The New American Politics thread

[DuffMan]

Do you have an answer for this?

Originally Posted by DuffMan

What would've happened if your husband had a heart attack or was diagnosed with cancer, with your previous setup of him paying oop?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

That's a great point, however our auto insurance allows copious amounts of medical coverage in the case of an accident, for the driver and for anyone else in the accident. If you don't medically insure yourself, you aren't hurting anyone else. You shouldn't be forced to pay for something if it only affects you. You can argue with me all you want, but the fact is, if you don't have medical insurance and something catastrophic happens, you'll pay one way or another- whether it be losing your house, your business, making payments, having crap credit- whatever. Hell, most medical insurance has a cap anyway, and you're left owning a ton of money regardless of the situation. It should be the choice of a person.

Did you know that more liberty does not equal a better life?

Did you know that total liberty is virtually no different than no liberty?

So many Americans cling to this #######ized conception of liberty as if it is something to be maximized. What the best countries in the world realize (a list the United States is nowhere near IMO) is that liberty is not something to maximize, but to optimize.

Until Americans realize this as a society, they will continue to have incredibly bloated health care costs, Wall Street bailouts, endemic gun violence and a bifurcated class system.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Thanks Carlos Danger! If not for your stupidity I wouldn't have bumped this thread and it wouldn't have as many posts in the last two days as its had in the last 6 months.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Thanks Carlos Danger! If not for your stupidity I wouldn't have bumped this thread and it wouldn't have as many posts in the last two days as its had in the last 6 months.

If only real news happened like that.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Thanks Carlos Danger! If not for your stupidity I wouldn't have bumped this thread and it wouldn't have as many posts in the last two days as its had in the last 6 months.

Did you read what that girl he was sexting have to say recently?

How is he going to run NY, when he is wacking off 5 times a day? she's pretty funny.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The worst part for Carlos is he isn't even getting laid. He's just sexting and whacking off. At least Bill Clinton got some.

[Tinordi]

Who cares about Weiner, non-news for the pleibs.

Here's an interesting piece of real news:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...as_arrived.php

Like all recent GOP budgets, this year’s proposes lots of spending on defense and security, at the expense of all other programs. Specifically, it sets the total pool of discretionary dollars at sequestration levels, then funnels money from thinly stretched domestic departments (like Transportation and HUD) to the Pentagon and a few other agencies. But that’s all the budget says. It doesn’t say how to allocate the dollars, nor does it grapple in any way with the possibility that cutting domestic spending so profoundly might be unworkable. It’s an abstraction.

Indeed, Paul Ryan’s entire reputation rests upon these kinds of abstractions. His budgets imagine huge cuts to Medicaid and food stamps and Medicare and so on, but they have no binding force. His allure to the conservative movement as a vice presidential nominee was that he’d be uniquely suited to turn these abstractions into reality.

Many close Congress watchers — and indeed many Congressional Democrats — have long suspected that their votes for Ryan’s budgets were a form of cheap talk. That Republicans would chicken out if it ever came time to fill in the blanks. Particularly the calls for deep but unspecified domestic discretionary spending cuts.

Today’s Transportation/HUD failure confirms that suspicion. Partially at least. Republicans don’t control government. But ahead of the deadline for funding it, their plan was to proceed as if the Ryan budget was binding, and pass spending bills to actualize it — to stake out a bargaining position with the Senate at the right-most end of the possible.

But they can’t do it. It turns out that when you draft bills enumerating all the specific cuts required to comply with the budget’s parameters, they doesn’t come anywhere close to having enough political support to pass. Even in the GOP House. Slash community development block grants by 50 percent, and you don’t just lose the Democrats, you lose a lot of Republicans who care about their districts. Combine that with nihilist defectors who won’t vote for any appropriations bills unless they force the President to sign an Obamacare repeal bill at a bonfire ceremony on the House floor, and suddenly you’re nowhere near 218 votes.

More for the "cut waste" crowd to chew on.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by evman150

Did you know that more liberty does not equal a better life?

Did you know that total liberty is virtually no different than no liberty?

So many Americans cling to this #######ized conception of liberty as if it is something to be maximized. What the best countries in the world realize (a list the United States is nowhere near IMO) is that liberty is not something to maximize, but to optimize.

Until Americans realize this as a society, they will continue to have incredibly bloated health care costs, Wall Street bailouts, endemic gun violence and a bifurcated class system.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Do you have an answer for this?

The question should really be- how is this your business? Would my husband having a heart attack or having some catastrophic event in any way harm you? Regardless of the situation we'd pay for it- it has no effect on you. The fact is- it should be a choice, not a tax. Government officials love making us pay and taxing us for 'what's good for us.' I'd rather make that decision.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Right, because when you declare bankruptcy and creditors wind up collecting pennies on the dollar nobody gets hurt. C'mon, think these things through. Your actions have impacts, despite how sheltered you may believe they are.

I wouldn't have to declare bankruptcy. So take that out of the equation. Now how am I hurting anyone?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I wouldn't have to declare bankruptcy. So take that out of the equation. Now how am I hurting anyone?

Assuming your family never, ever gets sick or no one ever has any form of an accident or medical emergency, no. But why take that risk? Say your always healthy husband suddenly gets sick. It happens to a lot of people. Until this year I had been to the doctor exactly once in 7 years. No major illnesses in that time. Not even the flu. And then come January I developed a moderate gastric issue that resulted in a ton of different tests, a ton of specialist visits, etc, with the non-insured bills adding up to more than my annual salary. But because I've paid into my health insurance over the years--I paid a minimal amount in copays and the issue was discovered and handled.

Are you going to just wait until someone gets sick or hurt and then go for insurance? If that's the case, then this mandate is to protect citizens who properly use insurance against citizens like you. Otherwise, wouldn't everyone just wait until they got sick, and then call up an insurance company and get a policy to cover their medical expenses?

The healthcare system and the insurance system are broken, for certain, but your thinking is what makes it worse, not better.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

The question should really be- how is this your business? Would my husband having a heart attack or having some catastrophic event in any way harm you? Regardless of the situation we'd pay for it- it has no effect on you. The fact is- it should be a choice, not a tax. Government officials love making us pay and taxing us for 'what's good for us.' I'd rather make that decision.

Lol, right.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I wouldn't have to declare bankruptcy. So take that out of the equation. Now how am I hurting anyone?

If you wouldn't have to declare bankruptcy due to a major medical problem in the US without insurance, then your definition of middle class is a hell of a lot different than mine.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

The question should really be- how is this your business? Would my husband having a heart attack or having some catastrophic event in any way harm you? Regardless of the situation we'd pay for it- it has no effect on you. The fact is- it should be a choice, not a tax. Government officials love making us pay and taxing us for 'what's good for us.' I'd rather make that decision.

It's my business because that is what we are discussing here, you started it by complaining about paying for HC, and I thought I asked a pretty valid question in the context of the conversation.

So if I am understanding you right, you are saying you are capable of paying for any kind of medical problems that might arise in the future out of your own pocket, yet you are complaining about paying $330 or whatever a month? But it isn't the money, right, I guess you are flush with that, it is the fact that you are American and your God given American right of having a choice has been taken away from you? That's the issue?
Do you also have a choice into paying for FEMA, even though you might never have floods or tornado damage? do you have a choice about paying into Americas ongoing military presense around the world, even though your town may never get invaded by the Russians? how about aviation safety? maybe you dont' fly in planes so you could opt out of that. Food inspectors? grow your own, right.

There are lots of things you could be complaining about right now, that you are paying into but you don't have a choice.

or is simply because you cant stand the fact that you are paying for HC for those lazy Obama voting Liberals, and illegal Mexicans.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

The question should really be- how is this your business? Would my husband having a heart attack or having some catastrophic event in any way harm you? Regardless of the situation we'd pay for it- it has no effect on you. The fact is- it should be a choice, not a tax. Government officials love making us pay and taxing us for 'what's good for us.' I'd rather make that decision.

You're the one who decided to post on the topic, don't get all huffy when someone wants to discuss things.

And yes, if I was a creditor or a taxpayer in your state, hell as a taxpayer in the US, it does effect me when people make irresponsible choices that the government has to bail them out of.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I wouldn't have to declare bankruptcy. So take that out of the equation. Now how am I hurting anyone?

You have multiple millions of dollars sitting in your rainy day fund?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I don't think what he said is unreasonable, except that I think the US is still up there in the best countries in the world. However, there are a lot of people who spout off about liberty and freedom and likely couldn't survive a week without the services the government provides.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

The question should really be- how is this your business? Would my husband having a heart attack or having some catastrophic event in any way harm you? Regardless of the situation we'd pay for it- it has no effect on you. The fact is- it should be a choice, not a tax. Government officials love making us pay and taxing us for 'what's good for us.' I'd rather make that decision.

Because you and your husband sound like outliers, and the goal of government should be to protect the collective interests of the people and provide them with fundamental necessities. It's the same reason people who don't have kids still contribute taxes to public education.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

I wouldn't have to declare bankruptcy. So take that out of the equation. Now how am I hurting anyone?

If a person legitamately has access to 500k to 1 million dollars to pay for unforseen medical expenses then I would agree that they are not hurting anyone and it would be reasonable for them not to be forced to carry health insurance. But at that point we are talking about a small % of the population so in general the law makes sense.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by GGG

If a person legitamately has access to 500k to 1 million dollars to pay for unforseen medical expenses then I would agree that they are not hurting anyone and it would be reasonable for them not to be forced to carry health insurance. But at that point we are talking about a small % of the population so in general the law makes sense.

Anyone who has access to that kind of cash, and doesn't have health insurance is a ######.

You could sit down 100 millionaires in the US, and I would bet 100 of them carry top level health coverage. Rich people, typically are very smart at managing risk. And that is what makes this country so wonderful. You do not have to be a millionaire to have that level of coverage.