Healthcare.gov Chief Resigns

Stiletto said:
Yup, someone doesn't like their own debate tactics being used against them, so they once again spam the rolleyes smiley like it scores them points. Get used to that.
Click to expand...

When you say dumb things its not a debate. Its rambling nonsense. And I roll my eyes at it. Its not about points. Its about me showing you that I find you ridiculous.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
"Unaffected" is mighty disingenuous.

Arguing that a minority of victims is inconsequential is an odd path to take for people who purport to help victims, both real and imaginary, and based an entire law on helping such people.
Click to expand...

Unaffected isn't just disingenuous, it's flat out a lie. If people think that employer sponsored healthcare isn't going to take a nasty turn because of this, they are mistaken. Who do you think is going to bear the increased cost? The employees and the people who buy the goods and services from the company.

"Unaffected" is a terribly naive way to describe it as 100% of Americans will be affected by this...many for the worse.
 
kirbyrj said:
Unaffected isn't just disingenuous, it's flat out a lie. If people think that employer sponsored healthcare isn't going to take a nasty turn because of this, they are mistaken. Who do you think is going to bear the increased cost? The employees and the people who buy the goods and services from the company.

"Unaffected" is a terribly naive way to describe it as 100% of Americans will be affected by this...many for the worse.
Click to expand...

What increased cost
 
Yea they're always passing legislation to help a group of people without considering the effects on all the other groups. That's great that group c is going to get healthcare, but at what cost to groups a and b? These are things never discussed when they're trying to pass a law and we always end up finding out the repercussions after the fact. Rabble rabble.
 
maverikv said:
What increased cost
Click to expand...

Covering dependents to age 26 and banning annual and lifetime limits on benefit payouts. Forcing maternity coverage on people unable to have children. Coverage on that mysterious 17 million Americans who didn't have healthcare insurance before. You can't get extra coverage without adding extra costs.

Better question isn't "what increased cost?" but "Who is going to pay for the increased cost?"
 
kirbyrj said:
Covering dependents to age 26 and banning annual and lifetime limits on benefit payouts. Forcing maternity coverage on people unable to have children. Coverage on that mysterious 17 million Americans who didn't have healthcare insurance before. You can't get extra coverage without adding extra costs.

Better question isn't "what increased cost?" but "Who is going to pay for the increased cost?"
Click to expand...

You don't know how insurance works, do you?
 
maverikv said:
When you say dumb things its not a debate. Its rambling nonsense. And I roll my eyes at it. Its not about points. Its about me showing you that I find you ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What fact, to you, is dumb and rambling?
That healthcare is a service?
That dollars don't discriminate?
That it may not be unreasonable to seek remuneration for service?

We really need to narrow this down if I am to understand where the ignorance and/or rambling lies in my statement.

Thanks in advance.

aardvark sandwich said:
That certain people were victims because they did not have dollars required to purchase a product or service that is completely fungible to dollar holders, regardless of race, gender or political persuasion.

When is paying for a service unreasonable?

Every dollar holder has access to the same opportunities per dollar.
Click to expand...

maverikv said:
What arbitrary, abstract concept was the bill created because of? The concept that people should have reasonable access to medical care? How arbitrary!
Click to expand...
 
aardvark sandwich said:
What fact, to you, is dumb and rambling?
That healthcare is a service?
That dollars don't discriminate?
That it may not be unreasonable to seek remuneration for service?

We really need to narrow this down if I am to understand where the ignorance and/or rambling lies in my statement.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You're acting as though healthcare is just another product or service and should be treated as such. That's whats dumb and rambling. You're being obtuse. Even the people that think we should go back to the old system and think that everyone should just pay up can admit that healthcare is different. You know why? Because they aren't calling for the cancellation of medicare and medicaid. Which requires you to acknowledge that healthcare is not just discretionary spending, or else why would we be providing it to people who can't afford it?
 
maverikv said:
You don't know how insurance works, do you?
Click to expand...

I know exactly how insurance works. My problem is with mandating certain kinds of coverage on people who don't need it rather than letting them pick and choose what kind of coverage they want at the price they can afford or want to pay. Not everyone qualifies for those "government subsidies" on their premiums. And not everyone wants the government to step in where it doesn't belong.
 
maverikv said:
You're acting as though healthcare is just another product or service and should be treated as such. That's whats dumb and rambling. You're being obtuse. Even the people that think we should go back to the old system and think that everyone should just pay up can admit that healthcare is different. You know why? Because they aren't calling for the cancellation of medicare and medicaid. Which requires you to acknowledge that healthcare is not just discretionary spending, or else why would we be providing it to people who can't afford it?
Click to expand...

The government already provided healthcare to people who couldn't afford it...medicaid.

No matter how obtuse you think the opposition is being, you should get it through your head that intelligent people think that it is a bad idea and a waste of money even if you can't comprehend it in your small, liberal world.
 
maverikv said:
You're acting as though healthcare is just another product or service and should be treated as such. That's whats dumb and rambling. You're being obtuse. Even the people that think we should go back to the old system and think that everyone should just pay up can admit that healthcare is different. You know why? Because they aren't calling for the cancellation of medicare and medicaid. Which requires you to acknowledge that healthcare is not just discretionary spending, or else why would we be providing it to people who can't afford it?
Click to expand...

Whoa. Going to attempt to break down all your conflations.

1. I am not 'acting' out anything. I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV.
2. I am not 'people', and I am not advocating the old system.
3. Because I am not 'people', and I do not share their position, I am not required to concede to you the philosophical idea that healthcare carries with it any sort of mystical worth that separates it from the laws of economics or commerce.
Government classifications for entitlement programs as mandatory spending does not contain within it the innate ability to render all objections based on non-political strictures void or outside the scope of criticism. As I do not condone these programs, I am the signatory to their classifications.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Whoa. Going to attempt to break down all your conflations.

1. I am not 'acting' out anything. I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV.
2. I am not 'people', and I am not advocating the old system.
3. Because I am not 'people', and I do not share their position, I am not required to concede to you the philosophical idea that healthcare carries with it any sort of mystical worth that separates it from the laws of economics or commerce.
Government classifications for entitlement programs as mandatory spending does not contain within it the innate ability to render all objections based on non-political strictures void or outside the scope of criticism. As I do not condone these programs, I am the signatory to their classifications.
Click to expand...

edit: "not" the signatory...
 
kirbyrj said:
Unaffected isn't just disingenuous, it's flat out a lie. If people think that employer sponsored healthcare isn't going to take a nasty turn because of this, they are mistaken. Who do you think is going to bear the increased cost? The employees and the people who buy the goods and services from the company.

"Unaffected" is a terribly naive way to describe it as 100% of Americans will be affected by this...many for the worse.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most insidious aspects of the government's actions,and the most damning,both in regard to the politicians and big business. The government puts taxes in place on both premium and even standard insurance plans to fund this insane "reform",the employers,who only care about raking in more and more money,respond by completely dropping those plans,forcing workers to accept substandard "affordable" plans that will burden them with thousands in out of pocket expenses in the event of a serious medical emergency,as well as denial of treatments that could have serious repercussions for the patient. So the politicians force their agendas on us,big business gets richer,and the hard working middle class foots the bill while they and their families suffer.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Whoa. Going to attempt to break down all your conflations.

1. I am not 'acting' out anything. I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV.
2. I am not 'people', and I am not advocating the old system.
3. Because I am not 'people', and I do not share their position, I am not required to concede to you the philosophical idea that healthcare carries with it any sort of mystical worth that separates it from the laws of economics or commerce.
Government classifications for entitlement programs as mandatory spending does not contain within it the innate ability to render all objections based on non-political strictures void or outside the scope of criticism. As I do not condone these programs, I am the signatory to their classifications.
Click to expand...

Actually, the unique nature of healthcare doesin fact mean that it behaves differently from normal products and services when you consider the market and the law of supply and demand.

Since you don't know or predict when you will need medical care,and that care can be expensive (very few people can pay medical costs out of pocket), we have health insurance.

But you can't rely on the insurance companies to take care of your healthcare needs, because the free market is actually working against you. That's why overhead is so high with private insurance; paying out claims is a cost to them and eats into profits, so they work to deny and defer as many claims as possible. There is a massive agency problem with private for-profit health insurance.

So even if you put all of the emotional stuff aside, the "just let the market sort it out" mentality is fundamentally flawed.
 
We are going to increase demand on something with a finite supply to save money.

Enjoy your doctor shortage.
 
Doctors. We are increasing demand on doctors.

Please read my posts in their entirety before commenting.
 
maverikv said:
pie-chart-495x359.png
Click to expand...

The pie chart is made up BS.

Clear winners, people who didn't have health insurance and now have to pay for it cannot all be considered clear winners. Wasn't obamas whole argument that these were the people who were cheating the system? I promise you no person who is cheating a system feels like a winner when they are not allowed to cheat any more. They aren't freaking clear winners they were healthy middle aged people who didn't want health insurance. Yes some of them were people with pre existing conditions but many more were simply skipping it because it was of no use to them. Why is it that proponents of this constantly accuse people of being bias then they make up horribly inaccurate charts like that with baseless assumptions.

Also the pie chart leaves out the new group of people who have health insurance from an employer and are getting dumped and told to go to the exchanges.
 
As opposed to 'enjoy having the opportunity to pay for a service with your dollars and receive commensurate quality coverage'.

Or to put it another way, "Enjoy your doctor shortage".
 
aardvark sandwich said:
As opposed to 'enjoy having the opportunity to pay for a service with your dollars and receive commensurate quality coverage'.

Or to put it another way, "Enjoy your doctor shortage".
Click to expand...

Or to put it another way "I got mine, so fark you"

The mating call of the modern conservative, folks.
 
maverikv said:
Or to put it another way "I got mine, so fark you"

The mating call of the modern conservative, folks.
Click to expand...

I freely admit I have the gall to believe I am entitled to purchase goods and services with my money, and that I (should have) the right to keep my money. In direct contrast to the assumption that I reserve the right to steal money via government proxies to purchase services I can't pay for directly.

I am a big fan of freedom free markets. I wear that badge proudly.

Thank you for the compliment.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
I freely admit I have the gall to believe I am entitled to purchase goods and services with my money, and that I (should have) the right to keep my money. In direct contrast to the assumption that I reserve the right to steal money via government proxies to purchase services I can't pay for directly.

I am a big fan of freedom free markets. I wear that badge proudly.

Thank you for the compliment.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you

I just don't think it applies to life-sustaining goods and services.

You want to buy a Lexus and most people can't afford it? Knock yourself out. Enjoy it. Rub it in if you want to. I got nothing against you for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top