ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Justices signal possible trouble for Obamacare mandate

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Nov. 23 2012, 3:15 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 23 2012, 2:36 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 23 2012, 2:06 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 23 2012, 1:35 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 23 2012, 12:31 pm

>

>

>

>

>stuff like that makes me wonder if people even know what insurance is?  any insurance from your house insurance to the insurance you buy on your iphone is a way to not take responsiblity for your own problems.  By it's very nature insurance is a way of taking away individual risk and spreading it over a group.  To rant and rave about insurance being what it is, insurance,  is insane.  And before you start lecturing me about how obamacar is forced insurance, go read your state laws about car insurance.

>
Love it when people try to equate forcing medical insurance on someone because they're alive to car insurance because people choose to drive.  Bogus argument that shows how people don't understand the issue.

 

Insurance is about addressing risk.  Sadly, medical insurance is being used for almost everything - which drives prices up.  This is why the medical procedures that most insurance doesn't pay for are getting cheaper while quality continues to get better.

love it when people can't grasp there are people in this country who can't rely on public transportation. 

I'm glad to see though that you understand that insurance is about spreading risk.  Since you agree though I don't understand why you would post that story though that obviously doesn't address the concept that insurance always was and always will be about spreading your personal losses on a large group. 

 

and guns?  way to throw a red herring in there.  That is really a stretch.  Impressive even for you.

Obamacare is about CONTROL of the American people.  Driving is a privilege, not a right.  You're purposefully merging rights and privileges.

Obamacare is not about spreading personal losses on a large group.  If I took out insurance on my house like Obamacare is set up, I'd be forced to use insurance to screw in a loose bolt... (and get government permission to do it... and hire someone else to do it...)

No... my point about the gun wasn't about the gun - it was about the government using force to control the people.  I could have used many other examples.  I know you're not a US Citizen, but the idea of liberty is for everyone - even Canadians.  It's the government's job to enable liberty, not destroy it.


the requirement to have liability insurance on your car is neither a right or a privledge


you may have quibbles with the way this particular health insurance works or how it is implemented but the fact remains that insurance always was and always will be a way to mitigate your risks in life by spreading them amongst a large group.  Your origional story acts like private insurance doesn't do this.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Nov. 23 2012, 3:45 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 23 2012, 2:54 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Nov. 23 2012, 2:44 pm

>

>As I've already said, Obamacare does nothing but force people who don't have insurance to buy from private companies or pay a fine. It's not about government control, it's about corporate control.
Controlling the corporations?   Yea..... to a point.  But it's about controlling the people.  This is just another step towards the end goal.  Remember - they have stated many times the end goal is to get rid of all private medical insurance companies (and medical providers) and do a "single payer" system - you know like the others that ration medicine - only in the USA, it's called the "Complete Lives System."


Now you're just twisting my words to fit your narrative. You know what I'm talking about when I say "corporate control." The government is not controlling business, it's the other way around.


You also know that Democrats have no intention of ever implementing a single-payer health plan. If they did, they would have done so when they had the majority in Congress. Instead, they went with a more conservative plan that for the millionth time does absolutely nothing but force people to buy PRIVATE insurance. The only one benefiting from Obamacare is the private insurance companies.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Nov. 23 2012, 3:46 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:15 pm

>

>the requirement to have liability insurance on your car is neither a right or a privledge

>you may have quibbles with the way this particular health insurance works or how it is implemented but the fact remains that insurance always was and always will be a way to mitigate your risks in life by spreading them amongst a large group.  Your origional story acts like private insurance doesn't do this.

>
Are you purposefully trying to evade the issue?  Driving a car is a privilege - minimum insurance is just a requirement for the privilege (like obtaining a drivers license.)  And if people choose to purchase additional car insurance, they're not penalized (unlike Obamacare.)


Private medical insurance is about CHOICE, not tyranny.  If I didn't want any insurance, I could just pay the bill myself.... but under Obamacare, I'm not allowed.  Obamacare is about forced redistribution of wealth and control over the people.


And this doesn't even attempt to address the problems with goverment ran medicine - the worst medical service in the USA and plagued with some of the biggest fraud, waste and abuse around.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Nov. 23 2012, 3:54 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:45 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 23 2012, 2:54 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Nov. 23 2012, 2:44 pm

>

>

>As I've already said, Obamacare does nothing but force people who don't have insurance to buy from private companies or pay a fine. It's not about government control, it's about corporate control.
Controlling the corporations?   Yea..... to a point.  But it's about controlling the people.  This is just another step towards the end goal.  Remember - they have stated many times the end goal is to get rid of all private medical insurance companies (and medical providers) and do a "single payer" system - you know like the others that ration medicine - only in the USA, it's called the "Complete Lives System."

Now you're just twisting my words to fit your narrative. You know what I'm talking about when I say "corporate control." The government is not controlling business, it's the other way around.

You also know that Democrats have no intention of ever implementing a single-payer health plan. If they did, they would have done so when they had the majority in Congress. Instead, they went with a more conservative plan that for the millionth time does absolutely nothing but force people to buy PRIVATE insurance. The only one benefiting from Obamacare is the private insurance companies.

Yes and no.... you think that the corporations are controlling this..., but if you took a look at this logically, this abusive law is increasing their costs by quite a bit - something that corporations don't want. If corporations were really in control, this would never have happened.


 


And yes, many democrats absolutely do want to force a single payer system - they just understand the Overton Window and will do things in steps.  Just listen to Obama's own words.... or Pelosi's.... or many others.


 


They barely got Obamacare through - they couldn't do single-payer at that time.... but Obamacare paves the way for it.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Nov. 24 2012, 10:35 am

Again, I'll quote Ron Paul: "Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare."


You say I'm not looking at this logically? What do millionaires like Obama and Pelosi have to gain from implementing single-payer or other "socialist" policies? If you'd stop listening to the bullsh!t politicians say and look at what they are doing you'd see that it is big business that is running the show.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Nov. 24 2012, 12:08 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Nov. 24 2012, 10:35 am

>

>Again, I'll quote Ron Paul: "Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare."

>You say I'm not looking at this logically? What do millionaires like Obama and Pelosi have to gain from implementing single-payer or other "socialist" policies? If you'd stop listening to the bullsh!t politicians say and look at what they are doing you'd see that it is big business that is running the show.

>
If this wasn't such a serious topic, your comments would actually be funny.


Yes, Obama and Pelosi are millionaires.... but they are big government who are EXCLUDED from the law.  They created it to control with the goal of a single payer system.  Why do you think medical care prices and insurance are going up?  Why do you think many companies are cutting hours or just plain dropping medical insurance? Do you think any insurance company actually wanted to be forced to pay for pre-existing conditions?  Or pay for adult children?  No.... the end goal is exactly what they stated - Obamacare is just the road to the destination.  (And even if we ignored what the politicians say (I won't,) just look at their actions - the actual law and associated regulations and the results!)


 


Sadly, you're just buying into the Marxist rhetoric - steal from another person in order to get something you don't want to be responsible for.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Nov. 24 2012, 6:22 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:46 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:15 pm

>

>

>the requirement to have liability insurance on your car is neither a right or a privledge

>you may have quibbles with the way this particular health insurance works or how it is implemented but the fact remains that insurance always was and always will be a way to mitigate your risks in life by spreading them amongst a large group.  Your origional story acts like private insurance doesn't do this.

>
Are you purposefully trying to evade the issue?  Driving a car is a privilege - minimum insurance is just a requirement for the privilege (like obtaining a drivers license.)  And if people choose to purchase additional car insurance, they're not penalized (unlike Obamacare.)

Private medical insurance is about CHOICE, not tyranny.  If I didn't want any insurance, I could just pay the bill myself.... but under Obamacare, I'm not allowed.  Obamacare is about forced redistribution of wealth and control over the people.

And this doesn't even attempt to address the problems with goverment ran medicine - the worst medical service in the USA and plagued with some of the biggest fraud, waste and abuse around.


how can I evade the issue by talking about what insurance actually is in a thread about insurance?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Nov. 24 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 24 2012, 6:22 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:46 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:15 pm

>

>

>

>the requirement to have liability insurance on your car is neither a right or a privledge

>you may have quibbles with the way this particular health insurance works or how it is implemented but the fact remains that insurance always was and always will be a way to mitigate your risks in life by spreading them amongst a large group.  Your origional story acts like private insurance doesn't do this.

>
Are you purposefully trying to evade the issue?  Driving a car is a privilege - minimum insurance is just a requirement for the privilege (like obtaining a drivers license.)  And if people choose to purchase additional car insurance, they're not penalized (unlike Obamacare.)

Private medical insurance is about CHOICE, not tyranny.  If I didn't want any insurance, I could just pay the bill myself.... but under Obamacare, I'm not allowed.  Obamacare is about forced redistribution of wealth and control over the people.

And this doesn't even attempt to address the problems with goverment ran medicine - the worst medical service in the USA and plagued with some of the biggest fraud, waste and abuse around.

how can I evade the issue by talking about what insurance actually is in a thread about insurance?

Driving is a privilege, not a right.  You're evading by trying to say driving is a right and that insurance is necessary for a right and then using that incorrect statement to support a tyrannical law.


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this Nov. 24 2012, 9:16 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 24 2012, 6:25 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 24 2012, 6:22 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:46 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 23 2012, 3:15 pm

>

>

>

>

>the requirement to have liability insurance on your car is neither a right or a privledge

>you may have quibbles with the way this particular health insurance works or how it is implemented but the fact remains that insurance always was and always will be a way to mitigate your risks in life by spreading them amongst a large group.  Your origional story acts like private insurance doesn't do this.

>
Are you purposefully trying to evade the issue?  Driving a car is a privilege - minimum insurance is just a requirement for the privilege (like obtaining a drivers license.)  And if people choose to purchase additional car insurance, they're not penalized (unlike Obamacare.)

Private medical insurance is about CHOICE, not tyranny.  If I didn't want any insurance, I could just pay the bill myself.... but under Obamacare, I'm not allowed.  Obamacare is about forced redistribution of wealth and control over the people.

And this doesn't even attempt to address the problems with goverment ran medicine - the worst medical service in the USA and plagued with some of the biggest fraud, waste and abuse around.

how can I evade the issue by talking about what insurance actually is in a thread about insurance?

Driving is a privilege, not a right.  You're evading by trying to say driving is a right and that insurance is necessary for a right and then using that incorrect statement to support a tyrannical law.


actually what I said was the guy in your little story doesn't know what insurance is if he thinks he is paying his own way by buying non-obama insurance.  The whole point of insurance is to spread risk. 


and my point about car insurance was that you are legally obligated to have it.  I said nothing about driving being a right.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Nov. 24 2012, 9:48 pm

Quote: wissa @ Nov. 24 2012, 9:16 pm

>actually what I said was the guy in your little story doesn't know what insurance is if he thinks he is paying his own way by buying non-obama insurance.  The whole point of insurance is to spread risk. 

>and my point about car insurance was that you are legally obligated to have it.  I said nothing about driving being a right.
You're still doing it...  if a person CHOOSES to drive (privilege,) then they have to buy insurance (state law) so that if you get in an accident, the required insurance covers the other person, not yourself (you buy additional insurance for yourself/belongings.)  Under the US Constitution, I have the right to be citizen, but with Obamacare the government mandates that I pay for the right with either buying a certain level of insurance or paying a tax (and if I have too much insurance, I get taxed.)


If you actually read the story, you'd realize that government is removing choice and mandating redistribution of wealth.  Also, with Obamacare, risk is increased.  And, with Obamacare, the government has granted itself the role of being able to determine who gets medical care and who doesn't.


 


And sadly... this anti-liberty law set up a precedent that allows the government to tell us what to do and what not to do (even if we have the Constitutional right).... or pay a tax.  Just another example of government tyranny.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Dec. 01 2012, 11:06 am

Don't ya just love that government controlled medical care where it can determine who lives and who dies?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 11:11 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 01 2012, 11:06 am

>

>Don't ya just love that government controlled medical care where it can determine who lives and who dies?

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D

>


I think you may be misunderstanding how the process works; the LCP pathway is only an option for terminally ill patients where medical staff have concluded that continuing to administer care will prolong the patient's suffering to a greater degree than not administering care.


The actual decision to go on the pathway is made by the patient if they have capacity; in the case of the article, the children's parents make the decision as the children lack capacity. The medical practitioners themselves can advise but cannot make the decision without consent.


The issue being raised in the inquiry is not specifically against the LCP process itself (which has existed for decades) but against the possibility that doctors were putting patients on it unnecessarily to save money or free up beds; malpractice to save money is not something unique or limited to government healthcare (assuming the inquiry actually finds that this has happened).

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 1:14 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ Dec. 02 2012, 11:11 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Dec. 01 2012, 11:06 am

>

>

>Don't ya just love that government controlled medical care where it can determine who lives and who dies?

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D

>

I think you may be misunderstanding how the process works; the LCP pathway is only an option for terminally ill patients where medical staff have concluded that continuing to administer care will prolong the patient's suffering to a greater degree than not administering care.

The actual decision to go on the pathway is made by the patient if they have capacity; in the case of the article, the children's parents make the decision as the children lack capacity. The medical practitioners themselves can advise but cannot make the decision without consent.

The issue being raised in the inquiry is not specifically against the LCP process itself (which has existed for decades) but against the possibility that doctors were putting patients on it unnecessarily to save money or free up beds; malpractice to save money is not something unique or limited to government healthcare (assuming the inquiry actually finds that this has happened).

How can I "misunderstand" the process of murdering a baby through starvation / dehydration?


 


But then again, so much of this world doesn't believe in the right to life.  Doing it just to save money is just an excuse.

Vorta_the_point

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 624

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 3:32 pm

How can I "misunderstand" the process of murdering a baby through starvation / dehydration?


Well firstly, your initial statement implied that "government controlled medical care" was "determining who lived and died"; in actuality, the patient (or in the case of children, the parents) makes the decision, the medical practitioners are powerless to do anything without that consent.


Secondly, the process is only supposed to be undertaken because the doctors have determined that there is nothing more that they can do to improve a terminal patient's condition and continuing to perform medical procedures will cause the patient additional and unnecessary suffering while not actually acheive anything beyond a very slight extension of life - which will be spent in pain.


In essence, it's a decision between having the patient die a comparatively quick death with unavoidable suffering or a longer drawn out death with unavoidable suffering. It should also be noted that even when nutrition is withdrawn, the LCP pathway continues to make the patient as comfortable as their condition allows for; they don't just lock them in a room and ignore them until they die.


 


But then again, so much of this world doesn't believe in the right to life.  Doing it just to save money is just an excuse.


I'm not sure I understand; an excuse for what? What other motives would they have (assuming the inquiry finds that this was in fact the case)?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Dec. 02 2012, 3:44 pm

Quote: Vorta_the_point @ Dec. 02 2012, 3:32 pm

>How can I "misunderstand" the process of murdering a baby through starvation / dehydration?

>Well firstly, your initial statement implied that "government controlled medical care" was "determining who lived and died"; in actuality, the patient (or in the case of children, the parents) makes the decision, the medical practitioners are powerless to do anything without that consent.

>Secondly, the process is only supposed to be undertaken because the doctors have determined that there is nothing more that they can do to improve a terminal patient's condition and continuing to perform medical procedures will cause the patient additional and unnecessary suffering while not actually acheive anything beyond a very slight extension of life - which will be spent in pain.

>In essence, it's a decision between having the patient die a comparatively quick death with unavoidable suffering or a longer drawn out death with unavoidable suffering. It should also be noted that even when nutrition is withdrawn, the LCP pathway continues to make the patient as comfortable as their condition allows for; they don't just lock them in a room and ignore them until they die.
Nope - I'm not buying it.  While I can logically understand someone wanting to die because they're going to die due to some other terminally (and painful) condition, you cannot make someone you're starving/dehydrating to death "comfortable."  It's inhumane and immoral.


Oh - and this practice isn't being limited to just critically ill children - it's also being applied to "disabled" children.

Post Reply

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar, Richard Evans

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum