So that happened.

Wondering what people's opinions are.

The fact that a small minority can pull this off is embarrassing enough. let alone actually pulling it off.

Welcome to America. Been here long?

Actually, one the "slowdown", I hated to see it happen, but I am completely behind the push to get some concessions on the ACA law. Unfortunately, as debate has completely broken in DC, leverage is the only thing that works anymore, and funding and debt ceiling are about the only leverage conservatives have left. I don't want a shutdown, and I don't want a default, and let's be honest, I don't sack either side with accusations that they WANTED these outcomes, but when it's your last bit of grip to keep the other side's agenda from being crammed down America's throat, you have to fight.

Let's look at ACA. It was NOT a bipartisan bill, and it was passed like a thief in the night, by one party alone. It's bad for America, it's killing jobs, it's making healthcare worse, it's driving premiums UP instead of down. Yes a few people are seeing a benefit, but that is far outweighed by what it is costing us. It's having tremendous problems on rollout, it's not ready, and though I'd prefer a repeal, at the very least it should be delayed until it is working at least the way it's designer's even intended.

On the shutdown and default. Those two outcomes, while bad don't get me wrong, are not really tremendously worse than where we already are. Confidence is down despite any actions Congress takes. CR's have become the MO around DC. We're like a teenager blowing paychecks from his first job. That's the shameful part, we're the greatest economy in the world, and we drive it like it's a pinto.

Now, on negotiations. First of all, this "we'll negotiate once you meet our demands" No, that won't cut it. You don't negotiate once the sale is done, your leverage is gone. The deal get's done, and done right, before anyone signs the bottom line. Frankly, I find it deplorable, in both houses, that one person, be it Boehner or Reid, can decide the fate of a bill by either allowing or blocking a vote. Any bill should be voted on, point blank. I find it deplorable that a president would completely shut off negotiations. I find it deplorable that Harry Reid would not vote to restore our government to running order, just because the bill isn't an omnibus. We don't need omnibus bills, we need point by point, thought out and planned budgeting. We NEED a balanced budget Amendment.

I blame 2 things for the mess we are in today.

1. The mere fact that, as a nation, we chose to completely ignore the class warfare history of nations that preceeded us. We chose to igrore the warnings our own leaders gave us with regards to the dangers of progressing down a lineage of partisan politics. We embraced the evil that are parties. We shouldn't have a dichotomy in government, it should be a multi faceted system, where ideas and values matter, not a "good and evil" or "which team are you on" mentality. A person should be able to confidently run for office, based solely on their own subset of interests and ideals, not try to "etch a sketch" their way through primaries and elections. There's conservative and liberal, but they aren't inherently "oil and water" we make them so by lumping them into teams, forcing the teams to become homogeneous within themselves, rather than embrace their own diversity. There are all flavors of conservatism, and liberalism, and they all bring valuable things to the discussion table, but now when they are manipulated to conform to party agendas.

2. The 17th Amendment. We neutered state governments by allowing the people to vote for Senators, rather than allowing the state legislature to appoint their own representation. The people, and the States, they have very separate, but both very important, interests. As it stands now, the only safety net that exists for States, when both houses pass bad legislation, forced onto them by the people alone, is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is just as dysfunctional as Congress, so that's really not a safety net anymore. State's rights are eroded more every year. Ontop of that, if Senators were still appointed by the States, I think you would see the Senate remain largely conservative, as most States are conservative.

To recap. I'm not happy about the "slowdown" or the impending "default" but at the same time, I'm ready to have this fight over both addressing the cluster-F that is ACA, and addressing our spending problems.

stebo0728 wrote:
Let's look at ACA. It was NOT a bipartisan bill, and it was passed like a thief in the night, .........

Huh?

The ACA was passed by both houses of congress, signed into law by the president, upheld by the supreme court, and was the major campaign issue of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.
Romney lost although Karl Rove and you still thinks Romney won the election.
Are you saying we should no longer follow the constitution?

stebo0728 wrote: On the shutdown and default.........

Now, on negotiations. First of all, this "we'll negotiate once you meet our demands" No, that won't cut it. You don't negotiate once the sale is done, your leverage is gone.

To recap. I'm not happy about the "slowdown" or the impending "default" but at the same time, I'm ready to have this fight over both addressing the cluster-F that is ACA, and addressing our spending problems.

There is no negotiation on threats to shut down the government by a minority party.
I'm glad we finally have a president with a brain and balls. Not like our last one.

Perhaps you would have favored the left shutting down the government when Bush lied to the American people and took us into Iraq?

BTW I recently went into open enrollment for my healthcare and for the first time that I can remember my monthly premium for 2014 is less than my 2013 monthly premium.

Thank you President Obama

Now if you are truly unhappy, just contribute your hard earned money to the tea party and watch the results.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote: The ACA was passed by both houses of congress, signed into law by the president, upheld by the supreme court, and was the major campaign issue of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.
Romney lost although Karl Rove and you still thinks Romney won the election.
Are you saying we should no longer follow the constitution?

Passing both houses doesn't mean bipartisan brah. You seem to forget the late night Christmas Eve Eve antics of your majority leader Reid, and his dopey ex-counterpart in the house, you know, the one who was ok passing a bill to find out what was in it?

No that was not a bipartisan effort.

Oddly, there is a bipartisan effort underway now to at least delay the bill, and remove the device tax. But again Reid blocks and won't negotiate.

telcoman wrote: There is no negotiation on threats to shut down the government by a minority party.
I'm glad we finally have a president with a brain and balls. Not like our last one.

Again, I don't like where we are with this, BUT, Republicans are using the only leverage they have left to do what needs to be done, what the people want done.

And on par for "not letting a good crisis go to waste", the Obama administration has gone out of its way to cause as much pain as possible. Spending more money to shutdown unmaintained facilities, forcing places to close that don't even recieve federal funding.

And how in God's green earth did you find a pair of balls on that man, did you have to reach into his gaping vagina to feel for them? Putin made him his b*tch, he still continues to blame Bush for everything, he guards memorials against vets better than he guards our embassies against terrorists, and wears his teflon media coat with pride.

telcoman wrote: Perhaps you would have favored the left shutting down the government when Bush lied to the American people and took us into Iraq?

Bush would have negotiated. Clinton negotiated, that's what you do. And for God's sake, the horse is dead, you can put your canes away.

telcoman wrote: BTW I recently went into open enrollment for my healthcare and for the first time that I can remember my monthly premium for 2014 is less than my 2013 monthly premium.

You do realize, those are not firm rates you've been quoted right? There is no way for an enrollment agent to firmly quote anything. Just wait till your rates start coming in for real and get back to me. Read a quote the other day that was golden. A bleeding heart libby like yourself said it. "I'm all for everyone having health care, I just didn't realize it would be me personally paying for it." Just wait until it starts to sink in that YOU are going to be the one paying for the deadbeats. ACA is the largest government takeover in history, and if you even every had an inkling that WIC, SNAP, or TANF was abused, just hold on to your hat.

telcoman wrote: Now if you are truly unhappy, just contribute your hard earned money to the tea party and watch the results.

I've never been a tea partier, honestly I think they had alot to do with conservative down turn the past decade, but I have to say, if the tea partiers can rally around folks like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, then they've upped their game.

And another damn thing.

You can't possibly claim a mandate on a 5M vote margin when 93M eligible voters just stayed the hell home since Romney was no better choice than Obama.

You're seeing what results from a "community organizer" who knows ZIP about business planning a takeover of 1/6th of the US economy. ZERO consideration was given to how businesses AND individuals would react to the worst legislation in a generation or more.

"If you like your insurance...you can keep it" - Nevermind your current insurance was about to go away because of market reaction

"If you like your doctor....you can keep going to him" - Nevermind he's retiring early instead of losing his butt trying to conform to 10k pages of compliance.

Full time imployment DOWN - part time employment UP - people having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet now more than ever, since they have to scrape to get 40 to 60 hours a week now.

Uninsured by choice is still uninsured, since the fee no where near incetivizes compliance. Insurance firms will still go insolvent as their risk base wont be covered agains the preX crowd. And where will those "Fines/Taxes" whatever you need to call them to make them constitutional, where do they go? Special fund, ya how'd that work for SS again?

Projected funds for "hi risk pools" AKA prexisting conditions, was no where near enough to handle, and the sign ups are already full. PreX folks still out of luck. Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with that, I don't need a law to tell me to insure myself, and anyone who does belongs in Canada, let 'em move when they get sick.

Better yet, let's address the REAL issue, and make it so they can afford their care, or at least come a good deal closer to being able to. As I've said over and over in the past, and continue to trumpet. Insurance is not the answer. We don't expect insurance to make roofs and flooring and plumbing in our homes cheaper, we don't expect insurance to make new body panels or windshields on our cars cheaper, why do we expect health insurance to make health care cheaper. Well the truth is we dont, but thats what the uninformed expect. What we're actually doing is condoning and trying to band aid the enormously unproportionate cost of healthcare to our GDP. Now that being said, I don't sack providers for that either. I sack unnecessary costs embedded in the system, insurance for coverage of rediculous lawsuits, whole wings of practices full of employees solely dedicated to paperwork for medicare and medicaid only. Lack of free market competition for non life threatening care. Those are the areas we need to focus.

Another thing that is completely wrong about ACA. It sets the same exact standards on EVERYONE. 80 year old couple have to pay for OB coverage. Non smokers share the burden for smoker's bad habits.

ACA is a cluster f*ck joke of a fix for problems that need multiple fixes. We need to start over, and we need to let the market drive the fixes.

Lets see, Romney got it working in Mass, and its also working here

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/0 ... ny-others/

California has 10% of the US Population or 30 million people and its working there.

The only reason the federal system has problems is they did not expect so many red state opposition forcing the federal government to run the health exchanges.

The biggest fear of the right is the ACA will be favored by so many millions of people that they will never be able to repeal it.

And don't touch my social security and my medicare because they both work.

Isn't it wonderful watching the house of representatives fighting amongst themselves looking like children.

Almost as enjoyable as watching the Fox election results last November with Karl Rove predicting Romney the Presidential winner.

Watching their poll numbers continuing to sink.

Telcoman

Romneycare is a State program, not a Federal one, there are astronomical differences, both in application and implementation. But ignore that if it helps make your weak case.

You can't possibly claim success in any way yet, and to hear you do so further discredits your position. It hasn't even kicked in yet. Most folks can't even start the process, and then most who create an account stop there and don't enroll. Hell the poster boy the left touted 2 weeks ago ended up being a fraud, he hadn't even signed up. Again, you don't even know what your actual premiums are going to be. They're going to be much worse than the eye candy that the Federal Phishing site showed you.

Oh and since you mention medicare, did you forget about the money your dear ruler robbed from you to help fund this debacle?

And no, the right's worst fear is not that it WILL work. There's no fear in certainty. The worst fear is that we've implemented yet another entitlement program, one doomed to failure same as the rest, and it will be here to stay, at least until China finishes paying for us. Once they own us, who knows what we'll look like.

I don't want to touch your programs. As an old fart, you were conned into believing the government was going to hold on to your money nice and tightly, keep it warm for you, until you needed it. I just don't want future generations falling prey to the same long game. We need to phase back toward personal responsibility and private charity, paying back our obligations to the "Greatest Generation" while allowing the next "Greatest Generation" to look out for themselves, with as little government interference as required.

stebo0728 wrote:Romneycare is a State program, not a Federal one, there are astronomical differences, both in application and implementation.

All states were giving the option of setting up their own health exchanges.
Some states choose not to accept federal money to do so.

stebo0728 wrote:
You can't possibly claim success in any way yet, and to hear you do so further discredits your position. It hasn't even kicked in yet.

Yes it has. Where are you getting your misinformation?

What about college students remaining on their parents health plan until age 26?
What about not being denied coverage for preexisting conditions?
Mammogram coverage for woman and colonoscopy coverage?
What about the removal of the lifetime cap on coverage?

stebo0728 wrote:
Oh and since you mention medicare, did you forget about the money your dear ruler robbed from you to help fund this debacle?

You mean the savings from the uninsured not using hospitals as their primary care?

stebo0728 wrote:We need to phase back toward personal responsibility and private charity, paying back our obligations to the "Greatest Generation" while allowing the next "Greatest Generation" to look out for themselves, with as little government interference as required.

Personal responsibility means not forcing those with health insurance to pay for those that choose not to purchase it

stebo0728 wrote:"with as little government interference as required......

As in a single payer system like medicare?
Health insurance should not be a for profit system.
Improving the health of all citizens should be the goal, not pouring millions of dollars into the pockets of healthcare executives who profit by denying care to the sick.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote: All states were giving the option of setting up their own health exchanges.
Some states choose not to accept federal money to do so.

You're missing the point. Telling the states they "can set up their own exchange" is like telling your teenager "ok you can buy whatever car you want, as long as its white, and a toyota, and has 4 doors". Not exactly "leaving it up to the states" there. Most states elected NOT to set up their exchange because of a flaw in the law, wherein the employer mandate can not be enforced via the federal exchange, but through the state exchanges only, and if a state exchange doesn't exist, it negates the employer mandate. That is a bit moot right now, since the employer mandate has been delayed.

telcoman wrote: What about college students remaining on their parents health plan until age 26?

Actually, in full disclosure, this particular piece of the bill is ok with me, however, they mucked it up a bit. Actually, my position is that any consenting adult should have the freedom to include any other consenting adult on their policy, regardless of age, and regardless of relationship, be it parent/child, husband/wife, roommate, life partner, or even your once a month hedge trimmer if you like. The problem with this part of the law though, is that just like everything else, they did not put any reasoning into it, they stuck the same coverage requirements on everyone.

telcoman wrote: What about not being denied coverage for preexisting conditions?

This part I don't agree with. This is part of the logical fallacy that plagues leftist thinking. You place emotional degrees on things, rather than consider them in purely rational manners. Insurance is insurance, and it's sole purpose is to INSURE you against catastrophic loss, be it a totaled car, blown off roof, or sudden cancer. People are, or should be, free to manage their own risks in their lives. Until now they have been. Never before has insurance been required IN ANY AREA to cover a person's on interests. I mean, why not require everyone to always have at minimum 10 light bulbs in their home, in case one should blow? Why not require people to have jumper cables in their car at all times, in case of a dead battery? Sounds stupid doesn't it? Why then does it not sound equally stupid to require someone to cover any other self interest in their lives? Think for yourself for a minute here man.

As I already stated, the prex, or "high risk" pool is already full, out of money. The premiums for those policies for astronomically higher than predicted, at least predicted by the left. Big shocker huh? If you are healthy, and weren't insuring yourself before, and you had to choose between $95 a year "tax/penalty" or $1200 a year premiums, which would you choose? Are you suddenly now inclined to buy the insurance because a big eared democrat told you that you should? So now you just have a bunch of $95 (or 2% Gross anual income) fees coming in, not more premiums. The high risk pool doesn't get shored up the way it was planned, and one by one insurance agencies start to go insolvent, dry up. What does less competition do in a marketplace? Now you have a feedback loop. Guess what. This was the intent. This plan is designed to fail, so that then it can be said "we tried free market" (ha laugh, we all know this isnt free market) so now we have to institute single payer, actual full blown socialized medicine.

telcoman wrote: Mammogram coverage for woman and colonoscopy coverage?

That's kind of like telling a hot dog vendor he should sell hot dogs. Most insurance agencies were already keen on preventative care. Anal spelunking is a bit more involved than a boobie squish, but still, I think an insurance policy is wise to at least heavily subsidize these procedures, to keep overall payouts down when things don't get caught and go too far.

telcoman wrote: What about the removal of the lifetime cap on coverage?

Honestly, I'm up in the air on this one. My tendency is to say that a policy should be free to make these stipulations, because again, in my world view, insurance is not the answer to our health care crisis. Reduced costs are the key, and with costs down where they should be, insurance agencies wont have to be as concerned about what they put out in a person's lifetime.

Another thing too. This plan was supposed to help 31 million uninsured people right? Never mind that 25 million of those were happily living without it. Do you realize you could have taken the money we've spent on ACA, and just given all 31 million enough cash to buy a policy in the already existing market? They'd have had cash left over!

telcoman wrote: You mean the savings from the uninsured not using hospitals as their primary care?

Eventually you'll realize that this is also a fallacy, those same people content to pay fines rather than premiums will be just as content to walk up into an ER when their throat tickles.

telcoman wrote: Personal responsibility means not forcing those with health insurance to pay for those that choose not to purchase it

Couldn't agree with you more here (shocker). So let's stop paying for them. Give them a map and point out Canada. Doubt Canada would appreciate that though, their waiting lists are pretty long already. We don't let free loader college students bankrupt out on their loans, why do we let people bankrupt out on their healthcare? Somebody busts their head open, charges 2 grand to get sewed shut, they don't pay, court takes their flat screen, their 4 wheeler or jet ski. Don't sack others, make 'em pay. They can apply for charity if they are truly needy, there are tons of private charities that pick up hospital bills, when people bother to seek the help and truly need it.

telcoman wrote: As in a single payer system like medicare?

There you go not thinking again, or are you joking?

telcoman wrote: Health insurance should not be a for profit system.

This is the best part of your whole post. It really helps dissect to the heart of your world view. So what things SHOULD be for profit? Just the things you make or sell? Just the services you provide? You liberals love to live in the here and now, with grasping any contextual information regarding the state in which we live. Where do you think insurance came from? You don't make anything or provide any service without seeking profit. When will liberals get over their hatred of profit? You wouldn't be where you are today, enjoy the things you do, if it weren't for profit. The more popular leftist ideology grows to disdain profit, the more we roll back every advancement we've made in this great country. Don't be butt hurt because you didn't have the foresight to get in on the ground floor of a profit center. People make money or people don't do things. Humans are human, even while trying to change that, you embrace it. Your poster boy Gore, and his phony MMGW fiasco, even while pedalling that, he's raking in the cake, same as anyone else would and does daily.

I'll expand this even more though. Healthcare is not a right. It is not a privilege, it IS and always WILL BE a responsibility one has for themselves. Walk history back 200 years. Some areas of the country or territories didn't even have a doctor. You lived you died. Thats ALL you have a right to, to live and to die, and to use opportunity to seek happiness. You aren't entitled to that happiness, only to the opportunity to find it for yourself. What makes you think ANYONE has a right to a portion of another person's time, money, or intellectual property? When you say "healthcare is a right" that means, regardless of the status of payment, a doctor has the obligation, enforceable by the full extent of the law, to provide your care. How does that in anyway fit into what America was founded on?

But wait, while we're at it, why stop at healthcare? Everyone has a right to an education right? I mean I don't agree, but that's your position right? Why not force educational institutions to provide education regardless of one's ability to pay? You do realize, this is already the push liberals are now trying to make by forgiving student loans. College and professor got paid though, it's just the evil banker that's going to lose out, so serves him right, right?

telcoman wrote: Improving the health of all citizens should be the goal, not pouring millions of dollars into the pockets of healthcare executives who profit by denying care to the sick.

DId you wipe the poop off your fingers after you typed that?

Do you even know what the average profit margin for an insurance firm is? Wait let's not jump ahead. Do you know what a profit margin is? Or do you just look at big shiny numbers at the bottom of MsNBC charts? The average profit margin, for your information, for insurance firms, is a staggering 3%. Go tell your boss tomorrow that last month profit was 3%. (Make sure you can afford Cobra until January).

I know the kool aid probably tastes pretty good, even though Rachael Madcow helped stir it, but man you gotta stop drinking it.

After reading through the comments, I feel there a fundamental difference between me and stebo0728 on the healthcare topic...

I don't think insurance should use a for profit model. Single payer is the direction we need to go and ACA is just a step in that direction.

Fire/police departments shouldn't be for profit and neither should healthcare.

The current system we use for healthcare leads to high costs for very little coverage.

I feel like you can argue media talking points until you're blue in the face but it essentially leads to those fundamental differences.

RCA wrote: I don't think insurance should use a for profit model. Single payer is the direction we need to go and ACA is just a step in that direction.

That's an admirable position to have, but let me ask you a few questions:

What's the real problem, the availability of insurance, or the cost of the goods and services required?

Can you imagine a world where insurance for health care needs even starts, much less blossoms, when profit is disallowed?

And a big one.....can you name any circumstance in which you consider yourself to have a right to acquire a portion of someone else's property, time, or intellectual capital without adequate reimbursement to them?

Do you want to leave the decision, for whether you qualify to receive a portion of a limited resource, up to anyone else but yourself? Given the facts that you need and can pay for a service, do you want anyone else deciding for you whether or not you qualify to purchase it?

RCA wrote: Fire/police departments shouldn't be for profit and neither should healthcare.

First of all, these things are taxpayer funded, and tax funded programs should not make profit, and if they do, taxes are too high. Many pay taxes for these services and never use them, while many never pay taxes for these services and use them regularly. This would be the same for a government controlled health system.

Secondly, any responsible person takes personally funded precautionary measures in hopes of never needing these services, door locks, fire extinguishers, home alarms, etc. So would it be strange to expect responsible individuals to take similar personally funded precautionary measures to assuage the need for expensive healthcare needs?

RCA wrote: The current system we use for healthcare leads to high costs for very little coverage.

Won't argue with you there. Our difference of opinion is in the solution, not the problem.

I would add a bit of depth to the differences I see in our positions. The difference between a model containing free markets, private sector innovation, and limited government interference, contrasted to a system controlled stiffly and completely by the governing body, funded by taxpayer money, and controlled by bureaucrats you don't even know exist.

I think the examples of how government run services, and the failure they bring, are evident enough that we should want to steer from putting our livelyhood into those hands.

Are there problems, oh hell yes. Do they need fixing and addressing? Damn straight, but the push seems to be, and not just with healthcare, but with any difficult problem we face, "let's just make a government program to handle it, and forget about it"

To me that's not who we are as a people. We have a truly difficult situation before us. Are we going to rise to the occasion and actually fix it, with solutions and programs that will work? There is a place in the solution for government, no doubt, I never intended to say otherwise. Where I disagree is to the degree in which the government should be involved. Government is not the answer, it hasn't been the correct answer on any occasion for social distress, and we're finally seeing that now with the impending insolvency of social security and medicare. ACA takes those 2 programs and doubles down on theft of our future. There are real answer out there to fix our situation. But will we have the guts to reach for them? Will we insist that everyone do their part? Will we be willing to let those who have no interest in stepping up and being part of the solution suffer the consequences of their choices?

stebo0728 wrote:What's the real problem, the availability of insurance, or the cost of the goods and services required?
Can you imagine a world where insurance for health care needs even starts, much less blossoms, when profit is disallowed?
And a big one.....can you name any circumstance in which you consider yourself to have a right to acquire a portion of someone else's property, time, or intellectual capital without adequate reimbursement to them?
Do you want to leave the decision, for whether you qualify to receive a portion of a limited resource, up to anyone else but yourself? Given the facts that you need and can pay for a service, do you want anyone else deciding for you whether or not you qualify to purchase it?

I think the real issue is affordability, especially for those who are low income earners.
Because profit is disallowed doesn't necessarily mean people won't get adequate reimbursement for their time.
I have relatives in Canada and have spoken to them about their healthcare coverage. None of them suffer because of it, sure if you want to have a medical procedure that isn't life altering (I know there is a term, I just can't remember what that is) it will take some time, but when some thing is affecting the means to support yourself, it gets taken care of quickly.

Your last point is a major one for me.
I want single payer but at the same time, if I could afford it, why not have the ability to just pay for it yourself?
This is a tricky one because of the nature of insurance, those who are wealthy enough to pay for it are probably the more healthy portion of any countries population. Having that pool of healthy people would lower costs in a single payer system, but at the same time having more options would lead to lower costs due to competition.

It's one I have a hard time nailing down but to me, I feel that for the betterment of everyone, single payer would lead to an economic revolution. Imaging the entirety of the US' workforce healthy and not stressed out about paying for healthcare.

stebo0728 wrote:First of all

Secondly

Yeah I said not for profit, but I meant not privatized.

You're right, responsible people do, but healthcare isn't locks and fire extinguishers; Healthcare is very expensive. Giving people a simplified way to shop for their insurance is a great way to increase competition. Lowering the cost of healthcare to the consumer is the name of the game.

stebo0728 wrote:Won't argue with you there. Our difference of opinion is in the solution, not the problem.

I would add a bit of depth to the differences I see in our positions. The difference between a model containing free markets, private sector innovation, and limited government interference, contrasted to a system controlled stiffly and completely by the governing body, funded by taxpayer money, and controlled by bureaucrats you don't even know exist.

Right but that got us into this mess in the first place. You can go to NYC hospital A and get an MRI for $12,000, literally cross a river to Hospital B and pay $5000. But in hospital B they charge more for doctor care and ambulance rides. So when you are in an emergency, should you be worrying about getting on the phone and getting hospital care quotes?

Also no one doing medical research in the UK has stopped because they didn't like their single payer system. They still innovate and get compensated.

Free markets are a bell curve, they are designed to maximize but at the end of bell curves are outliers that aren't taken care of. Unfortunately those outliers make up 5% of the population. This is fine when you are talking about buying a jet ski or an addition to your home, but it shouldn't be the case when you are trying to get to see a doctor. Healthcare shouldn't be about maximizing profit, it should be about getting people the care they need. This will lead to more social mobility and give people more opportunities to become the best tax paying citizens they can be.

stebo0728 wrote:I think the examples of how government run services, and the failure they bring, are evident enough that we should want to steer from putting our livelyhood into those hands. Where I disagree is to the degree in which the government should be involved. Government is not the answer, it hasn't been the correct answer on any occasion for social distress

I don't trust the US government.

I don't, like that we have politicians willing to use emotional rhetoric to pass laws on gun control, I don’t like that government officials can lie while under oath and don’t suffer the consequences, I don’t like that the FCC allows telcos to divide the countries into compeition regions where only 2 exsist. I have a TON of issues with our government.

What is the alternative? More of the same? If it works in all other developed nations, why not here? Why not put the necessary legislation through that leads to an efficient healthcare program? Why shoot down the change we are trying to make without offering any REAL solutions? I would rather have my government control healthcare then continue down the road we are on. Lesser of two evils.

stebo0728 wrote:There are real answer out there to fix our situation. But will we have the guts to reach for them? Will we insist that everyone do their part? Will we be willing to let those who have no interest in stepping up and being part of the solution suffer the consequences of their choices?

Fine, so what is the plan this time?

Because at one point ACA was a Republican plan.
ACA was built around Mitt's famed healthcare program that saved Massachusetts so much money!
It's just odd to me that once it's purposed by President Obama, it becomes "Obamacare". Just the fact that the right-wing felt it was necessary to attach the President's name to the bill tells me that their issue is really with the President. If President Bush were to purpose this, it would be met with open arms by the GOP

/rant

But seriously, what is stebo0728's plan? How do we tackle our healthcare issues?

RCA wrote: You're right, responsible people do, but healthcare isn't locks and fire extinguishers; Healthcare is very expensive. Giving people a simplified way to shop for their insurance is a great way to increase competition. Lowering the cost of healthcare to the consumer is the name of the game.

You're right, healthcare NOW isn't locks and fire extinguishers. That's because people wait until the house is on fire to worry about it. Preventative care IS locks and fire extinguishers, and the resulting cost of corrective measures when caught early are already decisively cheaper than "putting the already burning fire out" so to speak. Now I'm a free market person, I'm all for someone CHOOSING to carry a policy that pays for preventative care, or a policy provider CHOOSING to cover these things, and setting their premiums accordingly, as it does save on future costs. But again, insurance is insurance, and there's no reason that it should function any differently for healthcare than it does for automobiles or homes. The only roadblock to that being a reality is costs. But that means we need to address the costs, not just throw more insurance at it.

RCA wrote: It's one I have a hard time nailing down but to me, I feel that for the betterment of everyone, single payer would lead to an economic revolution. Imaging the entirety of the US' workforce healthy and not stressed out about paying for healthcare.

Do you really believe a single payer, government managed system will get us to the "not stressed about paying for healthcare" goal? Here's something I don't think you quite get, or at least maybe haven't considered. Healthcare, just like any other good or service, is a limited resource. Why? Because it involves time, energy, human labor, things that are limited in availability. Therefore, same as any other commodity, some form of rationing is required. What should drive and direct this rationing? I believe one's willingness and ability to pay should be the driving factor. I would guess you prefer a body of bureaucrats, unelected, and like unaccountable to anyone, be in the position to make these choices.

One thing I really don't understand. Our declaration of independence only gaurantees us a right to the PURSUIT of happiness, but it seems that the modern position is that we be gauranteed to the HAPPINESS itself. We shouldn't have to work for it, plan for it, pay for it, it should just be there waiting for us, and if we're denied it, its racism, or sexism, or some other general discrimination or injustice. This applies to health, education, quality of life, and many other areas. Increasingly it's become our right to education, not just the right to attain it, but the right to HAVE it, it's now our right to be healthy, not a right to be free to plan for and provide it for ourselves, but to actually HAVE it. This is not America. No one has a right to these things, because they come at the cost of someone else's thoughts and labors, and you can't possibly claim a right to that. You can't force a doctor to treat you, and if you don't pay what he believes to be worth his skills/time/investments, he's going to quit, do something else, or figure out a way to treat only those who DO value his services. You start trying to correct that, and you may as well throw in the towel to full blown communism. You are basically saying "from each, to each", treatment FROM the doctor since he's ABLE, and only payment from the patient as they're ABLE. That's such a dangerous place to be, is that really where we want to go? Not me.

Go back to the start of our nation. People lived, people died. Some people decided to figure out how our bodies worked, in an effort to help people, but in an effort to better their own lives as well through reimbursement for their valuable knowledge/services. If that model never existed, those efforts would not have progressed the way they did. Many of these advancements flew in the face of the religion of the day, or even the law of the day, great risks were taken at every turn. Would you take those risks knowing you wouldn't be able to charge and make a progressively better living for yourself? All of my life I've grown up hearing either "you need to be a doctor" or "you need to marry a doctor" in order to "get somewhere in life". That doesn't happen under your model. Instead it's "don't go to med school" or "don't marry him, he's just a doctor".

RCA wrote: Right but that got us into this mess in the first place. You can go to NYC hospital A and get an MRI for $12,000, literally cross a river to Hospital B and pay $5000. But in hospital B they charge more for doctor care and ambulance rides. So when you are in an emergency, should you be worrying about getting on the phone and getting hospital care quotes?

No, but you could prepare. You could shop ahead of time where the cheaper services are, and plan to visit those facilities in an emergency. Why wait till you're bleeding out to figure things out? But I can understand a lesser attitude toward competition in emergency situations. But elective procedures, non life-threatening things, why no shop around? If you CHOOSE to pay more because you trust one doctor over another, that's your prerogative. Or at least, shouldn't it be?

RCA wrote: Also no one doing medical research in the UK has stopped because they didn't like their single payer system. They still innovate and get compensated.

Ya and New Zealand still grows corn......what's your point? UK has never been a major health advancement hub. They contribute, but most UK scientists contribute OUTSIDE the UK.

RCA wrote: Free markets are a bell curve, they are designed to maximize but at the end of bell curves are outliers that aren't taken care of. Unfortunately those outliers make up 5% of the population. This is fine when you are talking about buying a jet ski or an addition to your home, but it shouldn't be the case when you are trying to get to see a doctor. Healthcare shouldn't be about maximizing profit, it should be about getting people the care they need. This will lead to more social mobility and give people more opportunities to become the best tax paying citizens they can be.

Addressing costs goes alot further toward helping those 5% than simply trying to insure them all.

Remember when the government regulated TELCO? Remember when it became deregulated, how quickly prices started dropping, services started getting better, more alternatives started showing up, like VOIP, affordable cellular? What's long distance anymore? Daddy you used to have to pay extra to call grandma?!?

RCA wrote: But seriously, what is stebo0728's plan? How do we tackle our healthcare issues?

Ok, so here's my take on what we SHOULD be doing.

1. Let's scratch healtcare.gov and create healthcare.com - With it we create a repository of procedures, and what different providers charge. Make it searchable by zip code. Give the public a tool to easily shop for their care, and with the same tool, give an incentive to providers to actually start getting competitive with their services. Plan ahead on how you will handle an emergency. Need a new hip, shop it around. Oh and let's employ Americans to make this tool, not foreign contractors.

2. Why when I look at my claims breakdown, do I see 2 figures? One that says $25,000 total for the bill, a second that says $2800 that the insurance settled on? Why should someone self insuring themselves with a savings account and private paying for services have to be stuck paying figure one, when an insurance company gets to pay figure two? This needs to be reconciled. The true value of the service will be in the middle somewhere, though I'd wager closer to the second figure. Private pay gets stuck with figure one to make up for the insurance companies who force providers to take figure two.

3. Remove all the silly restrictions on policies and who can pool resources. ACA allows parents to cover their children till age 26. Why stop there? In my opinion, any combination of people should be able to form a policy. A parent covering a child till 40, two gay dudes, hell two heterosexual dudes who are roommates. Furthermore, industries and brotherhoods, and associations, and clubs should be able to pool resource and seek policies together, and across state lines.

4. Change drug patents to A) be a lifetime patent, which entitles the patent holder to royalties for their formula, but B) allows generic production from Day 1, where generic companies producing must pay said royalties to patent holders. This would reduce and flatten out drug costs. No more $500 a pill for 7 years, then $4 a pill afterward, it can settle in around $6 a pill for life. This lets development recoup their costs over time without stiffing needing patients for 7 years.

I have other free market centered ideas as well that I'll pop in later and lay out. Notice that some of these do require government intervention, perhaps government funding, and government oversight, but all three of those are possible WITHOUT government control.

Never heard of the republican healthcare plan.
The House wasted taxpayer money 42 times attempting to repeal the ACA with no plan to replace it
They will be justly rewarded in the next two elections as their poll numbers continue to fall
If the GOP refuses to change their platform in 2016 for POTUS you can just say "Welcome Hillary"
You cannot continue to BS the American People.
Chris Christie wasted 12 million New Jersey taxpayer dollars because he did not want to be on the same ballot as Corey Booker. He quickly caved on same sex marriage as you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Watch what happens in Virginia on election day.

The Tea Party is a bunch of wackobirds and everyone now knows it.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:Never heard of the republican healthcare plan.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2300:

Wouldn't expect you to have heard of it, you have to look for conservative legislation, since the drive by media doesn't like to cover it.

stebo0728 wrote:Preventative care IS locks and fire extinguishers

That isn't remotely true.

In the example below this women paid $965 a month for family coverage, and the plan she has was horrible. This was the best she could find as per 3 years ago. Ok, it's the worst case scenario, no cobra, no work insurance plan. So the next step is working in a non-corporate environment. I used to work security and the "benefits package" was awful. Cheaper than buying it yourself but $500 a month for insurance that didn't include dental or vision, with a $5000 deductible, annual coverage of $250,000, and I forget the co-pay. Oh and at the time my monthly take home pay was some thing like ~$1200. 42% of the money I made was for insurance. Best case scenario is working in the public sector where are get great coverage; it's expensive but it provide a ton of coverage for what you pay.

So yeah, preventative care isn't fire extinguishers and locks. It's just a terrible analogy we should avoid using it. Unless of course you pay ~$500 or more a month for your locks and extinguishers.

Really long link to a FowNews piece

And an image in case Fox takes it down because it speaks well of the ACA:
http://i.imgur.com/sfd0IdA.jpg

stebo0728 wrote:But that means we need to address the costs, not just throw more insurance at it.

Hmm. Not sure I follow this one.

So cost is the issue but you think the ACA isn't addressing the cost but instead throwing more insurance at the problem?

stebo0728 wrote:Do you really believe a single payer, government managed system will get us to the "not stressed about paying for healthcare" goal?

Healthcare, just like any other good or service, is a limited resource. Why? Because it involves time, energy, human labor, things that are limited in availability. Therefore, same as any other commodity, some form of rationing is required. What should drive and direct this rationing?

I would guess you prefer a body of bureaucrats, unelected, and like unaccountable to anyone, be in the position to make these choices.

Yes I do. I feel this way because that is the case in all industrialized nations using socialized medicine.

Yes, healthcare is just like any other good or service, but it isn't a physical resource we run out of. Imagine you’re selling a good/service that now has a 16% growth in demand? How is this a bad thing? Sure you can increase your prices based on supply demand but guess what, someone will open up shop next to you and offer the same good/service for less price. The market will react when there are opportunities to make money. The iPad 1 sold out but when the next one released they adjusted their supply, and by iPad 3 there weren't any shortages in supply.

I don’t expect government officials making decisions about who get’s healthcare because they won’t need to. The market will fluctuate.

stebo0728 wrote:One thing I really don't understand. Our declaration of independence only gaurantees us a right to the PURSUIT of happiness, but it seems that the modern position is that we be guaranteed to the HAPPINESS itself. We shouldn't have to work for it, plan for it, pay for it, it should just be there waiting for us, and if we're denied it, its racism, or sexism, or some other general discrimination or injustice. This applies to health, education, quality of life, and many other areas. Increasingly it's become our right to education, not just the right to attain it, but the right to HAVE it, it's now our right to be healthy, not a right to be free to plan for and provide it for ourselves, but to actually HAVE it. This is not America.

You’re right, that isn’t America.

America is:

• 17th in education
  9th in reading performance
  12th in science and declining
  16th in math and declining
  13th in quality of life
  17th in happiness
  99th in Global Peace index
  1st in incarceration
  and 1st military spending

This sums it up nicely.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zqOYBabXmA[/youtube]

You could skip to 3:23

This “f*** you I got mine attitude” really hurts the country in the long run especially when dealing with education and health. You can see it. Wealth gap is increasing, middle class is now lower middle class, upper middle class is now middle class. I don’t think people disregard insurance because they don’t think it’s useful or don’t care to worry/prepare for things it’s because they can’t afford it. I honestly think it comes down to educating kids at a young age about finances. You don’t learn about retirement or financial planning unless you have a finance degree from a college. Kids in the Nordic countries are learning financial literacy as well as programming as a part of their curriculum. Combine health reform with education reform and this would really make the biggest difference in the US.

Doctors won’t quite because people have a right to health insurance, they will get paid for their services. Do doctors quit in any other industrialized country with socialized medicine? It’s not like it’s a brand new thing, it exists and it’s successful. Not sure why you are using all this apocalypse/end of days talk when speaking about socialized medicine.

stebo0728 wrote:Go back to the start of our nation.

Some people decided to figure out how our bodies worked…

Again, in socialized medicine, people get reimbursed for their work. If you invent a vaccine and people want it, you will be able to sell it to them. The government will pay those doctors with the taxes the government collects.

Also many of those inventions weren't the inventors original intent. Most inventions were an accident. Many of those accidents were funded by government programs.

stebo0728 wrote:But elective procedures, non life-threatening things, why no shop around? If you CHOOSE to pay more because you trust one doctor over another, that's your prerogative. Or at least, shouldn't it be?

I agree. And it should be.

I honestly think you could solve a big portion of the cost issue of insurance if it could be dumbed down a bit and people could have the ability to compare all the information in front of them. The ACA website, when it works, does a good job of laying out everything in front of you but a big problem is people shopping aren't professionals in the field of insurance so many things are still difficult about buying it. Simplify it a bit and providing all the details, boom now you have competition that will drive down costs. More people could afford insurance, lowing coverage costs again, also reducing people dependencies on working for large corporation because of insurance benefits, improving social mobility. It’s a snowball effect.

RCA wrote:Remember when the government regulated TELCO? Remember when it became deregulated, how quickly prices started dropping, services started getting better, more alternatives started showing up, like VOIP, affordable cellular? What's long distance anymore? Daddy you used to have to pay extra to call grandma?!?

Not sure if you are using TELCO as a proper noun of if you mean telecommunications companies in general? I mean telecommunications companies.

stebo0728' wrote: 1. Let's scratch healtcare.gov and create healthcare.com - With it we create a repository of procedures, and what different providers charge. Make it searchable by zip code. Give the public a tool to easily shop for their care, and with the same tool, give an incentive to providers to actually start getting competitive with their services. Plan ahead on how you will handle an emergency. Need a new hip, shop it around. Oh and let's employ Americans to make this tool, not foreign contractors.

Sounds awesome.

So who would pay for this site? Remember, websites where most people are going to be shopping for insurance is going to require a ton of support, bandwidth, and hardware.

stebo0728' wrote:2. Why when I look at my claims breakdown, do I see 2 figures? One that says $25,000 total for the bill, a second that says $2800 that the insurance settled on?
Private pay gets stuck with figure one to make up for the insurance companies who force providers to take figure two.

I always thought hospitals charge more because of people who couldn't pay and they compensate for it. I didn't think it was because insurance companies strong arm them into a lower price than services rendered? It seems counter intuitive to your earlier point about doctors not working if they don’t get paid for the services that have performed?

Outside of that, I like it. More transparency with costs. No hidden deals, no back door bargains. What does it cost, in an itemized fashion. Let people make comparisons.

stebo0728' wrote:3. Remove all the silly restrictions on policies and who can pool resources. ACA allows parents to cover their children till age 26. Why stop there? In my opinion, any combination of people should be able to form a policy. A parent covering a child till 40, two gay dudes, hell two heterosexual dudes who are roommates. Furthermore, industries and brotherhoods, and associations, and clubs should be able to pool resource and seek policies together, and across state lines.

Hmm. Why do those restrictions exist? I just thought that it was the way it was. I never looked into the reason why it could or couldn't be.

Great idea.

stebo0728' wrote:4. Change drug patents to A) be a lifetime patent, which entitles the patent holder to royalties for their formula, but B) allows generic production from Day 1, where generic companies producing must pay said royalties to patent holders. This would reduce and flatten out drug costs. No more $500 a pill for 7 years, then $4 a pill afterward, it can settle in around $6 a pill for life. This lets development recoup their costs over time without stiffing needing patients for 7 years.

I have other free market centered ideas as well that I'll pop in later and lay out. Notice that some of these do require government intervention, perhaps government funding, and government oversight, but all three of those are possible WITHOUT government control.

I don’t think lifetime patents are ever a good idea but the generic from day one does sound good. Lifetime of the patent holder, or will the royalties go to family when the patent holder passes? What if the patent get’s sold to a company? Companies don’t die, what happens to the patent then?

The logistics of it all seems strange. How would you produce a generic from day one without giving the formula to someone else? Whose responsibility would it be to produce the generic? Does the drug not hit the market if a generic can’t be created in time?

The execution might be the biggest issue with this idea BUT the idea, if you could pull it off, is a really good idea.

I would vote for a candidate if he laid out a plan similar to this one with more details obviously.

telcoman wrote:Never heard of the republican healthcare plan.
The House wasted taxpayer money 42 times attempting to repeal the ACA with no plan to replace it
They will be justly rewarded in the next two elections as their poll numbers continue to fall
If the GOP refuses to change their platform in 2016 for POTUS you can just say "Welcome Hillary"
You cannot continue to BS the American People.
Chris Christie wasted 12 million New Jersey taxpayer dollars because he did not want to be on the same ballot as Corey Booker. He quickly caved on same sex marriage as you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Watch what happens in Virginia on election day.

The Tea Party is a bunch of wackobirds and everyone now knows it.

Telcoman

Well it was never formally put down on paper but when Romney was running he was very much against the ACA and constantly repeated that the way Massachusetts runs it is the better option.

Yeah the GOP is so off base that I can’t see them winning the presidency. Gerrymandering keeps them in control of the senate.

I would really love it if Elizabeth Warren won the presidency, oh my oh my.

Christie’s move REALLY pissed me off. Oh are you afraid more dems will show up to vote in the upcoming election? Sure spending 12 million of our tax dollars to increase the likelihood of you retaining your position is an ok thing to do. WTF? You might as well steal that money from NJ and use it for campaign ads. But he wanted to give New Jerseyans the ability to choose who represents them, but he doesn't want to give us the ability to choose how we spend 12 f*** million dollars!

Honestly, the biggest issue we fan in this country is voting reform.

Electoral college? What is this the early 1800s? We live in a digital age where news spreads faster than you can read it. Popular vote please. Oh and screw first past the post system of voting. We can do MUCH better. Also gerrymandering is nonsense, let’s not deal with that s*** anymore. Finally, companies aren't people, they shouldn't be swaying political elections.

/rant

RCA wrote: That isn't remotely true.

In the example below this women paid $965 a month for family coverage, and the plan she has was horrible. This was the best she could find as per 3 years ago. Ok, it's the worst case scenario, no cobra, no work insurance plan. So the next step is working in a non-corporate environment. I used to work security and the "benefits package" was awful. Cheaper than buying it yourself but $500 a month for insurance that didn't include dental or vision, with a $5000 deductible, annual coverage of $250,000, and I forget the co-pay. Oh and at the time my monthly take home pay was some thing like ~$1200. 42% of the money I made was for insurance. Best case scenario is working in the public sector where are get great coverage; it's expensive but it provide a ton of coverage for what you pay.

So yeah, preventative care isn't fire extinguishers and locks. It's just a terrible analogy we should avoid using it. Unless of course you pay ~$500 or more a month for your locks and extinguishers.

Guess I was a little unclear. My point was, the analogy is good based on function. The problem that exists now, is that the "locks and fire extinguishers" cost too much. The past 2 decades have been, though admittedly slow, a correction to this. Insurance policies, or even just companies on their own, have realized the common sense behind preventative care. There's still alot of work to be done, but again, to address the costs.

RCA wrote: So cost is the issue but you think the ACA isn't addressing the cost but instead throwing more insurance at the problem?

Because it does exactly that. It places requirements on insurance coverages, rather than use market solutions to bring down costs. I person who decides at an early age, to self insure themselves, in a market where CARE is affordable, not insurance alone, but the CARE itself, they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. The best model by far, is a health savings plan, backed by catastrophic coverage.

If the government wanted to do anything, they should put funding into such plans on a qualifying poor person's behalf. Require parents to set up such policies for their children, that they fund until age 18, when it then transfers to the new adult's control. If someone is too poor to do so and we want to "help" them, then put the subsidies into these plans for them.

Personally I don't like that, I don't think it's the government's job or place to do so, but it would make more sense to me if we decided we HAD to do SOMETHING.

RCA wrote: Yes I do. I feel this way because that is the case in all industrialized nations using socialized medicine.

I'll just have to enjoy my freedom to disagree here. I don't look at other nation's track records, I look at our own nation's track record when trying to micromanage similar issues in history.

RCA wrote: Yes, healthcare is just like any other good or service, but it isn't a physical resource we run out of.

Yes we absolutely can run out of it, and we're starting to see this already. If you reimburse providers below a level that they feel is fair, if they have the choice to move on, many do exactly that. Some retire early, some drop services to public pay patients, we're seeing all sorts of market adjustments to this train wreck that the left never saw coming, and ignored warnings about for 3 years.

RCA wrote: I don’t expect government officials making decisions about who get’s healthcare because they won’t need to. The market will fluctuate.

This will be an unintended consequence, or perhaps intended by some, but unforseen by most. The market is like a reed, it will only bend to a certain extent, then it will start to crack under undue stress. Just as above, with supply of care diminishing, choices will have to be made, rationing is inevitable. The only question is, who will control the decision to ration? Will it be the market itself, based on ability to pay, or will it be the government, based on some sort of need metric, a metric most likely to be controlled by unelected officials.

RCA wrote: You’re right, that isn’t America.

America is:

• 17th in education
  9th in reading performance
  12th in science and declining
  16th in math and declining
  13th in quality of life
  17th in happiness
  99th in Global Peace index
  1st in incarceration
  and 1st military spending

Most of those are just education related, and who has the virtual monopoly on that here again? Department of What? And have you even seen the Common Core program and how utterly pants on head retarded it is?

Things you need to understand about our public education system. One, it is not failing to do the job it was established to do. In fact, in this area it is excelling. Common core is the latest tweak to the original intent, to create only average, labor class individuals. Everyone is corralled into the same lane, same expectations, and money is wasted on the below average, while the opportunity is wasted for the above average. Alot of this has been allowed to happen by an increasingly absent parental presence in childhood education.

We can go on and on for that topic though, suffice it to say, education is one of the areas in need of major overhaul.

What the hell is a "happiness index" or "peace index". I don't put any credence into either of those, kinda like trying to see how much it rained last night by looking at the lake.

On the military issue......who would you prefer be at the Top of power in the world? Because someone will. I kinda prefer it be us, but hey, to each their own I guess.

RCA wrote: This “f*** you I got mine attitude” really hurts the country in the long run especially when dealing with education and health. You can see it. Wealth gap is increasing, middle class is now lower middle class, upper middle class is now middle class.

The problem is, progressivism has spent 50 years or more trying to fight natural forces. Human nature is what it is, and isn't going to change. That "unseen hand" of economy, human nature. The trick is, structuring society in such a way that it works in tandem with this force, not against it. Not setting up expectations, and disregarding obvious market reactions to policies that buck this trend.

Why do we tolerate those that won't pull their own weight? We continue to rail against the "greedy", but you can't event accurately define "greedy" its a relative term. People only succeed at the cost of another, when the losing party consents. Don't penalize success and reward failure. Sure, everyone needs a hand up from time to time, but why do we tolerate those who abuse, why do we now seem to reward abuse? We excuse it by saying "hard times", "hard economy", "unemployment" but by and large it's a complete abject failure to fight for your own well being. Instead of whining when someone says "F you I got mine", respond with " well F you too, imma go get some of my own" and DO IT.

Welfare is just the BAD HALF of socialism. It's the "to each according to their need", without the "from each according to their ability". I'm not advocating perfecting that circle mind you, but you can't implement one half without the other, and if we are going to publicly fund institutionalized poverty, let's get something out of it.

RCA wrote: Doctors won’t quite because people have a right to health insurance, they will get paid for their services. Do doctors quit in any other industrialized country with socialized medicine? It’s not like it’s a brand new thing, it exists and it’s successful. Not sure why you are using all this apocalypse/end of days talk when speaking about socialized medicine.

Again, you're either going to have to underpay, thus risking a leak of supply, or you're going to have to ration. Until we have medical droids, people will have to do it, and human labor is absolutely a limited resource, especially when our education system is built against turning out higher and higher quality intellect.

RCA wrote: Not sure if you are using TELCO as a proper noun of if you mean telecommunications companies in general? I mean telecommunications companies.

I was referring to telecommunications as well.

RCA wrote: Sounds awesome.

So who would pay for this site? Remember, websites where most people are going to be shopping for insurance is going to require a ton of support, bandwidth, and hardware.

Who paid for healthcare.gov? Hell who's going to pay for the reboot? Taxpayers that's who.

Who pays for Kayak, Hotels.com, Priceline? The private sector. Yes those are different models, but I guess my answer would be, let the private sector work this out, but government could provide some incentives to get it done, tax breaks or what not.

RCA wrote: I always thought hospitals charge more because of people who couldn't pay and they compensate for it. I didn't think it was because insurance companies strong arm them into a lower price than services rendered? It seems counter intuitive to your earlier point about doctors not working if they don’t get paid for the services that have performed?

Outside of that, I like it. More transparency with costs. No hidden deals, no back door bargains. What does it cost, in an itemized fashion. Let people make comparisons.

Yes and no. Non payment does present a huge problem. Another point of my plan was.

Treat healthcare bills exactly the same as student loans. Do not allow bankruptcy for them. Allow asset seizure.

RCA wrote: Hmm. Why do those restrictions exist? I just thought that it was the way it was. I never looked into the reason why it could or couldn't be.

Great idea.

Honestly, I don't know who set these rules either.

RCA wrote: I don’t think lifetime patents are ever a good idea but the generic from day one does sound good. Lifetime of the patent holder, or will the royalties go to family when the patent holder passes? What if the patent get’s sold to a company? Companies don’t die, what happens to the patent then?

The logistics of it all seems strange. How would you produce a generic from day one without giving the formula to someone else? Whose responsibility would it be to produce the generic? Does the drug not hit the market if a generic can’t be created in time?

The execution might be the biggest issue with this idea BUT the idea, if you could pull it off, is a really good idea.

[/quote]

Most of medical patents are filed by companies anyway, and most that aren't are sold to one at some point. Lifetime royalties allow even lower levels, because it almost guarantees a complete recoup of costs, plus promises positive returns ontop.

You would have to give your formula to a generic production company on day one. That is what you are recieving your lifetime royalties for, the use of your formula, plan, or blueprint.

Speaking of debt limits, I wonder just who said this back in 2006:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Give up?

Check this out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

By the way, in rebuttal, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said this:

“Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of final passage. Raising the debt limit is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
“We cannot as a Congress pass spending bills and tax bills and then refuse to pay our bills. Refusing to raise the debt limit is like refusing to pay your credit card bill — after you’ve used your credit card.
“The time to control the deficits and debt is when we are voting on the spending bills and the tax bills that create it. Raising the debt limit is about meeting the obligations we have already incurred. We must meet our obligations. Vote for this bill.”

Now ... where have I heard all this before?

Z

RCA wrote: Honestly, the biggest issue we fan in this country is voting reform.

Electoral college? What is this the early 1800s? We live in a digital age where news spreads faster than you can read it. Popular vote please. Oh and screw first past the post system of voting. We can do MUCH better. Also gerrymandering is nonsense, let’s not deal with that s*** anymore. Finally, companies aren't people, they shouldn't be swaying political elections.

Wow I can't believe I missed responding to this one! I couldn't agree more with your first statement, that voter reform is very much needed. I dont, however, agree with your version of reform. The electoral college is essential. It provides balance against densely populated regions. Without it, Texas and California would be the election. I love to refer to the formation of the UN as an example of why these types of structures are crucial. When the UN was being formed, there was a major contention regarding how votes would be proportioned. Then USSR demanded a vote for each of their provinces. Now, who would have controlled those votes? Each province, or Moscow? This would have given way to much power to Moscow, and couldn't be allowed. Instead, the USSR was given a total of 3 votes. Low information blacks love to cite the 3/5th's Clause as an example of abuse and racism by either intentionally or unintentionally misquoting the law. It was actually one of the deciding factors that lead to their freedom. Vote proportioning is essential in a republic. Seeing as that is what we are, NOT A DEMOCRACY, I'm in full support of the electoral college. Democrats have for decades sought to put in place measures that would force electoral delegates to vote in line with the popular vote. This would negate the college, and is a terrible idea.

Here is my layout for voting reform.

1. The Presidency - get rid of the popular vote. We can have a national discourse on how we might want to restrict or limit how Electoral college delegates are decided, but the college should be the only deciding factor. It is the only deciding factor today, but the popular vote obfuscates the process. The president is not a representative, he/she is the commander in chief, and therefore, has no place being voted on by the people.

2. The Senate - Repeal the 17th Amendment. The Senate was never designed to be a representative body for the people. They should not be subject to a popular vote, as the people are not their intended constituency. Again, we can have a nationwide dialog on how we might want to restrict or limit how Senators are appointed, but they are the job of the State legislature to appoint.

3. House of Congress - Its been a good long while since we've modified the size of Congress. Our population has increased dramatically over the past several decades, and Congress should be reproportioned to reflect this.

4. I really struggle with nailing down a position on term limits. My knee jerk thoughts are "sure let's do it" but just as I want to repeal some of the stupid changes we've made, I don't want to make any stupid changes of my own. For one, what do we do when the incumbent, who would be ineligible under term limit law, was the only person willing to serve the office? Does that office go unmanned until someone steps up? What if the constituents are happy with their current representative, do they not deserve to keep him at the helm? But then I totally get the idea of not wanting these guys becoming institutionalized into the system. Doing anything and everything to stay, just to stay, just because that's all they can do, or think thats' all they can do. We've placed power and prestige upon the holding of these offices, and that was needed to some degree so that poeple would step up and participate, but now it's at such a level that it keeps people there when they're stale and stagnant. Look at the Freshmen Congressmen and Senators we're seeing step up and fight. They've not stagnated. Say what you will about Cruz and Lee, but they're not conditioned into the norm yet, and they fight. So I totally see the upside of term limits, keeping the stagnation away. I've just not totalled jumped in either way on it. I've toyed with a notion where we keep the allowed number of terms unlimited, but require that they be served in an alternating pattern, where one person cannot serve 2 consecutive terms. For me, that would keep one person from just campaigning perpetually for the next term, but can instead focus on doing what they're there to do. But some of the same problems come in, like what if no one runs against? And if only one person steps up, they win by default, regardless of how the people feel about it. I like to think people will step in when needed and challenge, but I'm not so sure anymore.

5. Federal elections - There is NO right to vote in Federal elections. Let me say that again. There is NO right to vote in Federal elections. In fact, this has been upheld by SCOTUS. We do, however, lay out certain conditions in which, should a vote be in place, that discrimination cannot exist, such as race, gender, religious creed. This does not gaurantee a right to vote. We desparately need to change WHO votes, and WHO doesn't vote. I can tell you, as a responsible individual, I try to stay up on an election, know who is running, know their politics, and make an informed decision. I can also tell you, there have been times in which I had ZERO information regarding an election, and in those cases, I refrained from voting. Not everyone is going to take that position. Some informed people won't vote, you can't change that, you can't force someone to vote, but then several uninformed, or misinformed people DO vote. Now I don't know, or can't think of a metric with which you could measure someone's informed level on an issue, or on candidates, BUT, there are other metrics which could be used to help narrow the voting field a bit. For one, a general knowledge of America in general, and how it's governing systems function would be useful. It'd be nice if they still taught that in public school, but hey you can't expect too much from Common Core. Another restriction that I'm in favor of, is restricting Federal election voting eligibility by income tax. Each year when you file your taxes, if you actually end up PAYING, or not getting back EVERYTHING and then some, then you are eligible to vote, in other words, if you're net tax liability is positive, you're eligible. Otherwise, you aren't. Just as "no taxation without representation" we likewise need to say "no representation without taxation". Indeed we do for Puerto Rico. They have no say so, no congressmen, no Senators, aaaaand they don't pay income tax, at least not Federal, I don't know if they pay local or not, not sure. Again, I'm only speaking to federal elections.
Additionally, let's grow up and realize that there's not one damn thing wrong with requiring some form of positive ID before allowing a vote. It's not a poll tax to require this, and if you're too damned lazy to get one, just don't bother voting.


Ok so to you're "corps arent' people" deal? First of all, I'm first in line to join the "Lets Fix Lobbyists" club. It's definitely become a problem. But getting rid of it altogether is not the answer either. Companies, and industries have interests in Washington, and lobbyists are their only voice for these interests, aside from impressing upon their workforce to take up an issue and press their congressmen. Right, that'll happen. And what happens when the interests of the company counteract the interests of the workforce? I don't really have the answer to HOW to fix this, but I do agree it needs some tweaking to some degree.

So I'm still reeling over the fact that the Democrats were willing to shut down our government rather than entertain the notion of a mandate delay, knowing full well that most of America was calling for it. So they shut us down, finally force the Repubes to cave, and now what? Oh so now suddenly they realize we need a delay? Yah say what you want, this shut down was on Dirty Harry's dirty hands.

stebo0728 wrote:So I'm still reeling over the fact that the Democrats were willing to shut down our government rather than entertain the notion of a mandate delay, knowing full well that most of America was calling for it.

Hmmm, I don't think so. You need to review the results of the November 2012 election

stebo0728 wrote:......... So they shut us down, finally force the Repubes to cave, and now what? .

You need to give more money to the Tea Party.
Help them out

Telcoman

telcoman wrote: Typical liberal talking point referring to year old election results from record low turnout election.

I will say, that's one of the tactical victories Obama had, pushing the rollout of ACA beyond his second term election. During the 2012 elections, Obama was still spreading his outright lies about what the ACA would do for America. It wasn't until after the election, that the market began having to react to this miserable law, that people started to realize how they were duped. Let's hold that sacred election of yours again today. How you think it'd go?

telcoman wrote: You need to give more money to the Tea Party.
Help them out

I'm giving money to the uninstitutionalized candidates, the ones who aren't just there for the sake of being there, who aren't just jockeying to manage their grip of power. Honestly, there's not ONE SINGLE incumbent that I have control over that will be getting my vote. My Congressman is a blivet and won't be getting my support, I'll vote Democrat over him if I have to, that's how bad he is. The Senate election I have coming up will be a vacant seat, so new guy/gal either way. I'm currently backing Karen Handel for that one, but its looking like Paul Broun is going to take that one. I might be able to back him too if he's the front runner, but still TBD. He was one of the guys with the silly abortion gaffs last year, but might have to look beyond that. I definitely can't imagine how Michelle Nunn will be a good fit.

stebo0728 wrote:

telcoman wrote: You need to give more money to the Tea Party.
Help them out

......., but its looking like Paul Broun is going to take that one. I might be able to back him too if he's the front runner, but still TBD. He was one of the guys with the silly abortion gaffs last year, but might have to look beyond that. I definitely can't imagine how Michelle Nunn will be a good fit.

Yes, I think you should support Paul Broun.

Give him as much money as you can. He'll be a fine addition to the wackobirds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 44808.html

Telcoman