Republican District Democratic Win

[HashiriyaS14]

So how do we make the public FEEL the stress of the situation?

^^
Very good question, and I don't have an answer.

Until the debt starts to impact the average Joe's bank account, I don't see the issue gaining real electoral traction.

[stebo0728]

... Well, I'm sure they'd love to insure another body, but we don't yet have that kind of technology.

Did you just side with insurance companies on denying coverage to anybody that's been sick in the past?

New bodies wouldnt change a thing. They would still cost, and then it would sound even more like the car insurance analogy. "I wrecked my body, I need a new one. Sorry you dont have a policy, we cant help you."

Being sick in the past is a good bit different from having a terminal condition that will cost a great deal to treat. Why would an insurance company (who isnt being forced by a manipulative governemnt) take on a risk where they will get $500 a month premiums and have to shell out $1500 a month in treatment payments. (just an off the cuff example) but you get the gist. Pre existing conditions doesnt mean "i've had a sinus infection in the past, oh and bronchitis once or twice" it means pre-existing serious conditions.

[stebo0728]

^^
Very good question, and I don't have an answer.

Until the debt starts to impact the average Joe's bank account, I don't see the issue gaining real electoral traction.

Are we starting to see the hidden evil that comes with a nanny state?

[IBCoupe]

Why would an insurance company (who isnt being forced by a manipulative governemnt) take on a risk where they will get $500 a month premiums and have to shell out $1500 a month in treatment payments.

Because health insurance is a lot different than car or home insurance because people can't avoid getting sick, and because they can't leave behind their sick bodies, buy a new one, and insure it from "go," which is what I was getting at.

Pre existing conditions doesnt mean "i've had a sinus infection in the past, oh and bronchitis once or twice" it means pre-existing serious conditions.

Except that the nature of the human body and the nature of economics means that it does. If insurance doesn't cover preexisting conditions, what is likely to happen? Who's going to pick up the tab or avoid medical treatment? At some point, Stebo, your ideology needs to take reality into account.

When that patient comes back with pneumonia, what does the insurance company say?

Is it part of the preexisting condition? Is that a determination that renders vast swathes of the population functionally uninsured again?

Is it a new condition? Is that determination an arbitrary distinction? Why isn't it part of the preexisting condition? Are we drawing lines that unnecessarily increase costs and inefficiency?

Which of those responses do you think a free market solution would provide? Is either one an acceptable way to deal with preexisting conditions? For the insurance companies? For the individual? For the health care system?

[AZhitman]

And prior to the passage of The Affordable Healthcare Act insurance companies could deny coverage to anyone for preexisting conditions or for any reason.

Car insurance companies can deny coverage to individuals with a history of claims or who, actuarily, represent greater risk.

Homeowner's insurance companies can do likewise. Try getting homeowners insurance if you own certain breeds of dogs, or worse yet, if you've had a citation for a vicious dog.

You really don't think things through, do you?

How about you start up an insurance company that caters exclusively to people with Stage IV cancer, HIV, chronic alcoholism, and diabetics who exceed 400 lbs? You wouldn't? Why not?

Listen, I don't have an answer for this. But I do know this: Broad, sweeping, ignorant generalizations (such as painting all insurer determinations regarding "pre-existing conditions" with a broad brush) gets us no closer to productive dialogue.

And just so you know that I'm not pooh-poohing your position because I'm not one of "those people", you're wrong. I can't get coverage on my own because of multiple pre-existing conditions (unless I want to spend $2500/month).

[R/T Hemi]

@ the Hitman.....Come on. You're relating health care to auto/home owners insurance? You do see the underlying social difference in the two I hope?

[stebo0728]

@ the Hitman.....Come on. You're relating health care to auto/home owners insurance? You do see the underlying social difference in the two I hope?

Are you mucking up the difference between "healthcare" and "health insurance"?

The problem is not in insurance, any insurance works the same way, and social implications dont matter. The problem is the cost of health care, and THAT is what needs to be addressed. Just forcing insurance to cover everyone so peoples "out of pocket" is lower is not the answer.

[AZhitman]

@ the Hitman.....Come on. You're relating health care to auto/home owners insurance? You do see the underlying social difference in the two I hope?

No, I'm far too dumb to comprehend the difference. I'm just a Bible-thumping hillbilly from a flyover state, after all.

I was responding to your fellow libby's inability to come up with a rational defense of his position. Whine at him - I was simply dismantling his argument.

[IBCoupe]

@ the Hitman.....Come on. You're relating health care to auto/home owners insurance? You do see the underlying social difference in the two I hope?

Are you mucking up the difference between "healthcare" and "health insurance"?

The problem is not in insurance, any insurance works the same way, and social implications dont matter. The problem is the cost of health care, and THAT is what needs to be addressed. Just forcing insurance to cover everyone so peoples "out of pocket" is lower is not the answer.

Utter bull. If social implications didn't matter, why the hell would you care about the cost of health care?

If you're going to attempt to spout off half-baked libertarian/anarcho-capitalist theory, go big or go home.

[stebo0728]

I said social implications dont matter with regards to insurance policies, and I indicated the difference between insurance, and the care itself. The cost of the care itself is the problem. A person can self insure their car, they can even somewhat self insure their home, but its near impossible to self insure your health care, and thats because of the cost of the goods and services involved. Thats what needs to be addressed. Just forcing agencies to insure someone to reduce their out of pocket is a band aid solution, and wont work.

[telcoman]

And just so you know that I'm not pooh-poohing your position because I'm not one of "those people", you're wrong. I can't get coverage on my own because of multiple pre-existing conditions (unless I want to spend $2500/month).

And that is why we need the choice of a single payer public option

Open medicare to all would not cost $2500 per month

[HashiriyaS14]

^^
Very good question, and I don't have an answer.

Until the debt starts to impact the average Joe's bank account, I don't see the issue gaining real electoral traction.

Are we starting to see the hidden evil that comes with a nanny state?

^^
I'm not sure I get what this means.

What does this have to do with the "nanny state"?

[stebo0728]

I mean, we get complacent in letting the government fix all our problems, and we just get content to pour our tax money in, and forget about the problem. Thats the problem with a nanny state, the people get lackadaisical, and the problems are just myths because the government keeps padding the blows. This is a problem, as you've already said, that WE have all helped to create in trusting our well being to the imperial federal government.

[telcoman]

I mean, we get complacent in letting the government fix all our problems, and we just get content to pour our tax money in, and forget about the problem. Thats the problem with a nanny state, the people get lackadaisical, and the problems are just myths because the government keeps padding the blows. This is a problem, as you've already said, that WE have all helped to create in trusting our well being to the imperial federal government.

I don't think a nanny state is a single payer healthcare system when private for profit insurance companies that pay excessive executive salaries and either deny coverage or make it so expensive that most people cannot afford it.

Do you not want safe drugs?
Who is going to regulate drug companies if not our government?
We''ve already experienced the lack of effective government regulation of the oil drilling industry.

Who but other than the government is going to inspect and regulate the food, meat and fish that we eat?

The United States Automobile companies spent millions and fought government safety, emission and mileage standards for years.

One of the many reason we here drive Infiniti, and Nissans and not GM or Ford crap

What is the definition of a nanny state?
How about an example of one?

[HashiriyaS14]

I mean, we get complacent in letting the government fix all our problems, and we just get content to pour our tax money in, and forget about the problem. Thats the problem with a nanny state, the people get lackadaisical, and the problems are just myths because the government keeps padding the blows. This is a problem, as you've already said, that WE have all helped to create in trusting our well being to the imperial federal government.

I think this is utter nonsense.

The problem is US. WE, in aggregate, are of the mindset that unless something is impacting us RIGHT NOW, we're not willing to sacrifice anything to resolve it, despite the fact that it's going to ruin us down the road.

"The Government" is a group of people that constantly changes and reflects us. We as citizens have lacked the will to elect and back those that might proactively address this crisis rather than those who would prioritize other things above it. WE as an electorate are prioritizing other things above it.

[IBCoupe]

I said social implications dont matter with regards to insurance policies, and I indicated the difference between insurance, and the care itself. The cost of the care itself is the problem. A person can self insure their car, they can even somewhat self insure their home, but its near impossible to self insure your health care, and thats because of the cost of the goods and services involved. Thats what needs to be addressed. Just forcing agencies to insure someone to reduce their out of pocket is a band aid solution, and wont work.

Right, so reform student loan law and place limits on tuition. In the meantime, let's make it so that everybody can afford healthcare.

... by ensuring that they can get health insurance.

But what about the questions I asked regarding "preexisting conditions?"

[telcoman]

But what about the questions I asked regarding "preexisting conditions?"

Under The Affordable Healthcare Bill that Obama signed into law insurance companies cannot deny insurance for pre existing conditions. It is part of the 2700+ pages

[AZhitman]

...but is there anything in there about making it "affordable"? And whose metric is used to determine "affordable"?

Seems absurd that my insurance should cost the same as another 41-year old non-smoker who has NO pre-existing conditions... not that I'd complain. I'd quit my job in a heartbeat.

[telcoman]

...but is there anything in there about making it "affordable"? And whose metric is used to determine "affordable"?

Seems absurd that my insurance should cost the same as another 41-year old non-smoker who has NO pre-existing conditions... not that I'd complain. I'd quit my job in a heartbeat.

Although I did not read the 2700+ page bill, the way I understand it from President Obama's explanation the reason the passage of the bill was so important is that over time its passage is going to save money and reduce the debt

[IBCoupe]

That was the line they were using to sell it. That rests on certain assumptions about future government behavior that, especially if the current Congress is to be any guide, are far from guaranteed.

[AZhitman]

Emphasis on FAR.

I'd say "I'll believe it when I see it." Unfortunately, now is not the time for OTJ training, nor are these ideal conditions for POTUS to take a course in Econ 101.

A lot of smart people disagree with his assumptions. Shall we assume they're just racist? What if they're right? He'll be relegated to history before the impact is felt.

[IBCoupe]

Emphasis on FAR.

I'd say "I'll believe it when I see it." Unfortunately, now is not the time for OTJ training, nor are these ideal conditions for POTUS to take a course in Econ 101.

A lot of smart people disagree with his assumptions. Shall we assume they're just racist? What if they're right? He'll be relegated to history before the impact is felt.

Most of the burden is on Congress, and would have to be. The power of the President is often overstated.

[R/T Hemi]

@ the Hitman.....Come on. You're relating health care to auto/home owners insurance? You do see the underlying social difference in the two I hope?

No, I'm far too dumb to comprehend the difference. I'm just a Bible-thumping hillbilly from a flyover state, after all.

. . .

That's part of your charm my friend. I try only to use the aircraft's facilities when over the flyover states, so I'm suggesting we change the name to something with "flush" in it. Waddathink?

[AZhitman]

You're flying? Hell, I'm surprised your state can still afford to maintain an airport.

[R/T Hemi]

You're flying? Hell, I'm surprised your state can still afford to maintain an airport.

Me too actually. But how else could we ship all our illegals to AZ (Alto Mexico)? They won't ride buses.

[AZhitman]

LOL

Actually, they're leaving here in droves. You guys better learn to swim, all that extra weight is gonna snap the San Andreas like a stale potato chip.

[JustinStrife]

...but is there anything in there about making it "affordable"? And whose metric is used to determine "affordable"?

Seems absurd that my insurance should cost the same as another 41-year old non-smoker who has NO pre-existing conditions... not that I'd complain. I'd quit my job in a heartbeat.

Although I did not read the 2700+ page bill, the way I understand it from President Obama's explanation the reason the passage of the bill was so important is that over time its passage is going to save money and reduce the debt

And Greg has the Golden Gate Bridge to sell you in Arizona. The fact that you believe that BS is very telling.

[telcoman]

And Greg has the Golden Gate Bridge to sell you in Arizona. The fact that you believe that BS is very telling.

What is telling is the bs the right has been trying to hand to the American people since the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.
The vast majority of Americans no longer believe the bs coming from the right. The recent NY 26 election as well as a few less publicised elections with solid republican districts voting democratic is quite telling showing which way the wind is now blowing.

November 2012 is going to finish off the tea party, take back the house, give us a fillibuster proof senate and hand the presidency to Barack Obama for another four years so he can finish the mess handed to him by Bush.

Telcoman

[Cold_Zero]

While only time will tell, I think it is telling that Paul, Bachmann and Cain are all effectively TEA Party candidates. As these guys speak to TEA Party groups. Heck Ron Paul was talking about core TEA points last election and got laughed at the Republican debate by that smug NBC political analyst. Who's laughing now? I would also point out that Paul was talking about with drawing from Iraq before Obama. But I know this doesn't fit your nice little paradigm, Howie. So I don't think the movement is going away. Heck even last night SNL was making fun of the amount of debt we owe China. So the fact that the Congress, the American people and even SNL is talking about one of their key points is very telling.

[R/T Hemi]

LOL

Actually, they're leaving here in droves. You guys better learn to swim, all that extra weight is gonna snap the San Andreas like a stale potato chip.

California may fall into the ocean on that day, but the following tsunami will prove what we Californians already know. People in Arizona can't swim for chit.