Jump to content

Obamacare was DESIGNED to FAIL... by Democrats !!


Recommended Posts

 

Sorry, your "argument" is defective. The ACA allows companies to sell by county... so it's easy for companies to cherry pick profitable ones and pull out of the ones they don't want to serve. Same with state. So, no... they don't have to compete. I believe they don't even have to offer all their plans in the counties they do serve. When ACA first came out someone made a website that was easier to navigate than the official market places. You could go from one county to its neighbor and see the disparity in plans offered. This was the point of having a public option... to keep insurance companies honest... and to be that last resort if the insurance companies play games.

What does only offering certain plans in certain areas? The insurance companies have ALWAYS done that. It goes county by county because the health care costs can differ dramatically county to county. So, yes, companies don't always offer certain plans in certain counties.

 

Who keeps the "public Option" honest? You also don't answer my basic question. How can a private insurance company compete with someone that sets rules and regs that drive up their costs, but the public option doesn't follow the same rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What does only offering certain plans in certain areas? The insurance companies have ALWAYS done that. It goes county by county because the health care costs can differ dramatically county to county. So, yes, companies don't always offer certain plans in certain counties.

 

Who keeps the "public Option" honest? You also don't answer my basic question. How can a private insurance company compete with someone that sets rules and regs that drive up their costs, but the public option doesn't follow the same rules?

 

If the market is soooooooo much more efficient than Single Payer in the public option... it should have NO problems competing. But if you're suggesting that the PO WOULD be more efficient because it lacks all that wasteful private sector overhead... are you suggesting the PO should gouge consumers just to make it fair for those private insurers?

 

The problem with selling by counties is companies can cherry pick to serve those they believe are most profitable... they might even collude to stay out of each other territories... while the PO would have to serve the most expensive to serve. How is that fair?

 

And without the PO who TF is the government to tell us we MUST buy insurance from a private company? The PO eliminates the problem with the mandates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, I am the only one of the two of us that did "bother to read it", dumbass. If you had read it, you would have seen this portion that very clearly explains how it is in this clause, dunce-

 

 

Gee... that clause is NOT in the actual legislation. YOU would know that if YOU actually read it instead of CLAIMING to. Here it is in full... and the term "commerce" doesn't even appear in the actual legislation.

 

1798.CHAP. [94.] An Act For The Relief Of Sick And Disabled Seamen.

 

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

 

§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed asafore said; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.

 

§ 3. That it shall be the duty of the several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums collected by them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the secretary of the treasury; and the president of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick, or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established in the several ports of the United States, or in ports where no such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct: Provided, that the moneys collected in anyone district, shall be expended within the same.

 

§4. That if any surplus shall remain of the moneys to be collected by virtue of this act, after defraying the expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together with such private donations as may be made for that purpose, (which the president is hereby authorized to receive,) shall be invested in the stock of the United States, under the direction of the president; and when, in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings, when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodationof sick and disabled seamen.

 

§ 5. That the president of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to nominate and appoint, in such ports of the United States as he may think proper, one or more persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United States, whose duty it shall be to direct the expenditure of the fund assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen, under such general instructions as shall be given by the president of the United States for that purpose, and also, subject to the like general instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals, as the president may direct to be built in the respective ports: and that the said directors shall hold their offices during the pleasure of the president, who is authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned by the death or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said directors shall render an account of the moneys received and expended by them, once in every quarter of a year, to the secretary of the treasury, or such other person as the president shall direct; but no other allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge of the duties required by this act.

 

[Approved, July 16, 1798.]

Then why did you cowardly dodge my simply questions, cretin? Here they are for you again-

 

Why in the holy mother of fuck would they spend all that time writing the limits to what the government can do in the Constitution and then leave such a massive, gaping loophole that would allow the government to basically ignore all those limits, dimwit? Why not just make the Constitution one sentence long- "The federal government can do whatever the fuck it feels like doing, as long as they claim it is for the general welfare"? Lol...

 

 

Predictably no concession from N who claimed DESPITE THE CLEAR WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTION that taxing and spending to provide for the general welfare WAS a grant of power... and it's right there on the top of the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACA was never intended to compete.... competition for Socialists and Liberals is a dirty word. They would RATHER provide sweetheart deals, so to solicit COLLUSION, for the benefit of the insiders...

 

At LEAST until the entire ACA system imploded, and the Democrats (I believe they ALWAYS thought THEY would be in power when it collapsed) could pick up the pieces, and piece it all back together, as an HONEST to GOODNESS SOCIALIZED System... known as "Single Payer"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The welfare clause being a grant of power is only "clear" in the Constitution to a brainless fucking imbecile. The statement in question was simply describing the purpose of or how the government could use the following enumerated powers,

 

I know HEAVEN FORBID that we take the CLEAR wording of the Constitution which says it IS a grant of power... just as it that Congress can tax and spend for defense spending.

 

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

 

And you have the nerve to call ME a "brainless fucking imbecile" just because YOU are determined to ignore that clear wording?

 

 

At LEAST until the entire ACA system imploded, and the Democrats (I believe they ALWAYS thought THEY would be in power when it collapsed) could pick up the pieces, and piece it all back together, as an HONEST to GOODNESS SOCIALIZED System... known as "Single Payer"...

 

PROFOUND IGNORANCE ALERT!!! Obviously someone doesn't have a CLUE what neither socialized medicine nor single payer even means. Socialize medicine is government RUN health care like the UK's National Health Service. Single PAYER is the government paying the PRIVATE sector for its services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually asked TWO questions whether there was anything in the ACA that prohibited the ACA

Huh??? How would something in the ACA prohibit the ACA?

 

and then whether the Constitution permitted something like the ACA. YOU are claiming it's unconstitutional regardless of what the Court said... then YOU have to show where it's either prohibited or the Congress was given no power in this area.

 

 

I already did, in post#88. And your only rebuttal was to cite the USSC ruling on the ACA and then change the subject to talk about an entirely different law from over 200 years ago. If you can actually disprove the facts in the article that I linked, such as if you claim that the author is lying when he states that the constitution requires that direct taxes must be apportioned, then provide proof of this claim by showing how he is supposedly lying.

 

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now you are calling Madison nothing more than a piece of shit liar? And this after earlier citing him as a supreme authority of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution multiple times in this very thread?

 

Sorry for your obvious reading comprehension problems. YOU are claiming I cited him as the "him as a supreme authority of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution" when what I wrote was "I think it's clear Madison knew a tad more about the Constitution than you."

 

And I detect a theme here. You can't understand what I wrote without you projecting yourself into it... any more than you can read the clear language of Art 1 that there IS a grant of power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare... any more than you CLAIMED to have read the Disabled Seamen Act then cited something NOT in it and claimed it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee... that clause is NOT in the actual legislation. YOU would know that if YOU actually read it instead of CLAIMING to. Here it is in full... and the term "commerce" doesn't even appear in the actual legislation.

Since when do laws supposedly have to cite the portion of the Constitution that enables them in the legislation itself? Where is this written?

 

The law is clearly discussing a form of regulating navigation and as my article very clearly explained- "at the time of the Founding the legal term “regulate commerce” was defined to include the regulation of navigation."

 

 

Predictably no concession from N who claimed DESPITE THE CLEAR WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTION that taxing and spending to provide for the general welfare WAS a grant of power... and it's right there on the top of the list.

Why the hell would I "concede" to something that is not true??? As I have very clearly explained to you, this statement was simply describing the purpose of or how the government could use the following enumerated powers.

 

Let's try a different approach on this. Since getting you libs to answer simple questions is like pulling teeth, let's see if you can answer a simply yes or no question:

 

Have you personally implied/cited James Madison as a supreme authority of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution multiple times in this very thread?

 

A. Yes.

 

or

 

B. No.

 

Do you answer A or B? After you answer this, I will have a follow-up question for you.

 

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry for your obvious reading comprehension problems. YOU are claiming I cited him as the "him as a supreme authority of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution" when what I wrote was "I think it's clear Madison knew a tad more about the Constitution than you."

 

If you are debating someone and you cite something James Madison did as a rebuttal to your opponent and give that statement to reinforce the point, then how the hell is that not essentially a form of claiming he is an authority on the subject at hand? You are seriously claiming that this conclusion is an unwarranted stretch? Lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh??? How would something in the ACA prohibit the ACA?

 

Duh? YOU were claiming the ACA was UNCONSTITUTIONAL... remember? Stop playing games. If we both agree that SCOTUS decisions are sometimes incorrect... then I ASK AGAIN... show WHERE in the Constitution a law like the ACA is either prohibited... or that there was no grant of power to tax and spend for it.

 

Pretty simple questions... so why are you evading them? And NO... post 88 was just a link to an article you agree with. The tax can be the income tax that helps fund the ACA and penalties have existed since the beginning of the republic.

 

Here's one from 1789

 

An Act for Registering and Clearing Vessels, Regulating the Coasting Trade, and for other purposes.

 

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_11

 

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted,Master, &c., to give bond not to dispose of certificate of registry. That when the certificate of registry aforesaid shall be granted, sufficient security by bond, shall be given to the collector in behalf of the United States, by the master and owner or owners, or by some other person or persons on his, her, or their behalf, such security to be approved of by the collector, in the penalties following, that is to say: if such ship or vessel shall be above the burthen of fifteen, and not exceeding fifty tons, in the penalty of four hundred dollars, if exceeding the burthen of fifty tons, and not exceeding one hundred tons, in the penalty of eight hundred dollars, if exceeding the burthen of one hundred tons, and not exceeding two hundred tons, in the penalty of twelve hundred dollars, if exceeding the burthen of two hundred tons, and not exceeding three hundred tons, in the penalty of sixteen hundred dollars, and if exceeding the burthen of three hundred tons, in the penalty of two thousand dollars.

 

You may not like Robert's rationale, but that hardly means the ACA penalty was unconstitutional... though I do have problems with a mandate to purchase insurance from the private sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the market is soooooooo much more efficient than Single Payer in the public option... it should have NO problems competing.

If the government allowed an actual free market for private companies and the public option had to be absolutely 100% self-funded with not one single penny from taxpayers to help it out, then private companies obviously would have no problem competing with it. But that is not how it would work in reality. As soon as the public option started hemorrhaging massive red ink, they would certainly just take money from taxpayers to fill the gap.

 

The ability of a government agency to have lower prices than private companies by using taxpayer subsidies is what is known as "predatory pricing", and they would use this tool to eventually put all the private companies out of business essentially leaving the "public" option as the "only" option. And I remember several liberal politicians were caught on tape admitting this exact plan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duh? YOU were claiming the ACA was UNCONSTITUTIONAL... remember?

Yes, I claimed it because it is true, but how the hell can the ACA prohibit ITSELF??? That doesn't make any damn sense.

 

 

Stop playing games. If we both agree that SCOTUS decisions are sometimes incorrect... then I ASK AGAIN... show WHERE in the Constitution a law like the ACA is either prohibited... or that there was no grant of power to tax and spend for it.

 

Pretty simple questions... so why are you evading them? And NO... post 88 was just a link to an article you agree with.

How many fucking times do you need me to answer the damn question before you get it??? Since you can't seem to comprehend the article I provided, I will just state the primary point it made by itself-

 

1. The tax from the ACA is a direct tax.

2. All direct taxes (except the income tax which is exempted by the 16th amendment) must be "apportioned" among the states to be constitutional.

3. The tax from the ACA is not "apportioned" in any way.

4. Per 1-3 above, the ACA is not truly constitutional.

 

If you can tell me which of these 4 items is confusing you, perhaps you can tell me which one(s) and I will try to dumb it down for you.

 

The tax can be the income tax that helps fund the ACA

The tax in the ACA is not the same as the income tax.

 

and penalties have existed since the beginning of the republic.

The tax in the ACA was not ruled to be a "penalty", but a "tax."

 

I don't know if I can make this any simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I claimed it because it is true, but how the hell can the ACA prohibit ITSELF??? That doesn't make any damn sense.

What the hell are you babbling about? The question was if you claim the ACA is unconstitutional it can be only from two main causes... that either there's no grant of power to justify the ACA or something like the ACA is prohibited. Sorry #88 don't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell are you babbling about? The question was if you claim the ACA is unconstitutional it can be only from two main causes... that either there's no grant of power to justify the ACA or something like the ACA is prohibited.

I am trying to figure out what the hell you are babbling about. Here is what you actually asked, in the form of an exact, unedited quote from post#150-

 

I actually asked TWO questions whether there was anything in the ACA that prohibited the ACA

How in the holy hell can there be something in the ACA that prohibits the ACA??? So what the hell are YOU babbling about?

 

 

Sorry #88 don't cut it.

Is this what passes for a legitimate debating tactic in liberal fantasy land? Just blindly claim that your opponent's argument "don't cut it" without showing why and thus you automatically win the debate? And you have the fucking gall to start a thread talking about how OTHER PEOPLE are debating "lightweights"? Lol...

 

[sarcasm]Well since ultrax says my clear, irrefutable argument just 'don't cut it', and even though he didn't show why, I guess this logical and reasoned argument means I have to rethink my whole take on this matter![/sarcasm] Lol...

 

How many fucking times do you need me to answer the damn question before you get it??? Since you can't seem to comprehend the article I provided, I will just state the primary point it made by itself-

 

1. The tax from the ACA is a direct tax.

2. All direct taxes (except the income tax which is exempted by the 16th amendment) must be "apportioned" among the states to be constitutional.

3. The tax from the ACA is not "apportioned" in any way.

4. Per 1-3 above, the ACA is not truly constitutional.

 

If you can tell me which of these 4 items is confusing you, perhaps you can tell me which one(s) and I will try to dumb it down for you.

 

Bump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying to figure out what the hell you are babbling about. Here is what you actually asked, in the form of an exact, unedited quote from post#150-

 

How in the holy hell can there be something in the ACA that prohibits the ACA??? So what the hell are YOU babbling about?

 

I should never post while watching TV... Sorry about that.

 

Just because the penalty has been dubbed a tax... I don't agree. You agree it's a tax but that it violates the 16th.

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

I don't agree. And Art 1... never said taxes needed to be uniform... only duties, imposts, and excises.

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

And this is not longer valid.

 

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 

 

So since we both don't believe that SCOTUS decisions aren't always correct... there we stand. You want to believe an article is more important than the SCOTUS decision... but it's not as if it was a purely political decision by either the libs or right wingers on the court. In the end I believe the ACA is constitutional under Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and the so called tax is merely a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should never post while watching TV... Sorry about that.

 

Just because the penalty has been dubbed a tax... I don't agree. You agree it's a tax

I only agree that the court incorrectly ruled it was a tax, not that this decision was correct. As my article very clearly explained-

 

When the Constitution uses the word “tax,” it means a financial charge imposed mostly to raise revenue. The Obamacare charge raises a small amount of revenue, but its main purpose is to force people to buy health insurance. For constitutional purposes, that disqualifies it as a tax. Deciding it was a tax was Justice Roberts‘ first mistake.

 

When the Constitution was written, the American Revolution had been over for only four years. The Revolution had been fought largely over the issue of how taxes differed from other impositions. For the court to hold a penalty designed to coerce people is really a “tax” violates a principle our Founders fought for.

 

but that it violates the 16th.

No, you seriously need to learn how to read. I only stated that the 16th amendment was an exception to the apportionment rule, not that the ACA had anything to do with the 16th amendment. If they wanted another direct tax for the ACA to also be exempt from the apportionment rule, then they should have passed another amendment to allow such an exemption.

 

 

I don't agree. And Art 1... never said taxes needed to be uniform... only duties, imposts, and excises.

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

I never said a damn thing about the ACA tax not being "uniform." I was very, very clearly talking about the "apportionment" rule. Again, you need to learn how to read.

 

And this is not longer valid.

 

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Why the hell is this supposedly no longer valid? Did I miss an amendment that supposedly erased this requirement for direct taxes other than the income tax? Are you just making shit up as you go along? Lol...

 

 

 

So since we both don't believe that SCOTUS decisions aren't always correct... there we stand. You want to believe an article is more important than the SCOTUS decision...

It is not just the "article" that is more important, it is the FACTS stated in the article which very clearly explain how the ACA was not truly constitutional. Feel free to totally forget the article for a moment and just look items 1-4 in post#162 above. If you can prove any of those items are wrong, then do it for fuck's sake.

 

Good luck.

 

but it's not as if it was a purely political decision by either the libs or right wingers on the court. In the end I believe the ACA is constitutional under Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and the so called tax is merely a penalty.

If they ruled that it was a penalty instead of a tax, then it would no longer have any chance whatsoever of being ruled constitutional!!! Why the hell do you think they did such mental contortions to claim it was a tax instead of a penalty??? Lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the government allowed an actual free market for private companies and the public option had to be absolutely 100% self-funded with not one single penny from taxpayers to help it out, then private companies obviously would have no problem competing with it. But that is not how it would work in reality. As soon as the public option started hemorrhaging massive red ink, they would certainly just take money from taxpayers to fill the gap.

 

The ability of a government agency to have lower prices than private companies by using taxpayer subsidies is what is known as "predatory pricing", and they would use this tool to eventually put all the private companies out of business essentially leaving the "public" option as the "only" option. And I remember several liberal politicians were caught on tape admitting this exact plan.

 

 

Utter nonsense. Almost by definition the market ONLY responds to the needs of people with money. It seems this reality is lost on market fundamentalists who want to be believe the market is infinitely adaptable, self-correcting as long as government stays out of its way, and the market can magically meet all our needs through the wonder of S&D. And yet the failures of the market to meet the needs of those without money... or where there's not enough money to make it profitable SHOULD be self-evident. And it comes as no surprise that you don't consider Big Pharma and med device those companies that have found a way to game the market and FDA regs as predatory. Bottom line there is enough documented abuse by insurance companies to offer the public that public option. Just as the market wasn't going to electrify rural parts of the nation back in the 30s... if it has a choice, it's not going to want to meet the health care needs of those with serious health issues if it can avoid it... or those without money. But feel free to preach all that old time Ayn Rand Free Market Religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know HEAVEN FORBID that we take the CLEAR wording of the Constitution which says it IS a grant of power... just as it that Congress can tax and spend for defense spending.

 

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

 

And you have the nerve to call ME a "brainless fucking imbecile" just because YOU are determined to ignore that clear wording?

 

PROFOUND IGNORANCE ALERT!!! Obviously someone doesn't have a CLUE what neither socialized medicine nor single payer even means. Socialize medicine is government RUN health care like the UK's National Health Service. Single PAYER is the government paying the PRIVATE sector for its services.

So do you think that doctors should accept patients where their bills are getting paid at .10-.20 on the dollar billed? Because right now, that is exactly how our present single payer plans pay.

 

Do you realize how much of the insurance companies "overhead" is created by the governments rules and regulations? Keep in mind the government doesn't have to follow the same regs, so their overhead would be cheaper.

 

If the government is so worried that the young healthy people are not enrolling, then why don't they have a massive advertising campaign to encourage them to sign up? I guess it might add to their overhead. BTW, have you tried calling Medicare at 7:00pm? They won't be open. But the feds require all companies that sell Medicare Advantage plans to have a 24/7/365 hotline. Do you see why they couldn't compete?

 

Why are public employee plans that have NO stockholders, NO CEO, no marketing campaigns, the MOST expensive plans there are. What about the BIG Union plans that are self insured and ACA them opt out of the ACA rules and regs? They don't have any CEO's or stockholders either, and their plans are extremely costly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utter nonsense. Almost by definition the market ONLY responds to the needs of people with money. It seems this reality is lost on market fundamentalists who want to be believe the market is infinitely adaptable, self-correcting as long as government stays out of its way, and the market can magically meet all our needs through the wonder of S&D. And yet the failures of the market to meet the needs of those without money... or where there's not enough money to make it profitable SHOULD be self-evident.

First of all, this dumb little rant has nothing to do with my post above.

 

Secondly, the market is not supposed to meet the needs of those without money. Duh. The market is only supposed to make goods and services available at the highest possible quality with the lowest possible prices. Period. Giving goods and services to people too poor to buy them even at the lowest possible prices is an entirely separate issue. This is what is know as "private charity" (best solution) or "government welfare programs" (worst solution).

 

Take the issue of providing food to the poor for example. We in the US do not have some kind of moronic single payer universal supermarket system to do this. Some communist countries have tried this stupidity and it has resulted in people standing in line all day long for perhaps some stale bread and nearly rotten produce if they are lucky, or outright mass starvation if they are not so lucky. In the US we either have private charities like food banks and others that give food directly to the poor or people use government vouchers known as food stamps to go buy food at private supermarkets in relatively free markets that, as a result, generally provide high quality food at the lowest possible prices.

 

And it comes as no surprise that you don't consider Big Pharma and med device those companies that have found a way to game the market and FDA regs as predatory.

Of course that is predatory. When did I ever say otherwise? Why do you keep arguing against things I have never said? I guess that is easier than arguing against things I actually have said, since doing so successfully is basically impossible. Lol...

 

And the only way they can "game the market and FDA" is from the failure of your precious, beloved government. How the hell do you not know that the FDA is a damn GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION??? Of course if we ask the government to do something, they are obviously going to do a piss-poor job of it. No fucking duh. That is why the FDA should be completely abolished. Problem solved.

 

Bottom line there is enough documented abuse by insurance companies to offer the public that public option.

Pay close attention- the very first step in solving a problem is to identify the "root cause" of the problem. So, why is it that insurance companies can get away with such "abuse" of consumers, but companies in industries such as TVs, computers, supermarkets, tools, appliances, and thousands of others cannot do this? Why do all these other companies tend to try to offer better and better quality, customer service, and innovation, while simultaneously trying to make their prices LOWER over time, but it seems like health insurance companies don't? I have certainly not heard many idiot libs clamoring for a public option TV manufacturing company like these brainwashed sheep do for a moronic public option health insurance company.

 

This is another one of the questions that I have asked idiot libs dozens and dozens of times, and only one or two have ever given the correct answer. My suspicion is that none of you want to give the correct answer, because once you do, the solution to the problem becomes patently obvious, and it is not the one your liberal masters have brainwashed you into believing. Lol...

 

 

Just as the market wasn't going to electrify rural parts of the nation back in the 30s... if it has a choice, it's not going to want to meet the health care needs of those with serious health issues if it can avoid it... or those without money. But feel free to preach all that old time Ayn Rand Free Market Religion.

Again, it is not supposed to be doing this in the first place. If someone ALREADY has a serious health issue, then paying for their health care is not "insurance" and it should not be the responsibility of a private, for-profit insurance company. Insurance is for people to buy BEFORE they get a serious health issue, and only then should it be that company's responsibility to pay for their health care. Do you think that a car insurance company should "meet the needs" of someone who was uninsured and then totaled their car or a homeowner's insurance company should "meet the needs" of someone whose house was uninsured before it burned down? If not, then why the hell are you trying to turn health insurance companies into some kind of pseudo charities by making them pay for the health care of someone with serious issues who had not previously purchased insurance from them while they were healthy??? If you want poor people to receive some form of charity or welfare, then why not just let the REAL charities (best) or government programs (worst) provide it for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, this dumb little rant has nothing to do with my post above.

 

Secondly, the market is not supposed to meet the needs of those without money. Duh. The market is only supposed to make goods and services available at the highest possible quality with the lowest possible prices. Period. Giving goods and services to people too poor to buy them even at the lowest possible prices is an entirely separate issue. This is what is know as "private charity" (best solution) or "government welfare programs" (worst solution).

 

The "market" has no such mission. Competition in the market is supposed to accomplish what you claimed. A market could easily be a monopoly with shoddy and expensive goods. And sorry, your obsession that all problems can be dealt with by either the market or charity is laughable. Aren't you now supposed to tell us tales of Ron Paul providing free health care and claiming that could work everywhere?

 

Sure charity works sometimes... but it's laughable to believe "charity" is going to electrify, provide phone service or build roads in EVERY areas the market ignores. Without some wealth redistribution poor areas tend to stay poor unless they open themselves up for exploitation. Charity nor the market are going to provide education or public health systems, or an interstate highway system... or any of those other things I mentioned in another thread on the topic. If it does it's very spotty... and ultimately the money tends to come from the very rich who arguably became so because of freebies from government.

 

 

 

Take the issue of providing food to the poor for example. We in the US do not have some kind of moronic single payer universal supermarket system to do this. Some communist countries have tried this stupidity and it has resulted in people standing in line all day long for perhaps some stale bread and nearly rotten produce if they are lucky, or outright mass starvation if they are not so lucky. In the US we either have private charities like food banks and others that give food directly to the poor or people use government vouchers known as food stamps to go buy food at private supermarkets in relatively free markets that, as a result, generally provide high quality food at the lowest possible prices.
Where have I ever said we should not have a market system? What I HAVE repeatedly said is both the public and private sectors have their strengths and weaknesses and when the private sector fucks up then government SHOULD step in. I want a nuanced understanding of what both do best... you don't. Or are cracks showing in your argument when you claim market works even if people can spend Food Stamps? You do realize that Single Payer is NOT Socialized Health care like the VA and all the money does is go to private providers. OK, call them Health Care Stamps if it will make you happy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "market" has no such mission.

Then how do you explain the fact that this is essentially what happens in general anytime a free market is actually allowed to exist, with few or no regulations outside of prevention of the use of FORCE or fraud?

 

 

Competition in the market is supposed to accomplish what you claimed. A market could easily be a monopoly with shoddy and expensive goods.

And this is generally impossible without the help of your precious government. If you think otherwise, then I defy you to give even one single example of a company that had a long-term monopoly that was abusive to consumers without any help from government or other forms of FORCE to protect them from competition somehow. I have made this challenge to idiot libs dozens and dozens of times, and no one has ever come up with a single example yet.

 

Good luck.

 

And sorry, your obsession that all problems can be dealt with by either the market or charity is laughable.

Then you should easily be able to prove it is wrong. So what the fuck are you waiting for?

 

Aren't you now supposed to tell us tales of Ron Paul providing free health care and claiming that could work everywhere?

It could be a combination of doctors, hospitals, and other medical care providers providing free care to the poor, as well as other charities that provide the funding for poor people to go pay for the care they need.

 

 

Sure charity works sometimes... but it's laughable to believe "charity" is going to electrify, provide phone service or build roads in EVERY areas the market ignores. Without some wealth redistribution poor areas tend to stay poor unless they open themselves up for exploitation. Charity nor the market are going to provide education or public health systems, or an interstate highway system... or any of those other things I mentioned in another thread on the topic. If it does it's very spotty...

You can't compare what charity does today to what it would do if the numerous various government welfare programs were abolished. Today, government programs essentially "crowd out" most forms of private charity- Link. And even if the problem occurred where charity simply could not handle the load, then there is an amazingly simple solution- just give people 1-for-1 tax credits for donations to eligible charities for a certain portion of their income tax obligation, like in this brilliant proposal from Cato - Link. Problem solved.

 

and ultimately the money tends to come from the very rich who arguably became so because of freebies from government.

And where this occurs, why not simply eliminate the damn "freebies" instead of trying to mask over the problem with moronic policies that just make things worse? I have asked you this over and over and over, and for some strange reason you are incapable of giving an answer.

 

Where have I ever said we should not have a market system? What I HAVE repeatedly said is both the public and private sectors have their strengths and weaknesses and when the private sector fucks up then government SHOULD step in. I want a nuanced understanding of what both do best... you don't.

In what ways has the private sector "fucked up" that did not involve some form of FORCE or fraud, or involvement of your precious government to cause the fuck up in the first place?

 

Or are cracks showing in your argument when you claim market works even if people can spend Food Stamps?

How does people spending food stamps supposedly show "cracks in my argument"??? I am not claiming I favor food stamps over private charity. I am just claiming that giving people food stamps to buy food from private supermarkets in a relatively free market is far better than stupidly having a "single payer" universal supermarket system, like some kind of a fucking retard.

 

You do realize that Single Payer is NOT Socialized Health care like the VA and all the money does is go to private providers. OK, call them Health Care Stamps if it will make you happy.

Yes, of course I am aware of that. So the fuck what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...