Options

Nares sounds like he is describing a third world attempt at copying the NHS.
That's probably an apt description.

Remember, this was the very legislation that then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we'd "have to pass the bill before we [saw] what's in the bill," and that was later passed through a questionable method in which the Affordable Care Act entitlement was attached to a generic appropriations measure so that it could be passed with only a simple majority instead of the larger majorities normally required for non-budget measures.

The chief element of the bill mandates not that everyone purchases insurance (as a tax), but that all private insurance is required to provide government-mandated coverage (essentially, there's now a minimum level of coverage). All kinds of special interest groups were given exemptions, most notably federal unions such as the SEIU, private unions such as the UAW, and also corporations, such as McDonalds.

To make the bill appear revenue neutral, they chose to begin revenue collections four years before the first outlays would begin (they've since further delayed the beginning of outlays, citing complications in establishing the federal exchanges).

Ultimately, American businesses will shed healthcare benefits, as paying the tax is cheaper, and ultimately upwards of 100M (maybe even upwards of 200M) Americans will be pushed into government healthcare.

It's your NHS by backdoor, since it never would have flown if it was sold earnestly.
 
See, now this is simply a load of bollocks.

Dear Nares and Chiteng, please consider you're being terribly embarrassing for the Republicans who don't share your level of .... quirkiness. I mean, us lefties are enjoying the heck out of your .... quirkiness, but I can't escape the thought that sensible right winged people read your posts and groan out of fear of association.

edit: Which is wrong by the way! Association is I mean. Wrong.
Good point. You could even say people like them are what allowed the Democrats to win the election.
 
It's your NHS by backdoor, since it never would have flown if it was sold earnestly.

I don't buy health insurance. In fact, the NHS is nothing like what you've just described. You appear to be enunciating from your posterior.
 
Well, to be fair, all the private sector health insurers have been running death panels for decades now.
No, they also didn't, unless you start to use Nares' logic of course. But then it's okay because free market.
 
I don't buy health insurance. In fact, the NHS is nothing like what you've just described.
Sell me on how a government that can't run the USPS will somehow run healthcare well.

What about giving Washington more say in the process will benefit actual patients?

Why can't we have a serious discussion about this? Why are you so easily offended by the term "death panels?" Does that evoke the image of Nazi Germany, or something? Do you hear "death panels" but envision concentration camps?

Get ready for the new buzz word in healthcare; end-of-life care. What is it? It's another way of saying ****ing death panels.

EDIT: I'd love to live in the Star Trek utopia you all seem to expect from big government, but I'm practical enough to see that without the relatively infinite energy of Star Trek fantasy, it's entirely impossible to achieve.
 
Why can't we have a serious discussion about this? Why are you so easily offended by the term "death panels?" Does that evoke the image of Nazi Germany, or something? Do you hear "death panels" but envision concentration camps?

Get ready for the new buzz word in healthcare; end-of-life care. What is it? It's another way of saying ****ing death panels.
Then only thing you're offending when using those terms is your intelligence.
 
EDIT: I'd love to live in the Star Trek utopia you all seem to expect from big government, but I'm practical enough to see that without the relatively infinite energy of Star Trek fantasy, it's entirely impossible to achieve.
You don't need to look at Star Trek to see how to make healthcare work. Just ... other countries where healthcare works.
 
Sell me on how a government that can't run the USPS will somehow run healthcare well.

Tell me you know that conservatives forced the USPS to save enough money to the future pensions of their workers for the next 40 years.
 
So what is the healthcare rationing panel to you?
An imaginary construct from disgruntled GOPers who feel a bit miffed they lost the election and now have to prophesize doom and gloom to illustrate in their mind what a big, big, big mistake has been made by those silly 'other people' who disagree with them on the choice of president.
 
An imaginary construct from disgruntled GOPers who feel a bit miffed they lost the election and now have to prophesize doom and gloom to illustrate in their mind what a big, big, big mistake has been made by those silly 'other people' who disagree with them on the choice of president.
So you're saying nowhere in the Affordable Care Act is a healthcare rationing panel established to determine so called "best practices" with regards to diagnostics and treatment?

Because there is, so how are you arguing that there isn't such a panel established when there explicitly is?

Just ... other countries where healthcare works.
You say that, yet plenty of them still come here to receive treatment, especially cutting edge treatment (read: expensive and or risky and or of low potential benefit), which is exactly what the rationing panel will determine is not cost effective for most Americans (read: the 99%).

And it will be the 99% because the whole purpose of the individual mandate is to push employers to dump health coverage because it's cheaper to just pay the tax. We'll have a glorious, if short term, boost to business, at the cost of long term health care issues.
 
See, now this is simply a load of bollocks.

Dear Nares and Chiteng, please consider you're being terribly embarrassing for the Republicans who don't share your level of .... quirkiness. I mean, us lefties are enjoying the heck out of your .... quirkiness, but I can't escape the thought that sensible right winged people read your posts and groan out of fear of association.

edit: Which is wrong by the way! Association is I mean. Wrong.

I am not a Republican, so I dont care what they feel. I supported Romney on one issue.
He lost. So there it is.
 
Yes it is, it's quite the coincidence actually but my Grandad is 78 and has just had surgery on the NHS.

exactly, and the same happens pretty much everywhere around the globe where evil, socialist universial healthcare is a reality...but somehow it won't in the US, because!
 
So you're saying nowhere in the Affordable Care Act is a healthcare rationing panel established to determine so called "best practices" with regards to diagnostics and treatment?

Because there is, so how are you arguing that there isn't such a panel established when there explicitly is?
Quote it to me and I'll show you were you went wrong.

And I have seen it before, so I already know where. Just quote the entire thing where your "best practices" is mentioned.
 
Why are you so easily offended by the term "death panels?" Does that evoke the image of Nazi Germany, or something? Do you hear "death panels" but envision concentration camps?

You mean that it's not supposed to allude to that? You surprise me. Maybe it's just creationists and the History Channel that like to evoke Nazi Germany at every opportunity.
 
You say that, yet plenty of them still come here to receive treatment, especially cutting edge treatment (read: expensive and or risky and or of low potential benefit)
Nobody denies that the US are among the leading nations in medical research? How is that relevant here, especially with regards to the 99% you like to appeal to?

which is exactly what the rationing panel will determine is not cost effective for most Americans (read: the 99%).
So your beef with Obamacare is that it won't cover what people couldn't afford previously anyway?
 
No, they also didn't, unless you start to use Nares' logic of course. But then it's okay because free market.

Private sector insurance companies do cut people off from care for no other reason than that the care they need is expensive. And people do die as a result. So what's the difference?
 
Private sector insurance companies do cut people off from care for no other reason than that the care they need is expensive. And people do die as a result. So what's the difference?
I don't think there is. But that means that neither employ actual death panels, and therefore the term death panel is damaging to the discussion of healthcare as a whole and should not be used by either side.
 
Back
Top Bottom