Tweedles stand up to be counted.

[JtheJackal]

Funny a thread that started out with the argument that there is no difference between the candidates turned into a discussion about issues that differentiate the two.

 

[Sonereal]

Same thing that happens anytime someone goes into debt presumably.

I forgot. You don't know what happens.

I'm not an economics expert so I can't really say why exactly that was the case.

Because they can either not afford it (a large number of uninsured were working families), didn't want it (young adults, but the evidence often points they couldn't afford it either half the time), or they are eligible (I think about 20% are), but the state's money is already maxed out or they simply don't have the information.

When you have 36-45 million people without insurance, it ends up costing more because someone has to pay for it.

If you crash into someone and they have to pay for the damage that's completely unfair because that's your fault.

If you get sick and someone else has to pay for it is that's completely unfair because that-

Wait, it isn't a person's fault if they get sick or have an accident. If it is based on fairness, than it is unfair that your answer to potential soul-curshing debt is "let them eat cake".

Considering there's no guarantee that you'll be able to afford it (Like you said, can't take blood from a turnip) if you want to drive you need to ensure that you aren't going to completely screw someone else over financially if you make a mistake. The alternative is debtor's prisons, and even I wouldn't go that far

Debt slavery on the other hand.

Don't you think that will end up costing more? If a person is too afraid to get behind the wheel of the car to drive several miles to the nearest strip mall to buy whatever they want because they're afraid of paying out the ass for an accident, then business suffers. Hence, why the insurance requirement makes sense.

However, you do have the right to screw yourself over.

Even if it is no-fault of yours.

I think that if you choose not to have health insurance and something happens you should pay the price of that decision, but I imagine the law already has some type of settlement on its books so that debt does NOT last for the rest of one's life. I'm not sure what the current bankruptcy laws are so I can't comment if they are appropriate or not.

Again, getting health insurance is difficult and expensive. The fact that 1/6th of the population doesn't have it should point to that fact. Yet you still think that that 1/6th can suffer a lifetime of debt.

A person shouldn't have to file Chapter 7 because they got sick or had an accident.

I know Mitt supported it, which is one reason I'm not a big fan of him, especially since he's now condemning Obama's law.

lolwut

The constitutional argument that VRWCAgent brought up once could be valid, that doing it on a state level is more acceptable than a federal level, but considering Mitt's other policy beliefs (Support of the federal drug war and support of the Patrot Act, which yes, I know are typically Republican beliefs that I strongly disagree with) I don't see how the state's rights argument applies to him in particular.

The fact that states have problems paying for anything but education half the time, I don't know where you think the money for a state-level insurance program would come from. Maybe all those Christian charities alluded to earlier.

So yeah, I guess its disingenuous. That said, while Romney himself supports that, I don't think most of his supporters do. Most of Obama's supporters do.

[citation needed]

This argument always annoyed me. Its not a tax, its a fine. Same thing if you break a speeding law, you get a fine. This is a fine. Its not a tax. Thus it is, in fact, illegal not to carry health insurance.

It is also illegal not to carry car insurance. Your point?

They haven't. I was defining a "Christian" country as one where a majority of people thought about Christianity in the way you described it, and believed in it. I'd suspect such a country would have enough generous people that the poor would not need government help.

No it wouldn't. The ball is in your court to prove it.

If the poor are struggling to survive, the middle is just getting by, and the rich has no incentive to give, why would they give? The world is built on incentives, not morale. I can give you an incredibly long list of politicians and millionaires who donate to tad-deductible charities for this exact reason.

Just another thing I want to say about the UHC thing, the unintentional consequence of it is forcing people to live healthy lives, or taxing them if they choose to live a less healthy life.

Again, you fail to see the problem. The unhealthy, who are often poor (there is a reason for this), already suffer heavily under the current system. So

Mayor Bloomberg is clearly an example of this, banning large sodas in his city and some other people in the city government wanting to also limit the sizes of other junk. I think such laws are moronic, but its the inevitable result of everyone paying for everyone else. I'd rather have the freedom to do as I please than the security that inevitably brings less liberty with it.

That is silly. Again, the only possible solution to "not paying for everybody" is "let them die". If a person can't pay for healthcare, then you have to let them die. If you treat them, that costs money. So, what then? Sure, saddle them with debt for the rest of their life but they may still be unable to cover the expenses. Either someone is going to have to pay for him, or he's going to die.

Some might find charity, most people don't.

 

[peter grimes]

This argument always annoyed me. Its not a tax, its a fine. Same thing if you break a speeding law, you get a fine. This is a fine. Its not a tax. Thus it is, in fact, illegal not to carry health insurance.

I agree with you that it's technically illegal to not carry health insurance, but you're not going to be handed a summons or anything. When you're filling out your taxes there will be a line on a page, and if the value in that box is greater or lesser than a certain threshold, then you proceed to the next step on the return, and so forth. By the end you'll see how much tax you still owe, or how much you have overpaid. If you don't have health insurance, the 'fine' is paid out of that final number. You'll never even notice it.

They haven't. I was defining a "Christian" country as one where a majority of people thought about Christianity in the way you described it, and believed in it. I'd suspect such a country would have enough generous people that the poor would not need government help.

So you're either saying that most nations that considered themselves christian weren't really christian, or they were doing it wrong. In either case, I'm still challenging you to show us some examples of christian charity solving the problems that we now use government to solve.

Just another thing I want to say about the UHC thing, the unintentional consequence of it is forcing people to live healthy lives, or taxing them if they choose to live a less healthy life. Mayor Bloomberg is clearly an example of this, banning large sodas in his city and some other people in the city government wanting to also limit the sizes of other junk. I think such laws are moronic, but its the inevitable result of everyone paying for everyone else. I'd rather have the freedom to do as I please than the security that inevitably brings less liberty with it.

Bloomberg's anti-big soda push is a smart thing. It's all good and no bad. People are free to drink as much as they like - they just can't do it without going back to the counter. Consumers have exactly as much 'liberty' today as they did a year ago. Again, this is an example of incentivizing preferred behavior. If you want 48 ounces of sugar water with your lunch, then you'll have to think twice about it, walk twice to the counter. It's not a big deal at all, I honestly don't understand why people are against it. It's a rule about packaging, not tyranny.

And why don't you want people to be healthier? Healthier people are generally happier. Do you really want to live in a society populated by unhealthy unhappy people?

Packaging guidelines should not be viewed as an assault on liberty in exchange for security. Arguments like that are stupid.

Its not, and that's a fair criticism. He doesn't seem to have made the choice not to have health insurance either. It just happened.

Plus someone else was responsible and just plain out didn't get caught in that case. In that case I think it makes a lot more sense for society as a whole to pick up the bill, assuming the responsible party cannot be caught, than for the one man who happened to be unlucky yet did not make an irresponsible choice to be stuck with the whole bill.

I guess different circumstances are different and its extremely complicated to write a legal system that treats everyone fairly.

Here's the logic that goes into my thinking....

1. You should be able to choose to not have health insurance, with the consequences that that brings, namely, the risk of a ton of debt, being known and on your shoulders (Nobody should be forced to buy health insurance.)

2. UHC is a bad idea because, as good as it sounds, it is going to lead to laws requiring healthy behavior because people are not going to want to pay for other people's bad choices.

3. We are responsible for our own bad choices.

4. People who end up in that situation through no fault of their own should not be treated the same way as those who reached there through their own choices.

Its probably impossible to hit all four of those with perfection. I wonder how close we could get, if we wished too...

There's not much logic up there - just a series of bullet points. A logical argument sets out premises then draws conclusions. All I see up there are premises.

Here's mine:
Whether or not the guy who was driving the car held insurance would be utterly irrelevant if the government provided health care to everyone. There'd be no onus on the victim, there'd be no fear of crippling poverty, it would be far more equitable and efficient.

 

[Old Hippy]

Let us use a real example of this point. I know this guy, he lost his job when the factory closed, healthcare gone, pension gone, he's near retirement age. He's riding a bike, and gets hit by a car that does not stop and is never found. He's on the hook for some $60,000 in health costs, and has no possible way of paying them. If he tries, he's in poverty through his entire retirement.

How is that fair?

well its not... but it is simple to fix ... have no fault accident insurance so not only are immediate hospital costs covered but life time care can be provided, even if no one is found responsible or someone drunk is found responsible

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=25

I'm not sure if this upholds christain or leftist ideas... maybe both

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree with you that it's technically illegal to not carry health insurance, but you're not going to be handed a summons or anything. When you're filling out your taxes there will be a line on a page, and if the value in that box is greater or lesser than a certain threshold, then you proceed to the next step on the return, and so forth. By the end you'll see how much tax you still owe, or how much you have overpaid. If you don't have health insurance, the 'fine' is paid out of that final number. You'll never even notice it.

The fact that you won't notice it actually makes it worse. It means that we aren't even aware of the money that's being taken.

So you're either saying that most nations that considered themselves christian weren't really christian, or they were doing it wrong. In either case, I'm still challenging you to show us some examples of christian charity solving the problems that we now use government to solve.

They can't completely, because most christians aren't generous like they're supposed to be

Bloomberg's anti-big soda push is a smart thing. It's all good and no bad. People are free to drink as much as they like - they just can't do it without going back to the counter. Consumers have exactly as much 'liberty' today as they did a year ago. Again, this is an example of incentivizing preferred behavior. If you want 48 ounces of sugar water with your lunch, then you'll have to think twice about it, walk twice to the counter. It's not a big deal at all, I honestly don't understand why people are against it. It's a rule about packaging, not tyranny.

Wow

That's exactly the type of argument that makes me against ANY government messing with healthcare. It inevitably leads to more, and more, and more of a nanny state. Or if it doesn't it leads to people complaining that unhealthy behavior is "Stealing from them."

And why don't you want people to be healthier? Healthier people are generally happier. Do you really want to live in a society populated by unhealthy unhappy people?

Its not that I don't want people to be healthier, its that I don't think the government has any right to interfere with personal life choices in this way.

The reality is that fiscal social democracy leads to a restriction of social choices as well. It simply does. No matter how much you want to avoid it. That's why I tend to distrust the people that claim that liberal economics don't lead to authoritarian social choices. They do. That you will let the government sign a piece of paper saying gay people can marry is a complete distraction and completely irrelevant, on both sides, to anything dealing with liberty.

Packaging guidelines should not be viewed as an assault on liberty in exchange for security. Arguments like that are stupid.

Not "Guidelines." Bloomberg is being completely inappropriate in his authoritarian assault on the free market. Its an absurd law, it makes no sense.

Whether or not the guy who was driving the car held insurance would be utterly irrelevant if the government provided health care to everyone. There'd be no onus on the victim, there'd be no fear of crippling poverty, it would be far more equitable and efficient.

But would lead to the government "Encouraging" (Enforcing) healthy behavior.

Its a fundamentally wrong restriction on lifestyle choices....

 

[Ailedhoo]

Wow

That's exactly the type of argument that makes me against ANY government messing with healthcare. It inevitably leads to more, and more, and more of a nanny state. Or if it doesn't it leads to people complaining that unhealthy behavior is "Stealing from them."

So you oppose the goverment stopping a scheme by a healthcare company to sell some medical supplies at exstreamly higher rates then those that need the medicen can afford?

The nanny state concept is of relation of benefits ecth as oppose to UHS. Why? UHS in Britian is something supported by even those who scream "NANNY STATE!" Packaging laws for example are not nanny statist: they are simply regulations to ensure people can judge better.

And your own arguments are not addressing the main thing with UHS: that it is basically ensuring the fear of poverty from a terrible medical occurence would result in debt for all the family. Empathy is key.

Its not that I don't want people to be healthier, its that I don't think the government has any right to interfere with personal life choices in this way.

You do not like goverment inferfere with personal life choices? I guess you approved of a case of firemen letting a house burn down because the people forgot to pay up. You have empathy.

The reality is that fiscal social democracy leads to a restriction of social choices as well. It simply does. No matter how much you want to avoid it. That's why I tend to distrust the people that claim that liberal economics don't lead to authoritarian social choices. They do. That you will let the government sign a piece of paper saying gay people can marry is a complete distraction and completely irrelevant, on both sides, to anything dealing with liberty.

Your definition of reality must be different to the world mate. For starters liberal ecomonics is not exactly a concept when you consider that Capitalism is not defined as the realm of conseratives. The liberals in the USA and many other nations tend to include capitalists for example. Its a very incorrect term.

Second the social free market model in Germany would like a word with you...

Third: your brining of SSM is... questionable, although it does show your bigotry. Of course it has to do with liberty, although you might not see that being a ultraconserative.

Fourth: your quite questionable on your terms. Your claim to be anti-authoriterian, let many of yoru post and your general ultraconserative position is... not exactly anti-authoriterian. Perhapes Churchill was right when he said the fascists of tomarrow would label themselves as anti-fascists?

Not "Guidelines." Bloomberg is being completely inappropriate in his authoritarian assault on the free market. Its an absurd law, it makes no sense.

The presumtion that to regulate the market is authoriterian is pre-mature. Markets are of a ecomonic scale then a political one. Are you going to label Ghandi, a figure who liked the idea of collectivism, as a authoriterian?

But would lead to the government "Encouraging" (Enforcing) healthy behavior.

What have you against education?

Its a fundamentally wrong restriction on lifestyle choices....

So support UHS. That will defend peoples lifestyle by ensuring that families won't fear poverty via expensive health care bills.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Packaging already tells you what a serving size is and the caloric content is in a serving. I think people can be a little more responsible than you think they and can look up how many calories they're supposed to have and whatever. There's a difference between ensuring that people are informed, which I agree with, and actually restricting their choices, which I don't.

I already know big sodas have a lot of calories (Over 600 in a 7-11 Double Gulp) in them, yet I usually drink one a week. If I were to drink one on a daily basis that would be extremely unhealthy, but its not the end of the world to do so only once a week. Now, I have no problem with the fact that soda companies are required to tell us how many calories are in their stuff, but when it comes to actually forcing us to buy multiple, smaller sodas, I think that's wrong. I know how many calories I'm taking when I order a big soda, so mind your business (That last part isn't addressed at anyone in particular.)

As for UHC, while I don't really believe the whole "Death pannel" thing that some conservatives throw around, we currently don't have UHC and there really hasn't been anything similar there as well. No UHC is not leading to tons of deaths as far as I know.

That said, my main objections are efficiency (Government is generally extremely inefficient) and the inevitable leading to legal restrictions on unhealthy behavior. If we could get a Reasonably efficient system and we could somehow do it without restricting unhealthy behavior, I could accept the compromise.

 

[Sonereal]

Packaging already tells you what a serving size is and the caloric content is in a serving. I think people can be a little more responsible than you think they and can look up how many calories they're supposed to have and whatever. There's a difference between ensuring that people are informed, which I agree with, and actually restricting their choices, which I don't.

It isn't restricting their choices. They can get up twice.

As for UHC, while I don't really believe the whole "Death pannel" thing that some conservatives throw around, we currently don't have UHC and there really hasn't been anything similar there as well. No UHC is not leading to tons of deaths as far as I know.

Just tons of financial hardship and people shouting out in Republican debates that people who can't pay should "go die".

That said, my main objections are efficiency (Government is generally extremely inefficient) and the inevitable leading to legal restrictions on unhealthy behavior. If we could get a Reasonably efficient system and we could somehow do it without restricting unhealthy behavior, I could accept the compromise.

Roads. Rural Power. Dams. Welfare Programs. Military.

The government is more effective at all of these than the private sector.

The government already places restrictions on unhealthy behaviors such as making certain drugs illegal and placing restrictions and taxes on smoking and drinking.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Packaging already tells you what a serving size is and the caloric content is in a serving. I think people can be a little more responsible than you think they and can look up how many calories they're supposed to have and whatever. There's a difference between ensuring that people are informed, which I agree with, and actually restricting their choices, which I don't.

And how does packaging laws restrict? People still make a choice in the end of the day.

As for UHC, while I don't really believe the whole "Death pannel" thing that some conservatives throw around, we currently don't have UHC and there really hasn't been anything similar there as well. No UHC is not leading to tons of deaths as far as I know.

Intresting thing to bring up.

That said, my main objections are efficiency (Government is generally extremely inefficient) and the inevitable leading to legal restrictions on unhealthy behavior. If we could get a Reasonably efficient system and we could somehow do it without restricting unhealthy behavior, I could accept the compromise.

The first bit about goverments beign exstreamly inefficient is... narrow minded and naive to say the least. The NHS has proved itself effiecent. The Canada and German UHS systems are effiecient. To suggest "public sector=ineffeint and private sector=effiecent" is rather unmathatic. The stepping stone idea I gave might be a taster that would be a step for America to take. We Brits have observed your system. It is shocking the about of debt from healthcare people get due to the bill.

To focus the debate on UHS on "restricting unhealthy behavior" ignores the medical problems that do not come from choice such as accidents, horrific diseases and so on. You must focus on the healthcare itself when it comes to UHS. I also advice you look up countries with UHS before making such narrow minded conclustion you are making at the moment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't agree with most of those things, with the exception of drugs like heroin that will almost certainly leave people in a state where they will use violence or theft in order to get more. Those should remain illegal. But I believe in a more liberal system of drug laws than what we have across the board.

That said, restricting hard drugs, alcohol and tobacco, and soda are three very, very different things (Alcohol and tobacco are fairly similar.)

I agree with only the first one.

As for "They have a choice to get up twice" that's just a ridiculous justification. If I want to buy a 32 ounce soda, the government can mind its own doggone business.

 

[JohannaK]

and the inevitable leading to legal restrictions on unhealthy behavior. If we could get a Reasonably efficient system and we could somehow do it without restricting unhealthy behavior, I could accept the compromise.

May I ask how is supposed UHC lead to "inevitable" restrictions of unhealthy behaviour?

I don't recall seeing any fast food companies closing restaurants in Spain because the government fined them because of their activities or anything similar. Neither in any European country.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Err Ghost... using your ingorance of healthcare is not a argument against UHS. Its just a argument for America needs a better education system...

 

[galdre]

I love the argument that the govt is too inefficient to run healthcare - every country that has a govt run insurance or healthcare system spends a lot less per person and gives better care. Seems to me corporate HC is the inefficient system.

 

[Quackers]

unmathatic

What does this mean?

 

[Ailedhoo]

What does this mean?

I meant unmathematic. Sorry for my misspelling.

 

[Ajidica]

Dommy, you do realize that when an uninsured person is taken to the hospital and cannot pay their bills, you end up paying more in health insurance because the hospital still has to cover costs somehow?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That is silly. Again, the only possible solution to "not paying for everybody" is "let them die". If a person can't pay for healthcare, then you have to let them die. If you treat them, that costs money. So, what then? Sure, saddle them with debt for the rest of their life but they may still be unable to cover the expenses. Either someone is going to have to pay for him, or he's going to die.

Some might find charity, most people don't.

Another example of GhostWriter16 clearly violating his own 'hardcore' pro-life stance as doing so is convenient for his other personal political beliefs.

GhostWriter16, ever wonder why the nuns association supported healthcare reform?

Spoiler :

Because they are genuinely pro-life.

BTW - Sonereal, agreed with everything you posted. x1000

 

[History_Buff]

That said, restricting hard drugs, alcohol and tobacco, and soda are three very, very different things (Alcohol and tobacco are fairly similar.)

I agree with only the first one.

Why exactly? Tobacco and alcohol aren't really that similar, but they're both as much of a drug as sugar is. Just less plentiful.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why exactly? Tobacco and alcohol aren't really that similar, but they're both as much of a drug as sugar is. Just less plentiful.

They're similar in amount of harm caused, not exactly the same. Although alcohol has more of a tendency to hurt other people due to drunk drivers. Still, its drunk driving, not alcohol in general, that needs to be prohibited and dealt with.

 

[W|M]

Tobacco is a lot worse for you than alcohol, and hurts others through second-hand smoke