[Umami]

KISS: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...insurance-work

[ladd_17]

Originally Posted by Umami

$337B over 10 years is about 40% less than Trump's proposed $54B annual increase in defense spending. Add to that whatever he's got up his sleeve for tax cuts and we're staring down the barrel of a deficit worse than anything Obama ever proposed.

But hey fiscal responsibility woo, right?

I already mentioned above that I think we should look at scaling back our military spending and redirecting that money to healthcare.

[da_mink]

Originally Posted by ladd_17

You know, some people are actually capable of having integrity. Not sure what else to tell you.

That's fine but it doesn't match the data or what we know about human psychology.NO ONE is going to sit in a lazy boy dieing of sepsis because "oh I cant afford it"

This is what your doing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam...ribution_error


Today the House is supposed to vote to adjust the ACA under the ACHA.
There has been calls for its repeal for the last 7 years and it has survived 65+ votes by the house to repeal it. Now it looks like there wont be enough votes for it to pass and might not even get called for a vote .

During those 7 years we have been repeatedly promised they had a plan and it would provide better/cheaper insurance covering more people.

The CBO and the White House report both showed there would be fewer enrollee's in healthcare then in 2010 when the ACA went into effect.Sure I will be getting a 50k (~12% of net income) tax deduction while my fiancée will have to pay 2100 (~12% gross income ) more for her insurance. It is also getting rid or Minimum Essential Coverage, re-introducing a bar preventing those with pre-existing conditions and reducing the number of health care facilities.

[Barber]

Originally Posted by ladd_17

How do you mean? Out-of-pocket? Or with the insurance that is part of my compensation package after spending my younger years acquiring the skills and knowledge that make me desirable to an employer?

Then again, I don't consider healthcare to be a right so if I was turned away on account of my inability to pay for services rendered I wouldn't ***** either. Life ain't fair.

You're honestly trying to say that in what is allegedly the most developed country in the world, if you went to the doctor on your next check up (or do you skip those because you cannot afford them without insurance?) you found out that you had an operable yet life-threatening form of cancer, if you did not have the $350k for the operation and treatment available you would sit back and say, "damn, caught a tough break, time to pack it in and call it a life," or am I missing something?

Believe it or not, most people do not plan to get sick. In a country where wage inequality is astoundingly prevalent, most people are forced to spend everything they earn on necessities rather than apparently frivolous things like health insurance.

I notice you like to flaunt your skills and knowledge, but does any of that knowledge include perspectives other than your own? I guess I'm asking, do you actually have an education or other set of credentials that make you credible to speak on this issue or are you another person in a rural area trying to big dog others because you believe your less than $80k/yr job makes you 'successful' just because everyone in your immediate vicinity is not?

Christ, educate yourself.

[da_mink]

Not to mention the entire thing hinges on the "IF I WAS TURNED AWAY"

The Hippocratic oath mandate anyone that takes it assist anyone that has a need.
Nothing states you can turn away people that cannot afford it.

So if dr's are mandated to treat you and then legally obligated to bill, how is it a choice?

The entire premise of being turned away is wrong because in no instance would that ever happen.
You cannot accept it if it is a fantasy removed from reality.

[Barber]

Originally Posted by da_mink

Not to mention the entire thing hinges on the "IF I WAS TURNED AWAY"

The Hippocratic oath mandate anyone that takes it assist anyone that has a need.
Nothing states you can turn away people that cannot afford it.

So if dr's are mandated to treat you and then legally obligated to bill, how is it a choice?

The entire premise of being turned away is wrong because in no instance would that ever happen.
You cannot accept it if it is a fantasy removed from reality.

I had tried to post in this forum a while back and was immediately met with blatant ignorance, small-picture thinking, and a disregard for research. I see that not much as changed around here, so I'm assuming if you stick around here you'll be met with the same group of people who base everything off of their personal experiences and anecdotal evidence rather than any level of research or education. A lot of straw man attacks and hypothetical arguments without any evidence being brought to the table. Of course, not too surprising considering this is a paintball site, but I happened to stumble in here today and simply could not read something that ignorant without saying something. It's astounding in the worst ways that there are people in this country who actually think like that, but I guess that's what happens when we have the levels of inequality that we do with education. Even if you try bring up a quality citation for your argument you'll just be called a liberal, so just want to save you some time before you try to discuss things with people who insist on remaining stuck in their line of rhetoric.

But yeah, let's cut taxes for people who make more money than you'll ever see because people deserve to die if they don't make enough money before their unpredictable accident or diagnosis. That's freedom.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Barber

the same group of people who base everything off of their personal experiences and anecdotal evidence rather than any level of research or education.

The problem I see is that a lot of people here and elsewhere think that citing some website or piece of evidence is tantamount to making an argument and engaging in useful discussion. Evidence very seldom speaks for itself, so if you're going to take the effort to post some piece of evidence, take the time to explain its significance.

[da_mink]

Originally Posted by Barber

I had tried to post in this forum a while back and was immediately met with blatant ignorance, small-picture thinking, and a disregard for research. I see that not much as changed around here, so I'm assuming if you stick around here you'll be met with the same group of people who base everything off of their personal experiences and anecdotal evidence rather than any level of research or education. A lot of straw man attacks and hypothetical arguments without any evidence being brought to the table. Of course, not too surprising considering this is a paintball site, but I happened to stumble in here today and simply could not read something that ignorant without saying something. It's astounding in the worst ways that there are people in this country who actually think like that, but I guess that's what happens when we have the levels of inequality that we do with education. Even if you try bring up a quality citation for your argument you'll just be called a liberal, so just want to save you some time before you try to discuss things with people who insist on remaining stuck in their line of rhetoric.

But yeah, let's cut taxes for people who make more money than you'll ever see because people deserve to die if they don't make enough money before their unpredictable accident or diagnosis. That's freedom.

Ive been a PBN member since 01, I fully understand that. FFS there are members of white nationalist groups that actively post in the OSST:FDT and encourage armed disobedience while decrying "Cucks and SJW's" doing sitin's or the women's march. One of them partpicated in the Bundy ranch insurrection. HIPPOCRITICAL AS ****.

It is also why I choose, generally, to cite sources. even if they don't look at them, it is hard to carry on the argument. But like StellerKnight said, just posting a document is worthless, it wont be read, you need to explain it and even then it still wont be read. Filter bubbles and Confirmation bias are very ****ing strong. do you really think after 25 years of hearing how lazy welfare recipients is less powerful then evidence? It makes it so that the person wont even look at the evidence because it contradicts a belief they hold true. and why shouldn't they? its what they have been told their entire life, they don't know the ACA and Obama care are the same, they just have heard for 7 years how its horrible and in a death spiral.

I do disagree though that evidence is not the way like Steller Knight claims, if I show you a graph that shows health care preminiums % increase from 2000 to today and the trend line for 2010 to today is less steep then the trend line from 2000-2010, that's damn good evidence that insurance preminiums are not increasing faster then they were before the ACA? or do you want to explain how that could still be wrong? Is it you don't want to believe the evidence, is that why you so often attack the source? claim "lies damn lies and statistics" talking points? or cite a website link infowars as proof the official data is wrong?


I am one of those people getting a tax cut, I DONT WANT IT. Not if it causes millions to lose insurance. No one deserves to die so I may make an extra 45k a year. It makes me shamed to be an American.

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by da_mink

I am one of those people getting a tax cut, I DONT WANT IT. Not if it causes millions to lose insurance. No one deserves to die so I may make an extra 45k a year. It makes me shamed to be an American.

This is where you and I will just have to differ. I don't care if millions lose their health coverage. Forcing me to pay for someone else's health care is just fundamentally wrong. And if it makes you ashamed, then feel free to give to charity organizations that are willing to take up the cause. But keep in this mind: we don't have a health COVERAGE problem in this country... what we have is a health care COST problem in this country. So ask yourself, what caused health costs to increase they way they did compared to say... 50 years ago?

[da_mink]

Real answer:
The shrinking of compensation packages likely has a big thing to do with that.
Wages have been largely stagnant since the 1970's which is the exact period of time a 50 year graph of HC cost/income starts to increase significantly compared to other developed nations.



On top of that keep in mind that we are the only country that has market based health insurance which increases costs.

for more information, here is a peer reviewed piece by the New England Journal of Medicine that says the same things I just did but in more detail.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1200478

**** answer:
You have HC right? did you know you are subsidized?
Why don't you refuse HS and pay it all out of pocket?
stop socializing your losses for private gain

But really, insurance in general is a policy by which you pay for others care. same with motor vehicle and house insurance. Its subsidizes costs and socializes losses. Is it fundamentally wrong to have insurance since you pay every month for someone else to get healthcare?

[Umami]

Originally Posted by PBOldTimer

So ask yourself, what caused health costs to increase they way they did compared to say... 50 years ago?

Already answered this, and TrumpCare/Republicare does nothing to fix it. Yeah, the average middle class health care was subsidized before Obamacare.

The outrage is apparently that poor people are receiving a subsidy as well

Originally Posted by Umami

KISS: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...insurance-work

[da_mink]

Update:

barring new developments, the AHCA in its current state will not be called for a vote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/u...imes&smtyp=cur

[Barber]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

The problem I see is that a lot of people here and elsewhere think that citing some website or piece of evidence is tantamount to making an argument and engaging in useful discussion. Evidence very seldom speaks for itself, so if you're going to take the effort to post some piece of evidence, take the time to explain its significance.

Fair point and you're absolutely correct, data without context is certainly useless for people who are adverse to information. Perhaps I'm just lazy at this point since I've had to recap a basic civics class for people too ignorant to understand the basics of policy at least a hundred times in my life now. So, it may not be surprising that I am in favor of a huge overhaul of public education.

I guess another issue may be that a peer-reviewed article averages probably 30 pages or so, and sadly very few people have enough pride in themselves to actually spend 10 minutes reading and deciphering something.

Also, for clarity, I meant research and education as in real research and real education, not just finding internet articles and whatnot. After researching national and international policy for years now, it's just very frustrating to see people's narrow views of reality affecting the lives of others for no reason. I don't think people should die because people voted for something without understanding even the basics of public policy.

[Barber]

Originally Posted by da_mink

Update:

barring new developments, the AHCA in its current state will not be called for a vote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/u...imes&smtyp=cur

So when Trump told the House Republicans yesterday that if they could not repeal the ACA (aka, agree on what to take away from citizens to fund their tax cuts) that he would keep the ACA in place, was that another lie?

Also, does anyone else thing it's absolutely wrong to use providing health insurance of millions of Americans as bargaining chip to try to sway politicians?

[Umami]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

The problem I see is that a lot of people here and elsewhere think that citing some website or piece of evidence is tantamount to making an argument and engaging in useful discussion. Evidence very seldom speaks for itself, so if you're going to take the effort to post some piece of evidence, take the time to explain its significance.

At some point it just becomes pointless to explain the same things over... and over... and over... and you realize that people will either read things or they won't, and what you say has relatively little impact on their interpretation.

[Barber]

Originally Posted by Umami

At some point it just becomes pointless to explain the same things over... and over... and over... and you realize that people will either read things or they won't, and what you say has relatively little impact on their interpretation.

Exactly. I just have a handful of books bookmarked on Amazon to link people to rather than trying to sum up a basic intro to policy class. It gives them a credible source, the answers to all of their questions, the rebuttals to all of their arguments, and saves me a ton of time. If they choose not to read it and continue their ignorance, it immediately shows me not to waste time trying to educate someone who refuses education.

[da_mink]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/pre...212706015.html

Trump claims Democrats are to blame for the failure of the American Health Care Act by refusing to cross the aisle, not the freedom caucus or moderate republicans.

[PBOldTimer]

Originally Posted by da_mink

**** answer:
You have HC right? did you know you are subsidized?
Why don't you refuse HS and pay it all out of pocket?
stop socializing your losses for private gain

But really, insurance in general is a policy by which you pay for others care. same with motor vehicle and house insurance. Its subsidizes costs and socializes losses. Is it fundamentally wrong to have insurance since you pay every month for someone else to get healthcare?

No, I do not have healthcare coverage insurance. I pay for everything out of pocket.
To your second paragraph, insurance should be voluntary, not mandatory. The Government should not be able to obligate private citizens to own something. Insurance losses should only be "socialized" within the group that wishes to participate. With auto insurance, I can opt out by not owning a vehicle. If you think the ACA is so terrific, then why not lobby to mandate that ALL citizens have life insurance? Or all citizens to have auto insurance, even if they don't have a car? Or all citizens to have house insurance, even if they don't own a home? Yes, of course, as a diabetic, I use health care services, but don't need/want insurance. I'm perfectly happy to pay out of pocket for the specific services I need.

[ladd_17]

Originally Posted by Barber

You're honestly trying to say that in what is allegedly the most developed country in the world, if you went to the doctor on your next check up (or do you skip those because you cannot afford them without insurance?) you found out that you had an operable yet life-threatening form of cancer, if you did not have the $350k for the operation and treatment available you would sit back and say, "damn, caught a tough break, time to pack it in and call it a life," or am I missing something?

Yeah, I would. I have no interest in acquiring a lifetimes worth of debt to *maybe* extend my life and as I don't consider healthcare (or health insurance) to be a right, I have no grounds to insist that someone else foot the bill for me.

As for your other allegations, my income has little and less to do with my opinion on this (unless we're talking about the idea that I'd like to actually keep it rather than have it taken from me through coercion) and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who considers Cincinnati to be 'rural'. The reason I brought up my skills and knowledge was because I made the conscious decision and sacrifices in my youth to acquire those things, partially because I wanted to live a certain lifestyle, and partially because you're right - no one plans to get sick. I knew I would need to get health insurance and the best way for me to get that coverage would be to acquire the skills and knowledge that makes one desirable to an employer. Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part and all that.

Originally Posted by Barber

But yeah, let's cut taxes for people who make more money than you'll ever see because people deserve to die if they don't make enough money before their unpredictable accident or diagnosis. That's freedom.

Talk about straw men.

Originally Posted by da_mink

I am one of those people getting a tax cut, I DONT WANT IT. Not if it causes millions to lose insurance. No one deserves to die so I may make an extra 45k a year. It makes me shamed to be an American.

No one is saying anyone deserves to die. Allowing people to die =/= killing them nor does it equal condemning them to death, it's recognition of the simple fact that life isn't fair.

[da_mink]

Originally Posted by ladd_17

No one is saying anyone deserves to die. Allowing people to die =/= killing them nor does it equal condemning them to death, it's recognition of the simple fact that life isn't fair.

AGAIN AND AGAIN with FAE. Honestly, do you not understand that you have had help throughout your life to get where you are today? I am sure 1 year old you could have gotten to the exact same place in life if your parents had died and you raised yourself.

I did have my parent die on me young, I did have to sacrifice a lot, If you want to keep going on about how successful you are because of the work you did growing up, lets compare.



how is allowing someone to die by refusing them health care(for any reason) , NOT equal to condemning them to die?

If I get shot in the gut, is the refusal not to help me not equal to condemning me to die?

[ladd_17]

Originally Posted by da_mink

AGAIN AND AGAIN with FAE. Honestly, do you not understand that you have had help throughout your life to get where you are today? I am sure 1 year old you could have gotten to the exact same place in life if your parents had died and you raised yourself.

Never said I would have gotten to where I am without my parents, but then again that's what parents are supposed to do - they raise their children. Not saying I didn't have other help either - but I believe it's wrong to coerce people into contributing to things that they do not want and/or need. You're perfectly free to go and offer to foot the bill for a random person's medical expenses, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to join you.

Originally Posted by da_mink

I did have my parent die on me young, I did have to sacrifice a lot, If you want to keep going on about how successful you are because of the work you did growing up, lets compare.

I'm sorry you had to go through that, but again I've never said anything about 'how successful I am' - I've noted that I made specific choices because I desired a specific outcome. If I can make those choices then so can anyone else. We have public education and college money is readily available to anyone willing to take on the debt, not to mention the myriad of scholarships that are reserved specifically for disadvantaged people.

Beyond that, if you're in a position where you'd save $45k/year just in taxes you're obviously wildly more successful than I am. Has it occurred to you that perhaps I don't share your willingness to spend other people's money because I don't have as much money to spare? I've got my own problems and expenses to deal with - perhaps if people were jumping up to help me deal with those I'd be inclined to share in your views, but I'm "privileged" so I have the privilege of shouldering those burdens myself.

Originally Posted by da_mink

how is allowing someone to die by refusing them health care(for any reason) , NOT equal to condemning them to die?

If I get shot in the gut, is the refusal not to help me not equal to condemning me to die?

Unless the party in question is responsible for the situation which put the at risk person's life in jeopardy then they are under no obligation to rectify the situation. It's pretty simple.

If you get shot in the gut the person who condemned you is the person who pulled the trigger, period - society at large is not responsible for that.

If you get lung cancer after smoking a pack a day for 20 years the person who condemned you is yourself, period - society at large is not responsible for that.

If you have a rare genetic disorder that will eventually kill you then no one has condemned you other than Mother Nature, period - society at large is not responsible for that. Does it suck? Yes - but life isn't fair.