, incredibly stupid, welcome to the Age of the Tea Party.  An article in Rolling Stone Magazine noted the same logical gap just about six weeks ago:

Quote from: Matt Taibbi
Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn't a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.

"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.


-Autistic Angel
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2010, 02:18:52 PM »

Quote
total liars, rhetoric, incredibly, incredibly stupid, welcome to the Age of the Tea Party

Well, at least the original poster showed some real interest in these subjects without resorting to the usual around here.

Forcing government-run health care on the people is incredibly anti-constitutional, and Republicans know they were just elected to help make sure it isn't enacted. Conservatives are pro 'less-government' and this flies right in the face of too-big government. Ya, there are other government-run health care programs that have been around a long time, but nothing to the degree of what the Democrats are trying to do. Where is this counter-productive?

Medicare is one of these smaller programs, and while Republicans don't really like the idea of it, it's not the behemoth that Democrats are trying to ram down our throats now. So it's a concession.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2010, 02:22:03 PM »

Quote from: papasmurff on November 08, 2010, 02:40:40 AM

Why is the Republican leadership focusing in on repealing health care legislation when THEY have all said the reason the democrats lost the house was because of the health care legislation?

Republicans believe that government should largely stay out of the way of the private sector. The R's believe that the health care legislation is an added expense to businesses (and they're right) and thus a job killer. Repealing Obamacare would lower business costs and would mean more jobs.

Edit to add: Of course they realize they have no chance of repealing it, but they want to establish a clear difference between the parties for the 2012 season. As the election draws nearer, the candidates move to the center, so it's nice to have some clear lines defining them. Plus Obamacare is just not very popular, even among the left.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 02:25:04 PM by cheeba » Logged
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1509


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2010, 03:29:54 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on November 08, 2010, 02:22:03 PM

Repealing Obamacare would lower business costs and would mean more jobs.

Well, yes, of course it would lower business costs. Taken to its logical conclusion every business would strip out health insurance for its employees if it could somehow keep the employees from running away to another business. In fact, given the recession it kind of seems amazing that more companies didn't simply throw up their hands and said "sorry fellas, no health care for you."
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3685


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2010, 03:43:50 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 08, 2010, 02:18:52 PM

Quote
total liars, rhetoric, incredibly, incredibly stupid, welcome to the Age of the Tea Party

Well, at least the original poster showed some real interest in these subjects without resorting to the usual around here.


Claims that HCR includes so-called "Death Panels" are total lies; the word "rhetoric" is not inherently pejorative; the two opposing anti-HCR are foolish on their face and attempting to use them both simultaneously is *remarkably* stupid; and yes, based on the effect they had on the national elections this cycle, I believe it's fair to call this is the Age of the Tea Party.

Please do not slice out individual words, without context, and post it as though it were a quote of something I said.  It's lazy and leads to unnecessary misunderstandings:

Quote from: Tiny slivers of something Zekester wrote
Well, at least the
government-run health care on the people is
enacted.  Conservatives are
counter-productive




Quote from: Zekester on November 08, 2010, 02:18:52 PM

Forcing government-run health care on the people is incredibly anti-constitutional, and Republicans know they were just elected to help make sure it isn't enacted.


Polling indicates that asking "Should Obama's HCR law be repealed?" get up to 51% of respondents voting Yes -- hardly a huge mandate.  More interestingly, once people are polled on the specific provisions of HCR, support for repeal drops with every question.

Quote from: CBS News
But six months after the landmark bill was signed into law, people are still largely unclear about what the changes mean for them as health care remains embroiled in a heated political debate. More than half of all Americans believe the changes will raise taxes for most people this year, according to an Associated Press poll released Tuesday. About a quarter of respondents thought that the law would set up panels of bureaucrats who would make decisions about people's health, according to the AP.

Overall support for the health care law also remains low, although it goes up when people are asked about specific provisions, demonstrating the confusion among consumers.

A CBS/New York Times poll released last week found that 49 percent disapproved of the health care law, compared to 37 percent who approved. However, less than half of those polled, 40 percent, supported repealing the law, and the number decreased even more when the question of each provision, such as the pre-existing condition, was posed.



Quote from: Zekester on November 08, 2010, 02:18:52 PM

Conservatives are pro 'less-government' and this flies right in the face of too-big government. Ya, there are other government-run health care programs that have been around a long time, but nothing to the degree of what the Democrats are trying to do. Where is this counter-productive?

Medicare is one of these smaller programs, and while Republicans don't really like the idea of it, it's not the behemoth that Democrats are trying to ram down our throats now. So it's a concession.


You have an interesting definition of what constitutes a "small program."



Major goals of HCR include covering preventative measures and early detection to reduce reliance on exponentially more expensive emergency services, cracking down on fraud and abuse, offering tax breaks to employers who offer coverage to their employees, and providing coverage to people who are otherwise uninsurable so that they can afford their treatments instead of, say, dying.  Reforms that expand coverage to millions more Americans may sound more expensive in the short term, but taken as a percentage of existing spending and then compared against our current system of rising premiums, rescission, and personal bankruptcy, it's a drop in the bucket.

-Autistic Angel
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 03:46:27 PM by Autistic Angel » Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5110



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2010, 05:21:26 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 08, 2010, 03:43:50 PM

Claims that HCR includes so-called "Death Panels" are total lies

If we cannot have unlimited health care for everyone then the person paying the bills gets to decide where to draw the line.

Quote
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which dictate what treatments the massive federal health-insurance program for the elderly will cover, is running a "national coverage analysis" of Provenge, the first vaccine approved for treating any cancer. The treatment costs $93,000 a patient and has been shown to extend patients' lives by about four months.

Although Medicare is not supposed to take cost into consideration when making such rulings, the decision to launch a formal examination has raised concerns among cancer experts, drug companies, lawmakers, prostate cancer patients and advocacy groups.

Provenge, which was approved for advanced prostate cancer in April, is the latest in a series of new high-priced cancer treatments that appear to eke out only a few more months of life, prompting alarm about their cost.

"This absolutely is the opening salvo in the drive to save money in the health-care system," said Skip Lockwood, who heads Zero - the Project to End Prostate Cancer, a Washington-based lobbying group. "If the cost wasn't a consideration, this wouldn't even be under discussion."

Those concerns have been heightened because the review comes after the bitter health-care reform debate, which was marked by accusations about rationing and "death panels." The appointment of Donald M. Berwick to head Medicare only intensified anxieties. President Obama sidestepped a Senate battle by naming Berwick, who has advocated for scrutinizing costs, when Congress was in recess in July.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1509


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2010, 06:14:12 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 08, 2010, 05:21:26 PM


If we cannot have unlimited health care for everyone then the person paying the bills gets to decide where to draw the line.

Interesting that you say that because I have previously wondered why the Health Care Reform Law needed to explicitly state that insurance companies had to provide coverage for preventative care. It didn't make sense to me that, on the face of things, a business would actually choose to cover only the more expensive operations rather than the cheap tests that would catch problems before they required major operations.

Then it occurred to me. Assuming an insurance company is not stupid it must stand to reason that they calculated the cost of covering cheap preventative care outweighed the cost of only covering expensive operations.

In this particular case you have someone advocating spending a tremendous amount of money for treating people who have already been diagnosed with advanced stage cancer. Whether or not that same person prefers this over spending a moderate amount of money to find cancer before it reaches the advanced stage is unknown.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3685


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2010, 07:32:35 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 08, 2010, 05:21:26 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 08, 2010, 03:43:50 PM

Claims that HCR includes so-called "Death Panels" are total lies

If we cannot have unlimited health care for everyone then the person paying the bills gets to decide where to draw the line.


That's an interesting article (not sarcasm), but reading through the whole thing, it seems like the government would be considering whether or not Medicare should cover Provenge regardless of the HCR law.  As much effort as Conservatives have put into framing HCR as "a government takeover of the health care industry!", many of the provisions actually seek to increase enrollment in competing private insurance plans.  Those companies are surely doing their own cost-benefit studies into the drug.  Are they only called "Death Panels" when conducted by the government, not multi-billion dollar corporations?

In any case, the government "Death Panels" meme wasn't born out of concern that Medicare would cover a particular anti-cancer drug.  It started with an earlier version of the HCR bill that included a provision for "end-of-life care" that would have promoted living wills as a means to people to inform their loved ones what sort of life-saving care they wanted in the event they were permanently incapacitated by a stroke, aneurysm, coma, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or brain death.  That idea, first proposed by pro-life Republican Johnny Isakson and supported by the GOP as recently as their own 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, was perverted by Sarah Palin into an "end-your-life" plot to let liberals Democrats murder their constituents.

Again: that's an indefensible, bald-faced lie.


Quote from: raydude on November 08, 2010, 06:14:12 PM

It didn't make sense to me that, on the face of things, a business would actually choose to cover only the more expensive operations rather than the cheap tests that would catch problems before they required major operations.

Then it occurred to me. Assuming an insurance company is not stupid it must stand to reason that they calculated the cost of covering cheap preventative care outweighed the cost of only covering expensive operations.


No, they just decided they didn't need to pay for either one.

Say you're an insurance company with 10,000 customers.  Option 1 is to pay for preventative care for all of them, and although its relatively inexpensive per person, the majority of your clientele are going to take advantage of it, and you can save a lot of money by dropping that coverage, and *most* people will never need it anyway.  

Unfortunately, the lack of early detection means that the 3 people you cover who actually do get cancer are more likely to discover it late, get very sick, and need extremely expensive treatments.  Possibly even more than funding screenings for all 10,000 of your clients.  You can't necessarily tell who they are in advance...but what if there were a way to drop their coverage after they got sick?

Enter rescission:

Quote from: The L.A. Times
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.


By dropping customers after they get sick -- or placing lifetime limits on the amount you're willing to pay for their treatment -- you'll never have to worry about your quarterly earnings reports being dragged down by clients who don't have the common courtesy to avoid developing debilitating epilepsy.  Everyone(*) wins!

-Autistic Angel
Logged
papasmurff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1399


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2010, 01:20:15 AM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 08, 2010, 02:18:52 PM



Forcing government-run health care on the people is incredibly anti-constitutional, and Republicans know they were just elected to help make sure it isn't enacted.


Right I understand this, but isn't medicare just government run health care that is forced on seniors? or at least part A and part B put together is the cheapest insurance for them?  Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a lager population base?  If medicare, which is government run health care is one of the best choices for seniors (and a benefit most seniors aren't willing to give up) , isn't that proof that government run health care options can work?

Edit:  Also, maybe it is because i am not a lawyer, but why is requiring someone to have health insurance unconstitutional?  The government forces people people to buy car insurance (or be bonded), professionals are required to purchase malpractice insurance (or be bonded), businesses are required to have liability insurance, why is it that requiring health insurance is any different?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 01:25:36 AM by papasmurff » Logged

Gaming Tag: papa smurff 4
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5110



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2010, 01:31:22 AM »

Quote from: papasmurff on November 09, 2010, 01:20:15 AM

Edit:  Also, maybe it is because i am not a lawyer, but why is requiring someone to have health insurance unconstitutional?  The government forces people people to buy car insurance (or be bonded), professionals are required to purchase malpractice insurance (or be bonded), businesses are required to have liability insurance, why is it that requiring health insurance is any different?

Each of your examples requires that a person take a positive action (drive a car, practice medicine, run a business). What is requiring health insurance predicated upon besides the fact of one's own existence?
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3685


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2010, 02:55:04 AM »

Quote from: papasmurff on November 09, 2010, 01:20:15 AM

Quote from: Zekester on November 08, 2010, 02:18:52 PM

Forcing government-run health care on the people is incredibly anti-constitutional, and Republicans know they were just elected to help make sure it isn't enacted.


Right I understand this, but isn't medicare just government run health care that is forced on seniors? or at least part A and part B put together is the cheapest insurance for them?  Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a lager population base?  If medicare, which is government run health care is one of the best choices for seniors (and a benefit most seniors aren't willing to give up) , isn't that proof that government run health care options can work?


Yes.


Quote from: papasmurff on November 09, 2010, 01:20:15 AM

Edit:  Also, maybe it is because i am not a lawyer, but why is requiring someone to have health insurance unconstitutional?  The government forces people people to buy car insurance (or be bonded), professionals are required to purchase malpractice insurance (or be bonded), businesses are required to have liability insurance, why is it that requiring health insurance is any different?


First of all, Zekester's assertion that government-run health care is being forced on people is false.  People will be required to have some kind of qualifying health insurance, preferably from a private insurer, but under specific circumstances, they can choose to participate in the federal government's health insurance exchange when it goes live in 2014.

Secondly, Zekester's assertion that the HCR law is "hugely unconstitutional" is false.  It's already faced those challenges in the courtroom and won on the grounds that the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.  Given that health care spending currently accounts for about 16% of the United States' GDP and is projected to grow to as much as 20% within the next ten years -- far more than any other wealthy, industrialized nation in the world -- legal rulings thus far support the notion that it falls within congress' authority to regulate.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5110



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2010, 03:58:09 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 09, 2010, 02:55:04 AM

People will be required to have some kind of qualifying health insurance, preferably from a private insurer, but under specific circumstances, they can choose to participate in the federal government's health insurance exchange when it goes live in 2014.

What is the penalty if people choose to go uninsured? Or is it that everyone without private insurance is automatically enrolled/covered by the federal gov plan?
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 09, 2010, 02:55:04 AM

Quote from: papasmurff on November 09, 2010, 01:20:15 AM

Quote from: Zekester on November 08, 2010, 02:18:52 PM

Forcing government-run health care on the people is incredibly anti-constitutional, and Republicans know they were just elected to help make sure it isn't enacted.


Right I understand this, but isn't medicare just government run health care that is forced on seniors? or at least part A and part B put together is the cheapest insurance for them?  Why wouldn't the same logic apply to a lager population base?  If medicare, which is government run health care is one of the best choices for seniors (and a benefit most seniors aren't willing to give up) , isn't that proof that government run health care options can work?


Yes.


Quote from: papasmurff on November 09, 2010, 01:20:15 AM

Edit:  Also, maybe it is because i am not a lawyer, but why is requiring someone to have health insurance unconstitutional?  The government forces people people to buy car insurance (or be bonded), professionals are required to purchase malpractice insurance (or be bonded), businesses are required to have liability insurance, why is it that requiring health insurance is any different?


First of all, Zekester's assertion that government-run health care is being forced on people is false.  People will be required to have some kind of qualifying health insurance, preferably from a private insurer, but under specific circumstances, they can choose to participate in the federal government's health insurance exchange when it goes live in 2014.

Secondly, Zekester's assertion that the HCR law is "hugely unconstitutional" is false.  It's already faced those challenges in the courtroom and won on the grounds that the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.  Given that health care spending currently accounts for about 16% of the United States' GDP and is projected to grow to as much as 20% within the next ten years -- far more than any other wealthy, industrialized nation in the world -- legal rulings thus far support the notion that it falls within congress' authority to regulate.

-Autistic Angel

It can work? lol, you might try asking Canadians how well it works..and that's on a much smaller scale than ours would be. Tell me....what incentive would drug companies have to create the next round of miracle drugs if they're on the governments payroll? Same with doctors...i've already heard some talking about how disastrous it would be.

And how about the huge can-o-worms involved with the government denying coverage if they don't agree with your potentially costly lifestyle? Want to play some rugby or football as a pastime? Then you get hurt and the gov't run health care system says FU. With private-run insurance, if they try that shit too much, people will go with their competitor.

Quote
Secondly, Zekester's assertion that the HCR law is "hugely unconstitutional" is false.  It's already faced those challenges in the courtroom and won on the grounds that the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.

hahaha who's decision was this? Who's courtroom, exactly?

Listen, I haven't had health coverage for over 10 years. So a gov't run program should sound wonderful for me, right? Sorry, but screw that....I don't want the gov't controlling my lifestyle through health care coverage, I don't want the gov't 'experimenting' on me, because, well, that's what they do sometimes (just look at the armed forces), and lastly, I ahven't had coverage BECAUSE I CAN'T FRIGGIN AFFORD IT. So forcing it on me, even if it's half the cost as it is now, will bury me financially.

Then we have the "fine" if I decide to not carry it? WTF is that???
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1509


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2010, 01:04:16 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM


And how about the huge can-o-worms involved with the government denying coverage if they don't agree with your potentially costly lifestyle? Want to play some rugby or football as a pastime? Then you get hurt and the gov't run health care system says FU. With private-run insurance, if they try that shit too much, people will go with their competitor.


Last time I checked ALL privately run insurance companies gave a shit if you had a potentially risky lifestyle. So going to your competitor just gets you a big "Huh. Well, that will be about X amount of dollars. Oh, your previous insurer charged that much too? Yeah that sounds about right."
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2010, 01:49:07 PM »

Yeah, well it's supposed to work that way if we stood up to them en masse.

But at least there are still choices in the private sector. How many are there if the gov't runs it? Oh, and last I checked how many gov't workers are held accountable for anything? Ever try to get your mailman fired, even for blatantly not doing their job? How about even at the state level, like the DMV, or unemployment office? Yeah, good luck seeing any of those workers lose their job for not doing it.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1509


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2010, 01:58:12 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 01:49:07 PM

But at least there are still choices in the private sector. How many are there if the gov't runs it?

If you already have N choices of private health insurance to choose from then you will have N+1 choices when the government adds their option.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
msteelers
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1797



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2010, 03:37:00 PM »

Zekester, you know that the new law didn't create a single payer system, right?

Edit: I ask because most of the things you are arguing were arguments used against a single-payer option, and the bill we got was crafted (largely by Republicans) as a direct response to the arguments you are making here in this thread.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2010, 03:38:41 PM by msteelers » Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5391


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2010, 08:00:42 PM »

Quote from: msteelers on November 09, 2010, 03:37:00 PM

Zekester, you know that the new law didn't create a single payer system, right?

Edit: I ask because most of the things you are arguing were arguments used against a single-payer option, and the bill we got was crafted (largely by Republicans) as a direct response to the arguments you are making here in this thread.

Republicans drafted the bill?   icon_lol
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3685


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2010, 09:41:23 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 09, 2010, 03:58:09 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 09, 2010, 02:55:04 AM

People will be required to have some kind of qualifying health insurance, preferably from a private insurer, but under specific circumstances, they can choose to participate in the federal government's health insurance exchange when it goes live in 2014.


What is the penalty if people choose to go uninsured? Or is it that everyone without private insurance is automatically enrolled/covered by the federal gov plan?


The penalty is an annual fee of $695 -or- 2.5% of your income, whichever is greater.  However, there are exemptions for people who cannot afford insurance coverage and do not qualify for Medicare coverage in their state.

Previously, people needed to carry insurance while they were healthy because providers refused to cover any preexisting conditions.  After that coverage becomes mandatory, there needs to be a disincentive for people to go without coverage until they get sick.  Public or private, the entire concept of insurance relies on having more healthy people paying into the system than sick people taking out of it.


Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM

It can work? lol, you might try asking Canadians how well it works..and that's on a much smaller scale than ours would be.


Good idea.  In August of 2009, Nanos Research conducted a nationwide poll finding that 85.2% of Canadians approved of their current health care system, and when asked how it could be further improved, 86.2% supported focusing on the public system rather over lowering taxes and pursuing insurance with a private provider.  Those number effectively mirror a similar poll from 2005.

Other polls surely show different numbers, but statistically, Canadians are happier with their health care system, have shorter hospital stays, and reap better results.



Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM

Tell me....what incentive would drug companies have to create the next round of miracle drugs if they're on the governments payroll? Same with doctors...i've already heard some talking about how disastrous it would be.


The actual name of the law I've been referring to as "HCR" is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Please link me to the section that grants the federal government the power to seize control of pharmaceutical companies.


Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM

And how about the huge can-o-worms involved with the government denying coverage if they don't agree with your potentially costly lifestyle? Want to play some rugby or football as a pastime? Then you get hurt and the gov't run health care system says FU. With private-run insurance, if they try that shit too much, people will go with their competitor.


This is the second time you've insinuated that the HCR law has replaced competition in the private sector with a single, monolithic government-run health care option, despite the fact that you've already been corrected.


Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM

Quote
Secondly, Zekester's assertion that the HCR law is "hugely unconstitutional" is false.  It's already faced those challenges in the courtroom and won on the grounds that the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.

hahaha who's decision was this? Who's courtroom, exactly?


Judge George Steeh, an "Article III" federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.


Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM

Listen, I haven't had health coverage for over 10 years. So a gov't run program should sound wonderful for me, right? Sorry, but screw that....I don't want the gov't controlling my lifestyle through health care coverage, I don't want the gov't 'experimenting' on me, because, well, that's what they do sometimes (just look at the armed forces), and lastly, I ahven't had coverage BECAUSE I CAN'T FRIGGIN AFFORD IT. So forcing it on me, even if it's half the cost as it is now, will bury me financially.

Then we have the "fine" if I decide to not carry it? WTF is that???


I'm independently employed so I pay for my health insurance out of pocket.  I do that because if I get cancer or get hit by a car, I don't want have my life saved just so I can spend the rest of it servicing debt incurred by my recovery.  I'm young, I eat right, I exercise every day, and my insurance premiums have gone up every single year.  Like you, there are tons of other things I could to use my money for, but ultimately, it's an issue of personal responsibility.

I don't know any details about your situation, but I do know this: if you get hit by a car, your choice to go without means the cost of saving your life comes out of my pocket, my parents' pockets, my friends' pockets.  That's a small price for saving a life, but at the same time, it gives people like me a vested interest in encouraging people to carry their own weight.

HCR extends health care coverage to millions of Americans who don't have it and improves its comprehensiveness for everyone.  That's going to save lives, including the lives of several people I know who have preexisting conditions and absolutely could not get insurance before.  The cost to you, unless your income qualifies you for an exemption, will be about $14 a week.  Like I said, that's a small price for saving a life.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2010, 11:11:18 PM »

Quote
I don't know any details about your situation, but I do know this: if you get hit by a car, your choice to go without means the cost of saving your life comes out of my pocket, my parents' pockets, my friends' pockets.  That's a small price for saving a life, but at the same time, it gives people like me a vested interest in encouraging people to carry their own weight.

Good God, you may as well be employed by an insurance company because they have you hook line and freaking sinker.

So we get down to the nitty-gritty with you, and probably most that feel like you.....it isn't about trying to help under-privileged people to have affordable health care, it's all about MONEY.

Funny, that seems to be liberals/Democrats biggest arguments against Conservatives/Republicans: we're all for the rich and big corporate.

But don't worry....if you see me get hit by a car, just leave me there.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2010, 12:06:23 AM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 11:11:18 PM

Quote
I don't know any details about your situation, but I do know this: if you get hit by a car, your choice to go without means the cost of saving your life comes out of my pocket, my parents' pockets, my friends' pockets.  That's a small price for saving a life, but at the same time, it gives people like me a vested interest in encouraging people to carry their own weight.

Good God, you may as well be employed by an insurance company because they have you hook line and freaking sinker.

So we get down to the nitty-gritty with you, and probably most that feel like you.....it isn't about trying to help under-privileged people to have affordable health care, it's all about MONEY.

I'd say it's both, actually.  Providing a legitimately good option of health insurance for those who previously could not afford the option or were just flat out refused coverage will increase the overall health of our country.  There is ZERO way this alone can be spun as a bad thing.

The possibility of it saving money in the long run is a fortuitous side benefit.
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2010, 12:20:40 AM »

gellar, do you still have that high-powered Subaru?

I could turn around and say drivers like you put everyone at higher risk with your "supercars" therefore you should pay more.

Ya I know you've said you drive it on the street responsibly, but so what? I could just as well say that I won't cross the street in front of a car.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2010, 12:26:00 AM »

You see where i'm going with this?

AA thinks I should have to pay $14/week so that he doesn't have to pay more. So why can't I say you with that car shouldn't have to pay more, too.

But just replace you and your car with anyone else here and anything they may do that might potentially cost the health insurance companies more money.

I choose to not have coverage because I can't afford it. And I'm not asking for the gov't to come in and pay for mine. So where am I costing AA more money?

I've known people that have coverage, whether paid by them or not, who go to the emergency room every other month because they think there's something wrong with them if they have a headache.
Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2010, 12:32:29 AM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 10, 2010, 12:20:40 AM

gellar, do you still have that high-powered Subaru?

I could turn around and say drivers like you put everyone at higher risk with your "supercars" therefore you should pay more.

Ya I know you've said you drive it on the street responsibly, but so what? I could just as well say that I won't cross the street in front of a car.

Actually I've moved onto something a bit more responsible (and more comfortable).

I get your point though, and it's something that frankly just makes sense to do.  Examples:
* I have a significant life insurance policy.  My premium is driven by many factors, some of which are related to risk.  If the company could prove that I am at higher risk to die based upon the vehicle I drive, they are within the rights to charge for said risk.
* My car insurance is driven by a # of factors that are tied into my risk of damaging myself and others.  These are all proven with some level of data, so I accept any additional charges related to these types of items.

In addition, in the BASIC healthcare that we are talking about, risk factors don't come into play.  We're not providing a system that treats everyone like a Tier 1 athlete, we're providing a system that provides a reasonable level of health.  It's embarrassing that it's taken the richest country in the world until 2010 to provide that.

Fundamentally, I would prefer a world where we paid for what we used and and were given the choice to do what we like.  As a reasonably intelligent person, I think I would do well in such a world (and in fact it's not all that different than my world right now, except the ridiculous taxes).  Problem is twofold: 1) I accept the fact that by and large, people are morons and won't just 'do the right thing'.  A libertarian world ONLY works if the vast majority of the population is intelligent and not fuck ups.  This is simply not the case, which makes this entirely unfeasible in reality.  2) Children.  Children have no free choice, resources, and are tied to whatever their parents tell them to do.  This is not good.  Without MINIMUM STANDARDS of education, healthcare, and just overall living for a child, the poverty gap will widen even further over time.  That's not acceptable.
Logged
Enough
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 453


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2010, 12:36:07 AM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 01:49:07 PM

Yeah, well it's supposed to work that way if we stood up to them en masse.

But at least there are still choices in the private sector. How many are there if the gov't runs it? Oh, and last I checked how many gov't workers are held accountable for anything? Ever try to get your mailman fired, even for blatantly not doing their job? How about even at the state level, like the DMV, or unemployment office? Yeah, good luck seeing any of those workers lose their job for not doing it.

Dude, you are arguing against a different health care system than the one we got with Obammacare, you know this right?  Single-payer is NOT a part of the deal.  

And, you've peaked my interest.  Do you have a hobby of trying to get people fired or something?  Are you saying that you have tried to get your mailman fired and failed?  I have to admit I have no idea how hard it is to get a mailman fired, I've not tried.  Nor have I tried to get a DMV or unemployment office worker fired.  So out of curiosity... have you had any success in getting other folk fired, and if yes, do you find more success in getting folks fired in the private sector vs. in government?
Logged

gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2010, 12:37:11 AM »

The other bit I'd like to point out is that I (and I'd wager 95% of those on this forum) don't even participate in the new system.  I'm still on my corp provided healthcare and the impact of new legislation on me is EXTREMELY minimal.  I understand your worry of what MIGHT happen with government funded healthcare, but I think the risk is reasonably low in that most of the populace are not going to participate in the system.

That said, absolutely, there are risks and costs involved in doing this.  That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.  Doing nothing just is not a viable alternative.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2010, 03:14:59 AM »

No offense to Subaru owners or anything, the WRX STi is a great car and all, but it is not "high powered" nor is it a "supercar" Tongue.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3685


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2010, 03:34:10 AM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 11:11:18 PM

So we get down to the nitty-gritty with you, and probably most that feel like you.....it isn't about trying to help under-privileged people to have affordable health care, it's all about MONEY.


No, the $14/week fee you asked about is about MONEY.  Money that goes to offset the cost of affordable health care for a wide array of people: under-privileged, sick, and irresponsible alike.  I don't believe the cost for developing Huntington's Disease should be a lifetime of debilitating debt for your loved ones -- it's morally unjustifiable, bad for our nation's health, and bad for our nation's economy.


Quote from: Zekester on November 10, 2010, 12:26:00 AM

AA thinks I should have to pay $14/week so that he doesn't have to pay more. So why can't I say you with that car shouldn't have to pay more, too.


Because gellar already pays car insurance, as required by law.  If he were caught to driving without insurance, there would be a penalty because the cost of severe accident would be catastrophic.

You choose to pay nothing, yet if you burn your arm, skip basic treatment because you don't have insurance to afford it, and wind up with a life-threatening infection, you'll receive medical treatment as required by law.  You'll get benefits -- the most expensive possible benefits -- while everyone else foots the bill.

Maybe that will happen, maybe not.  But insurance is a system you pay into *before* you have a problem, and if you're going to reap the benefits of the system, it's appropriate to expect you to start taking some responsibility.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 694



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2010, 05:49:20 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on November 10, 2010, 03:14:59 AM

No offense to Subaru owners or anything, the WRX STi is a great car and all, but it is not "high powered" nor is it a "supercar" Tongue.

None taken, but why do you think it isn't 'high-powered'?

Ale
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2010, 05:50:41 AM »

Quote from: Alefroth on November 10, 2010, 05:49:20 AM

Quote from: cheeba on November 10, 2010, 03:14:59 AM

No offense to Subaru owners or anything, the WRX STi is a great car and all, but it is not "high powered" nor is it a "supercar" Tongue.

None taken, but why do you think it isn't 'high-powered'?

Ale

Probably all relative.  300hp for a regular street car is quite a lot, but it's a bit over half what a "high powered supercar" would make.

Logged
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5110



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2010, 06:00:53 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 09, 2010, 09:41:23 PM

The penalty is an annual fee of $695 -or- 2.5% of your income, whichever is greater.  However, there are exemptions for people who cannot afford insurance coverage and do not qualify for Medicare coverage in their state.

Previously, people needed to carry insurance while they were healthy because providers refused to cover any preexisting conditions.  After that coverage becomes mandatory, there needs to be a disincentive for people to go without coverage until they get sick.  Public or private, the entire concept of insurance relies on having more healthy people paying into the system than sick people taking out of it.

What if someone refuses to pay the annual fee? I'm entering the thought experiment realm and asking how much disincentive are you willing to dish out to mandate people buy health insurance? Do we throw people in jail and make criminals out of them because they chose to go without health insurance? I worry about a society that uses government to watch over the citizens so closely that we are no longer free to make mistakes. At least those things that other people consider "mistakes".
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5110



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2010, 06:15:59 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 09, 2010, 09:41:23 PM

Quote from: Zekester on November 09, 2010, 04:19:37 AM

Quote
Secondly, Zekester's assertion that the HCR law is "hugely unconstitutional" is false.  It's already faced those challenges in the courtroom and won on the grounds that the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce.

hahaha who's decision was this? Who's courtroom, exactly?


Judge George Steeh, an "Article III" federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

It looks like there are competing judges.

Quote
The judges considering the Florida and Virginia cases have both issued rulings rejecting the federal government's motions to dismiss the suits and indicating that the mandate can't be upheld based on current Supreme Court precedent. By contrast, Michigan district Judge George Caram Steeh wrote a decision concluding that the mandate is constitutional. But even he agreed that the case raises an "issue of first impression."

The philosophical part that bothers me is the idea that the government is threatening me with fines and escalating penalties if I choose not to purchase something.

Quote
A series of flawed Supreme Court decisions have expanded Congress' Commerce Clause authority well beyond what the text of the Constitution permits. These rulings allow the federal government to regulate almost any "economic activity." But, as Judge Vinson emphasized, even they do not give Congress the power to regulate people "based solely on citizenship and on being alive." Far from engaging in "economic activity," people who decide not to purchase health insurance are actually refraining from doing so.

In his decision in the Michigan case, Judge Steeh argued that the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because deciding not to purchase health insurance is an "economic decision."

"Economic decisions," he reasoned, include decisions not to engage in economic activity. This approach would allow the Commerce Clause to cover virtually any choice of any kind. Any decision to do anything is necessarily a decision not to use the same time and effort to engage in "economic activity."

If I choose to spend an hour sleeping, I necessarily choose not to spend that time working or buying products. Under Judge Steeh's logic, the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to force workers to get up earlier in the morning so that they would spend more time on the job.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2010, 12:08:27 PM »

Quote from: gellar on November 10, 2010, 05:50:41 AM

Quote from: Alefroth on November 10, 2010, 05:49:20 AM

Quote from: cheeba on November 10, 2010, 03:14:59 AM

No offense to Subaru owners or anything, the WRX STi is a great car and all, but it is not "high powered" nor is it a "supercar" Tongue.

None taken, but why do you think it isn't 'high-powered'?

Ale

Probably all relative.  300hp for a regular street car is quite a lot, but it's a bit over half what a "high powered supercar" would make.



Yeah it's relative. To me, "high-powered" would be extra-ordinary. 300 hp is pretty damn common. I'd say "high-powered" starts at around at least 400+ hp nowadays.
Logged
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1509


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2010, 02:32:09 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on November 10, 2010, 06:00:53 AM

What if someone refuses to pay the annual fee? I'm entering the thought experiment realm and asking how much disincentive are you willing to dish out to mandate people buy health insurance? Do we throw people in jail and make criminals out of them because they chose to go without health insurance? I worry about a society that uses government to watch over the citizens so closely that we are no longer free to make mistakes. At least those things that other people consider "mistakes".

I am guessing the government garnishes your wages for it. Isn't that what the government does now for people who refuse to pay income tax?
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1509


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2010, 02:35:34 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on November 10, 2010, 03:34:10 AM

You choose to pay nothing, yet if you burn your arm, skip basic treatment because you don't have insurance to afford it, and wind up with a life-threatening infection, you'll receive medical treatment as required by law.  You'll get benefits -- the most expensive possible benefits -- while everyone else foots the bill.

Maybe that will happen, maybe not.  But insurance is a system you pay into *before* you have a problem, and if you're going to reap the benefits of the system, it's appropriate to expect you to start taking some responsibility.


That's the center of the whole health care problem right there. Even if we all decided to wake up one day and say "fuck health insurance, I'm healthy, I don't drive a high-powered car, I don't need a doctor" and dropped our health insurance coverage - the docs and paramedics are REQUIRED TO SAVE OUR ASS if we get in trouble. You can't even way them away and say "Fuck that, I don't have health insurance and I don't want to be a burden to society!"

They will ignore you and give you life-saving treatments anyway. And someone has to pay for that. Namely, those of us who pay into health insurance.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2010, 02:47:57 PM »

I wouldn't be getting off scott-free under that situation.....i'd still be hit with a bill that I would be expected to pay. So i'd be screwing myself having to cover a huge bill that I wouldn't have had I had coverage. So at worst, you'd be just loaning the money when I first go in  icon_razz

And that Subaru thing? Ya, 300hp is pretty high in a car that size. So it is pretty high-powered when compared to most other cars on the road. And it's certainly fast enough to get the driver in big trouble.....which was my point.



Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2010, 04:16:10 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 10, 2010, 02:47:57 PM

I wouldn't be getting off scott-free under that situation.....i'd still be hit with a bill that I would be expected to pay. So i'd be screwing myself having to cover a huge bill that I wouldn't have had I had coverage. So at worst, you'd be just loaning the money when I first go in  icon_razz

Well, sort of.  You'd get the bill, refuse to pay, be sent to collections, and then written off as bad debt.  This bad debt (and future bad debt) is being factored into the insurance premiums we already pay today.  So in a sense, we are currently paying for your future mistake.
Logged
Zekester
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2586



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2010, 04:36:45 PM »

screw it. nevermind.

my foray into the political forum is done. lol
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 04:42:46 PM by Zekester » Logged

I am....Migaloo
Rest in Peace, Nan & Star
XBL Schins67
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6782


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2010, 04:59:11 PM »

Quote from: Zekester on November 10, 2010, 04:36:45 PM

screw it. nevermind.

my foray into the political forum is done. lol

I don't get it... why? Are you surrounded by yes-men in your daily life? You should be surprised that nobody else has just thrown their arms in the air and left the discussions with you considering you completely ignore any posts that contradict your existing opinion (to the point where you ignore these points altogether) and just selectively answer the things that don't rock too hard with your world view.

If nothing else, the discussion in this thread has been pretty damn civil and respectful as far as I can see.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.236 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.062s, 2q)