Health Care Passes the US House!

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Who am I to say what they would do?

So you don't know? Well then you just corrected me only to back out when further questioned. I can see you put a lot of thought into this argument.

I'm not guessing that you're making things up as you go along. It's a conclusion arrived by the fact that you are unable to maintain consistency when your claims are questioned.

This entire thread seems to be a demonstration of what a giant shit would look like in text form. Majority of it belonging to Lord T Hawkeye.

If you want to make the point that the initiation of violence is both neccessary and moral for the purposes of providing healthcare, then man up and make your case but don't go denying that this is the stance you are defending.

I have vids on both the economic and moral arguments I have against healthcare.

Economic:
Moral:

Now, if you want to disagree with any points made in the vids, feel free but DO NOT make up your own strawman arguments because I will demand you quote specifically where I made such a statement.

And I'm just going to keep on asking this question: What happens to all the people dependent on socialized healthcare and other government welfare programs when the state finally runs out of money? If you cannot answer this question, you have NO business saying I'm wrong and you're right.

[Soccermom]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

And I'm just going to keep on asking this question: What happens to all the people dependent on socialized healthcare and other government welfare programs when the state finally runs out of money? If you cannot answer this question, you have NO business saying I'm wrong and you're right.

What a silly question LTH! We can't run out of money! All we have to do is print more! The deficit is simply an abstract number not worth worrying about. Plus, we have our buddies, the Chinese. They'll keep loaning us money to the end of time!

And if all else fails, we can raise the taxes on those peasants again, and the insurance companies, which trickles down to double hose the peasants. Surely if we parade and exploit children whose parents died "because they didn't have our healthcare!" we can cow the populace into submission!

[LOD]

Originally Posted by Soccermom

What a silly question LTH! We can't run out of money! All we have to do is print more! The deficit is simply an abstract number not worth worrying about. Plus, we have our buddies, the Chinese. They'll keep loaning us money to the end of time!

And if all else fails, we can raise the taxes on those peasants again, and the insurance companies, which trickles down to double hose the peasants. Surely if we parade and exploit children whose parents died "because they didn't have our healthcare!" we can cow the populace into submission!

The only thing you left out is.. "Let them eat cake!"

[Soccermom]

Originally Posted by liveordie83

The only thing you left out is.. "Let them eat cake!"

Ah yes, "Let them eat cake!"


Wait a minute, that's not what I wanted to say! Quit distracting me!

[LOD]

Really I think that people are focusing on all the bad they think will come from this bill. What about the insurance companies not being able to deny coverage?

Just think of all the money saved in our country now that people won't have to hire a lawyer just to receive a service they have been paying for since they signed up for the plan. That goes on both sides too. IF insurance companies didn't have to waste their money on lawyers too they would be able to post more profits.

[Fluoride_Sting]

Originally Posted by monkat

So why would you take a doctor's word for it over say, a lawyer's or financial guru's opinion?

Because from what I've heard so far about this bill it that it seems it will end up infringing upon the doctors ability to treat the patients, along with the fact that they and their supporting and administrative staff usually deal with said lawyers and financial guru's much more often than you or me would.

Originally Posted by Drachen

Could you provide a link to back up this assertion?

No problem, here is one link to the Mayo Clinic blog: http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.o...ommittee-bill/
That particular article is a little old, but many of its newer posts continue where it left off.

I also saw an interview with the Mayo Clinics president Dr. John Noseworthy not that long ago, but I have been unable to locate a copy of the video.

But as for the article you presented, I would take what it says with a grain of salt, only recently has the Mayo Clinic changed their official stance on the bill, but they changed it to a neutral stance instead of the positive one that the article suggests.
This particular post in the blog I linked above explains this: http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.o...m-legislation/

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Fluoride_Sting

No problem, here is one link to the Mayo Clinic blog: http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.o...ommittee-bill/
That particular article is a little old, but many of its newer posts continue where it left off.

I also saw an interview with the Mayo Clinics president Dr. John Noseworthy not that long ago, but I have been unable to locate a copy of the video.

But as for the article you presented, I would take what it says with a grain of salt, only recently has the Mayo Clinic changed their official stance on the bill, but they changed it to a neutral stance instead of the positive one that the article suggests.
This particular post in the blog I linked above explains this: http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.o...m-legislation/

Thanks for the links. The first link wasn't really something that would back up the assertion that it "opposed it every step of the way". The first link complained about Congress not using its Medicare leverage to reform the system. A brief scan of the other articles on the blog are basically "there are some good provisions in this bill, it's not enough and more reform needs to occur". The last blog post you linked to and the article I linked to said much the same thing in almost those words. The only thing I see them actively opposing is the Medicare buy-in that never made it into the final bill.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by liveordie83

Really I think that people are focusing on all the bad they think will come from this bill. What about the insurance companies not being able to deny coverage?

That's not a good thing as I explained in grave detail. It's completely unsustainable and demands the impossible from the insurance companies. With that in place, people have ZERO reason to buy insurance while they're healthy. There will be no money in the risk pool for anyone to tap into. There's only two possible outcomes, either the government repeals it or every insurance company in America goes bankrupt.

I'm not focusing on the bad, I'm pointing out that this bill is outright impossible to comply with. The insurance companies couldn't comply with it even if they wanted to.

[LOD]

Then maybe they should start paying lower prices for the medical service.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

That's not a good thing as I explained in grave detail. It's completely unsustainable and demands the impossible from the insurance companies. With that in place, people have ZERO reason to buy insurance while they're healthy. There will be no money in the risk pool for anyone to tap into. There's only two possible outcomes, either the government repeals it or every insurance company in America goes bankrupt.

I'm not focusing on the bad, I'm pointing out that this bill is outright impossible to comply with. The insurance companies couldn't comply with it even if they wanted to.

Take a trip to the Netherlands. It's a universal system with only private companies. It works quite well. Insurance is mandated and everyone must have a policy with a certain level of coverage. People who are unable to pay get subsidies and you can get a better than baseline policy if you want by paying more. Insurers are given incentives to cover high risk patients. It's certainly got it's problems, but it's nowhere the mess that the US system is. It's considered to be one of the best in the world. The Swiss system is similar. The scenario you laid out is pure libertarian fantasy.

Before you mention rationing, know that every system is rationed. The Dutch system is rationed primarily on need while the American system is primarily on ability and willingness for your provider to pay.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

So you don't know? Well then you just corrected me only to back out when further questioned. I can see you put a lot of thought into this argument.

I'm not guessing that you're making things up as you go along. It's a conclusion arrived by the fact that you are unable to maintain consistency when your claims are questioned.

I guess your childish trap worked where you ask a question completely unrelated to the real argument being made, then when the respondent says "I can't answer that because it's unrelated and a bad question" you can cry "Haha! Trap sprung! You don't know anything!" Congratulations! I fell for it, because I was hoping I could approach this like an adult. You don't have the confidence in your opinion to argue it honestly; preferring to ignore an entire post save one cherry-picked sentence, then spin it to mean something in now way related to overall point. You'd rather smear me than actually investigate what the AMA is, what it does, what bodies do have the capacity to license physicians (state boards), check if there are other organization like the AMA, or even read your own linked article to see that it does not say that they have a licensure monopoly as much as that they have influence in licensing standards through lobbying. If you had, you'd realize I was earnestly noting a problem, and even offering corrections because I'm more interested in moving toward truth than winning an argument.

I suppose this is where your whining of "repeating a point and thinking he wins" come into play. You have not addressed the clarification that AMA is not a monopoly on licensure or even the services it ACTUALLY provides, therefore that remains a very big problem in you previous claim. That's called carrying over an argument. If you don't refute an argument, it still remains a unrefuted argument and is reasonable for me to note the lack of refutation. It's a valid point, but of course you don't like valid points that, however truthful or honest, conflict with your worldview. Hence you dismiss them as if they never happened with no rational reason, then vehemently defame you newly revealed "opponent."

With this level of dishonesty and jackassery, approaching what could be called threadshitting, over an honest correction, it's no small wonder I would rather avoid dedicating even more time to debating a blabbering, scheming man-child over real issues. While I refuse to suggest that all your arguments are invalid, it still stands that you are worthless, lying intellectual bully and noone should really listen to you or debate you as nothing worthwhile can come of it.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Drachen

Take a trip to the Netherlands. It's a universal system with only private companies. It works quite well. Insurance is mandated and everyone must have a policy with a certain level of coverage.

They force you to buy insurance regardless of your own wishes under threats of violence? Quite the philanthropists you've got running the show...

People who are unable to pay get subsidies and you can get a better than baseline policy if you want by paying more. Insurers are given incentives to cover high risk patients. It's certainly got it's problems, but it's nowhere the mess that the US system is. It's considered to be one of the best in the world. The Swiss system is similar.

"Best game in town" fallacy

"While it's not perfect, it's the best game in town!"

Even if you could prove that it's the best in the world beyond any reasonable doubt (which would be VERY difficult to do), that's still not an argument against alternate ideas which may be better. If we went by that logic, we'd never invent anything new.

Before you mention rationing, know that every system is rationed.

Appeal to popularity

Yes, every system is rationed but it wasn't always that way. Remember, the justification behind the AMA's state granted monopoly was that healthcare in the US was TOO cheap and TOO available. This is not "libertarian fantasy" as you put it. This is real, historical fact. If you want to claim that violent monopolies are a better way to provide healthcare, you have to explain why mutual aid socities worked so well before you can even BEGIN to make your point.