Yes, that's the only mandate applied to us as consumers. Other's on this site (I apparently ruffled some feathers) think I missed the point about mandated procedures, but that applies to providers and has no bearing on a consumers freedom of choice.


Keeping what you have if you like it means you're insured right? How does that conflict with a rule that says you have to be insured?


"The" legally forced program? Roy... the mandate is simply to be insured. ACA doesn't care WHO you are insured with or what program you or your employer choose. There is no forced program. Maybe you need to look at the actual bill and stop listening to these clowns that I'm arguing with... LOL.


Well, the term "public option" is in the language of the bill. It's not something the "left leaners" came up with. The term "option" means you can take it or leave it, as in "optional". Pretty straight forward really.


The "government" has no money, so they can't pay for all of us... You might be thinking of "publicly funded health care" which is funded by tax payers... we see this in Canada, but it's not part of the ACA.

The public option will be paid for by the people who choose that option, just like any other insurance program. The difference is that the public option will not refuse anyone and it's premiums will be cheaper because the government will have greater leverage (force) when negotiating with providers and it will pay less for overhead... kind of like what we all wish regular insurance companies would do.

Of course this will give regular insurance companies some tough competition... something they hate the idea of and it's driving them bonkers which us why they're rattling cages to get the conservatives all agitated. They are hoping that they can misinform and infuriate enough voters to somehow stop the train.


but it's not.


I'm just not caught up in the propaganda circus. Anyone can read the bill or read about the bill - there are plenty of objective arguments worth reading that cover the pros AND the cons. You're just not going to find them on Glenn Beck.

My personal feeling is that it's too soon to tell if this is going to be a disaster or not. But I KNOW that we have to do something. We pay far more for health care than any other developed nation, including those with socialized medicine and although we have *some* outstanding hospitals and we do excel in a *few* areas such as cancer treatment, overall, we get substandard service and the insurance companies are really making things worse for the patients. I say we go for it. See what ACA can do - give it a run. If it fails we can always go back to the abysmal state it's in now.

Ur, ur, ur, ur... you so funny!

Nope. Never even heard of it. I've spent some time on Political Crossfire which unlike this site has a good balance of different views. I think it's mostly run by Libertarians... such philosophical people.

What part of risk assessment did you not understand? You are the one who said insurance companies profit from disaster. I'm the one who said they profit from avoiding disaster.


Whatever makes you feel better Dave.

Maybe you should have gone to school.


Caring for your mother-in-law was a noble decision.


LOL - You don't even know what a Marxist is. And yes, taxes and regulation does play a part in job loss, but only a small part. Many other factors come into play... our standard of living is probably the biggest factor. We can't sustain our standard of living on 50 cents an hour, but the Indonesians can. So a smart business leader is going to go offshore. So I guess we can blame smart people too and the poor people in Indonesia too. You can even blame people like me for building automation systems and robotic systems that outperform human workers. Yes, innovation can also be blamed. I bet it would be fairly easy to build a rail-based distribution system that would put thousands of truck drivers out of work too making the roads safer for everyone else. What do you think of that?

Let's see, smart business leaders, innovation, the American standard of living... And all you can think of is taxes and regulations?

Do you know what a Double Irish system is? It's the system by which U.S. companies have figured out how to cut their taxes from 35% (the normal corporate rate in the U.S.) to 0.3% by establishing a company in Ireland where the corporate rate is 12% and another one in the Cayman Islands or Bahamas where there IS no tax. Then they transfer their copyrights or patents to the company in the Cayman Islands. The U.S. company then arranges to pay enough royalties to the company in the Cayman Islands for using their rights that it consumes almost all of their profit (less for the IRS to tax). But since the IRS charges a special tax for doing business with a tax sheltered company, the company in Ireland is made the parent company of the company in the Cayman Islands. Now the U.S. company pays royalties to the company in Ireland which is charged by the Irish government at 12% and the IRS withdraws. Meanwhile, Irish law says a company only pays taxes to the country where it's headquarters are, not necessarily were the charter is, so now the 12% Irish tax is also circumnavigated.

And you think a simple tax cut is going the bring these U.S. companies back? Get real.

Actually, I do tend to be vague with my references to "conservative" and "liberal".

With regard to policy, I think the terms are somewhat ambiguous. Certainly, as you have mentioned the Bush Administration has often leaned toward a liberal tact, while preaching conservative "values" and I think this indicates how superficial the division really is and for that reason my references to "liberal" and "conservative" is almost always in reference to people, rather than policy.

There is without a doubt a very strong commitment among people who call themselves conservatives to the idea of "being" a conservative and I think, to a lesser degree, a reciprocal sentiment exists among liberals. I think politicians take advantage of this because there is less need for explanation when you brand your politics this way. Bush didn't have to explain his liberal policies as long as he continued to rally his supporters behind the banner of conservatism and today the conservative brand is the most effective weapon the loyal opposition has to the current government. Likewise, Obama doesn't have to explain much to his devoutly self-branded liberal followers - or zombies as I think conservatives call them. (so, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that I think the term applies equally to brand-loyal conservatives)

This "branding" is fortified by the charges of outrage broadcasted by culture icons like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly who have established lucrative careers in exaggerating the rift between the "righteous right" and the "looney left". Same can be said for the comic interjections of Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr.

Most negative references I make to conservatives is aimed at the people who have fallen hook, line and sinker for this branding game, without asking for explanations and consequently missing the inconsistencies. And what about these inconsistencies, the liberalism of Bush, or for that matter the conservatism of Clinton?

Well, I think the real power struggle is between what I call "gravity wells of capital" and the battleground is nothing less than global. The real kings of the 21st century are obscure and our frustrations can find no targets but their effective servants... our politicians. Indeed, governments are strategic assets and ideologies are tools for swaying public opinion in countries where public opinion matters.

I think this real power struggle is what has been driving our foreign policy since we became a world power at the start of the 20th century and it explains why it's so hard to align our foreign policy with liberal or conservative ideologies. It also explains why our foreign policy has been so consistent across Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

The objectives have always been to satisfy the needs of large capital with one of two basic approaches to policy... liberal (soft) or imperial (hard)... conservatism doesn't seem to exist on the global theater but like nationalism, tends to be more isolated to more local concerns.

Liberalism is always the first tact - to open up foreign markets... "free" them from protectionism, nationalism, communism, whatever... Imperialism comes in when liberalism fails, and usually involves force. The Bush Administration did both to achieve the same objective - to take over the energy markets in the ME. When liberalism didn't go our way, we activated the troops and attacked so as to force it our way.

As Teddy Roosevelt, who authored several papers on the benefits of imperialism once said... "I've got a big stick". Hey, at least he was honest.

I realize imperialism is something most people associate with the forts and flags of the 19th century Europeans but imperialism has simply evolved, as has the European states themselves who are today much less influenced by the old title-based orders of aristocracy and far more influenced by the same gravity wells of capital (or I guess I can say plutocracy) that we are.

My understanding of conservatism in it's most universal sense, is a somewhat localized resistance to change, including modernization. There is a reverence for the past and frequent attachments to older orders such as religion.

This can be found in many different flavors all over the world from the Taliban in Afghanistan to the Christian Conservatives in Texas and although the methods may be very different the objectives are similar and so is the future, which doesn't bode well for conservatives anywhere.

The biggest threat to conservatism is probably globalization. Things like the Internet along with the advances in neoliberal infrastructures such as GATT/WTO have pushed us into an age where capital is 100% fluid across borders and as capital consolidates, which it always does - hence my use of the term "gravity-well" the threat of a world government will become more intense.

True conservatives like Newt Gingrich have been ringing the warning bell on this, but the new "so-called" conservatives like Bush have been driving the bus down this road as fast as they possibly can.

I don't know if you've read Thomas Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" but it's a great primer on globalization and his analogy is priceless. The Lexus represents the lure of neoliberalism and the Olive Tree represents the resistance of tradition. He explains how the Lexus as an analogy for U.S. foreign policy conflicts with the Olive Tree, an analogy for the Islamic fundamentalists with the result being a violent resistance, but the analogy can be applied equally to the same conflict in America.

Now... Liberals like me. Where do we stand in all this?

Well, I can see the momentum of globalization and I can see how effective the globalists have been at pulling the wool over our eyes. I can also recognize the Pandora effect. Like nuclear weapons... once it's invented how can you really expect it to not be a threat anymore?

So, I think resisting globalization is a loosing strategy. I prefer the idea of embracing globalization with the intent to keep democracy relevant and this is the source of my frustration. How can we do this if half the people in America are doggedly favoring business over government to the point where we are actually giving private money advantages over the public vote?

What I find most frustrating of all is when I open up discussion around this 21st century problem and it's immediately sunk with canned arguments based on antiquated prejudices chanted endlessly by half-wit entertainers like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? I can't even get people to understand what I am actually trying to say because as soon as it smells different, which of course my arguments will because I'm not talking about things that Glenn Beck are concerned with, I am pegged as a liberal and my argument is shut out. What I usually get back isn't so much a response to my argument as it is a rant about the "Dark Side" or whatever.

Ah... Sorry, Dave I didn't mean to go on and on like that. It's just a lot to get off my chest and I figured it's on my introduction thread.

Fair enough.


That sounds good. But I doubt that these practices will be able to cover any significant percentage of the nations needs while maintaining such a cozy relationship with their patients. It's an unfortunate reality I'm afraid... 314 million people, of which roughly half make less than 22,000/year. That's a very heavy burden for a federal government that doesn't want to turn it's back on the less fortunate. But for the smaller percentages of people who can find services like what you describe, I am very happy.


Seems obvious to me... A young person who is not gainfully employed and not paying taxes seems to have two choices. ACA coverage or no coverage.

Squeezing blood from a stone seems more like a concern for people like me who want to know how this system is going to work. Personally, I agree with Winston Churchill, my favorite conservative of all time, that taxes should come from wealth, not income. First of all, wealth is where most of the money is. There is enough to cover everything in our budget AND our national debt without forcing ANYONE into hardship. But wealth has become the stone that can't be squeezed because wealth itself is what directs this country, so the politicians, who are the pawns in this game will continue to press pennies from single moms struggling to feed their children while issuing sermons about how wrong it is to ask a billionaire for anything at all.


They already are.


Yeah, that doesn't sound right.


I agree. Fortunately, ACA does not intend to be a one-size fits all solution. It features a public option, but people still have the choice of that or whatever else they want.


I did the same thing with the dentist last year... I paid cash and got a better deal. The reason, as I understand it is that providers will ask for more if you use insurance in much the same way a merchant in Tijuana will ask more for something if you look wealthy - in both cases they are setting the bar high for the subsequent bargaining that happens. This is one those things ACA is trying to reduce.


Or be a psychologist and charge 100/hr to sit around, chat and write a few prescriptions.
:)

No, it's not. The only thing being mandated is that we have to be insured... by whomever we choose. If you WANT, you can pay for private insurance OR you can choose to pay into the public option. Now, of course the public option is subsidized by mandatory tax, but that tax is a democratic decision, not a tyrannical one. People like me VOTE for representatives that VOTE for Obamacare. My decision beat your decision by a margin of votes. You loose, sorry. That's how democratic decisions work. No different than the fact that our military which is far larger than anything I want, is also subsidized by mandatory taxes that people YOU voted for.


First of all nothing is free. Everything in Obamacare is paid for. If by free you mean some people who don't pay taxes get free benefits from services that are paid for by other people who DO pay taxes then...

...our military. "free" protection for all Americans who don't pay taxes... paid for by Americans that are FORCED to pay taxes whether or not they even if they don't want it. There we go... as silly as the concept is... mandated free stuff.


No, that's exactly what I meant... within the context of my example, which I guess you didn't understand. Try reading more often. Practice makes perfect ;)


Show me one insurance company that profits from disaster. I designed several business intelligence systems for major insurance companies to help them assess risk so as to AVOID holding the bag when disaster hits.

You aren't giving me the impression that you really know much about this Dave... Are you sure you want to continue this argument?

Don't be an idiot. Everyone understands the basic concept of insurance as being something you pay "in-case" something happens. But we also know that the money you spend on insurance doesn't just sit around in a vault until your house burns down.

IF your house burns down, then you probably haven't paid enough insurance to cover the cost of fixing it, the insurance company will pay anyway because they can take the money from MY insurance premium against which their is no claim. So in effect I pay to fix YOUR house.

Now, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that system. It is in fact a "collective" system, where the liability of a demographic is spread across the collective premiums... What I AM saying is that Obamacare works within the same exact model and yet you folks keep whining about having to pay for someone else's misfortunes. So what I am doing here is calling BS on that retarded argument that implies we don't already do that.

You sound very angry - with all your derogatory adjectives. I have to suspect that you are too angry to be objective. That would explain why you think the Democrats are to blame for the national debt. I'm not a Democrat myself, but at least I understand the difference between their standard approach and the Republican standard approach.

Democrats = (programs + taxes) = pay as you go.
Republicans = (programs + loans) = national debt = pay later when a Democrat gets in office.

So... some people hate the Democrats who want to levy taxes to pay for their programs... so they vote for Republicans that promise not to levy taxes and that's as far as their "thinking" goes, so they miss the part that the Republicans tend to borrow money to pay for their programs which creates national debt.

Indeed, since Reagan, every time the Republicans have control of the government the national debt spikes and every time it slopes down, is when the Democrats are in charge.

Here's the stats... (president and rate at which national debt grows).

Carter = 42%
Reagan = 188% (ouch!)
Bush Sr. = 56%
Clinton = 35% (ending with a surplus)
Bush Jr. = 89%
Obama = 53% (so far...)

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

And don't even start that argument where the stats should be tied to Congress because Congress only gets involved when taxes are being levied. When Republicans borrow, it's called "off-line" spending, which means no Congressional oversight is needed. So a Republican president who presides over the U.S. Treasury Department can borrow money without any interjection from a Democratic congress.

So don't you even DARE talk to me about the "trillion dollars in debt obligation tied around the necks of our children and grand children" you SOB. I HAVE children and it's the people YOU vote for out of stupidity that put that obligation around their necks and that makes ME angry.

Basically, the problem is everything you're complaining about... If you are a healthy individual that doesn't go to the doctor every week, then I guarantee you that you spend more money on insurance premiums than you need to AND that money you spend pays for other people's health care AND to line the pockets of investors.

Insurance companies are motivated by money, which means that health decisions are motivated by money. A public system is motivated by the concerns of the public. A public system has public oversight, private insurance companies do not. Just the current difference in overhead between Medicare and private insurance suggests the results of public oversight.

Average overhead for Medicare = 5%
Average overhead for private insurance = 20%


And yet you do it anyway and can't imagine there is a problem. You, my friend, are what people call a sucker.


So, you were fortunate you didn't have any real problems. What did you have to barter for? A band-aid?


First of all, according to a study at Harvard University, 45,000 deaths per year in America are caused by a lack of medical attention.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

Secondly, I'm so tired of people using charity as the "magic excuse" to be selfish. "I give to charity - so I don't need the state to take my money by force." I hear this all the time from the right, like it's a practiced mantra. I bet most of them are lying about their donations anyway because with charity it's easy to lie and SAY you gave, when you didn't and I think that's why they like it as opposed to a tax system they HAVE to pay into.

If someone is truly charitable they would not have a problem paying tax to cover the less fortunate because truly charitable people feel that helping others is the prime concern, not fussing about the money you gave up. When someone get's all dramatic about having to pay for someone else, it's really hard to believe they are being genuine when they casually mention charity as a better solution.

But forget about my opinions for a minute, let's go to the bottom line which is very simple (and I've studied this at length)... In the U.S., the total sum of charity falls waaay short of the total sum of need.

This is WHY 45,000 Americans die each year for a lack of service.

Not only that, but if we went with a simple tax plan, charitable giving would be even less because aside from the nickles and dimes that good people can afford to give up, most significant and effective charitable donations are motivated by tax avoidance. So we can probably thank the IRS for most charity in this country anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think charity is a wonderful thing, but it's simply not enough. Most Americans really aren't as generous as they pretend to be. And I find the use of "charity" as an argument for not having to pay tax, simply revolting.

LOL - Oh no! The news is out! I bet Fox is working overtime right now trying to find *something* to say about it. They won't want to appear to be slow on the uptake, but they can't possibly say anything positive about anything associated with that Muslim, Communist, Black man in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, this will probably be the only comment on the subject because I know, most people on this site, just don't want to hear it.

But I, for one am delighted.

Yay for Obamacare..!
Yay for more competition in the healthcare market! Which the insurance companies HATE and want you to hate too. I'm so glad "We The People" have finally managed to stick it to the fat, and corrupt insurance industry that's been ripping us all off all these years. Thank you Obama for helping with that.

And too all the little sheep that beleive anything insurance companies, their lobbyists and Republican reps say... I'm so glad your ignorant outrage wasn't enough to prevent this much needed change.

It was Dutchman who said... "And Ron Paul, like his father, way to libertarian to my liking"

I knew what he meant. I guess I didn't feel the need to be pedantic like you.

"THE" party? Are you frickin' brain dead? You really think only one party plays identity politics? The Democrats typically pose as the champions of minority groups and so yes, they highlight the need for minorities to be heard, but the Republican Party, which the Economist Magazine recently plastered on their cover as the "Party That Will Always Be for White People" is downright blatant about the need for white people to vote to keep the advancing minorities that will "destroy the country" at bay.

I was in North Carolina when Obama was elected the first time and I have never seen such seething prejudice spewing from the rotten mouths of belligerent loosers.

It was truely revolting.

ANY peice of legislation can turn into a disaster if the opposition is willing to embark on childish sabbotage. It's not that hard to do when politics is 90% talk and we all know how full of crap politicians are.