IF Obamacare worked, would you support it?

IF the Affordable Care act, with its exchanges, its requirements to cover conditions could be seen to work in the sense of lower or roughly equal premiums and at least a similar amount of healthcare provision.........

Would you be in support of it?

Or do you have a deeper objection? If so please explain.

 

I am a White Male, even if it worked, and it won't, there are so many layers of race and gender bias and preferences written into the Reconciliation Acts of the Affordable Care Act that I and my Sons, and my Grandson....

All of the White Men of America would be totally disenfranchised not just for health care, but in many ways, far more importantly, for higher education, that it would eventually result in a Civil WAR.

Obama-Care is a Racial Preference Wolf in Sheep's Clothing and will not endure, but its foundation is one of blatant Racism!

At the very least, all of the Racial Preferences in the act will have to be struck down if it is to endure.

-

 

Thats fascinating, do you think these race and gender biases are enough of a problem for you to scrap the thing and go back to the situation before it or are the main positive features of the act like coverage for all still enough for you to want to keep it?

And do you think its reasonable and credible to make links to education and civil war or is that a bit much?

 

There are very few positive features to it at all. What there is would not out weigh the negatives even if the Racial Preferences hadn't been added.

Yes, the Racial Preferences are bad enough to warrant scrapping the whole thing, in fact they are bad enough to warrant going to WAR to eliminate them.

The Racial Preferences in the act are nothing less than a complete take over of the funding for all higher education, and putting it under the control of an un-elected to be yet defined "racial diversity" board which has been given the specific direction that:

1] There can can be too many whites getting education, but there cannot be too few

2] There can be too few Black ( and other Designated Minorities ) getting education, but there cannot be too many

The way the law is written, it specifically prohibits ever using the law or the board to protect the educational rights of Whites.

The act will go, one way or another!

-

 

If a bull frog had wings would it fly like a jet fighter or a misquito? Where did you get the idea changed much of anything other than the number of bureaucrats standing between you and your doctor which it increased. It took the system we already had which is up to it's neck in bean counters and bureaucrats and added more of the same. On top of that it has almost certainly made access to health care more difficult for seniors.

 

If the government wrote legislation that subsidized fuel costs for SUV drivers ... would you support that legislation?

Writing legislation that allows people who are known to incur a greater cost in healthcare services (pre-existing conditions) ... so that someone else bears the burden of their increased cost (because someone is still paying for their treatment) ... would be the same as subsidize fuel costs for SUV drivers (because they use more resources just like the sick use more in healthcare ... and we only want things to be fair).

Some people will probably think that I am wrong comparing healthcare to fuel costs.
If you think because it is healthcare, it is okay to make everyone share the burden of your illness ... then I think that is just as wrong.

Some people eat a better diet, exercise, don't smoke and generally take better care of themselves.
They shouldn't have to subsidize the unhealthy through higher insurance premiums ... and insurance companies should be able to offer healthy people lower rates ... because they incur less costs.

 

Interesting, so these downsides are more important than the result of healthcare for all Americans?

 

No..........

 

my primary objection to Obamacare isn't that it wouldn't achieve it's main goal (that's a secondary objection). My primary objection is that it's an overreach of federal power that takes free choice away from the individual for the sake of protecting the (same) individual. As far as I can see, it's along the same lines as the government telling you you can't use substance x (x being any drug, soda size, etc.) because it's not good for you.

 

Indeed I would support SUV subisidies if there were wider reasons to do so. Indeed the west has traditionally supported many industries and products for wider national reasons.

Some people are indeed naturally healthier and fitter than others, some are fated to have less diseases than others. While there are evidenced risk factors there is little hard evidence to tell the difference between the two.

I think your trying to say that you fundamentally disagree with providing healthcare for all Americans as you view those without it as being without because they deserve to be. That seems rather immoral.

I take your point on Insurance offering lower premiums to those with less risk. Still it would mean those with higher risks becoming bankrupt through no fault of their own.

 

Interesting, why do you say that?

 

Because the government has no business forcing citizens to buy insurance or pay a fine, simply for being alive. And before you ask, I also see social security and many other federal confiscations to be completely unconstitutional, and I don't care what the supreme court has ruled and in regards to Obamacare specifically, Justice Roberts is a piece of human garbage who made a political decision.

 

Thats interesting, do you see yourself as equally qualified to interpret the laws derived from the constitution as the supreme court? Moreover do you think other people should take note of your opinion equally as others such as Justice Roberts?

 

Yes and yes. Do you realize the only qualification for being a supreme court justice is to be alive?

 

Hmmm but does this mean you would also oppose a state based system of universal coverage?

Is this about having to help other people or is it about being made to do anything even if its to help yourself?

 

This is a frequent leftist talking tactic. Speak as if everything is an all or nothing proposition. Everyone admitted that something needed to be done about health care, but passing a ridiculously lengthy law that the people who voted for didn't even read before the vote hardly seems sane much less ideal.

Now we are finding that there are numerous hidden taxes throughout and even the Health and Human Services Secretary questions whether it can even be implemented.

It is a fiasco and is doomed to fail. Maybe the next try at correcting the problems will actually include everyone having some skin in the game. The phsyicians, the hospitals, big Pharma. None of these groups, who just so happen to have huge well funded lobbies, were asked to sacrifice ANYTHING in Oblundercare.

 

Indeed, and yet the only people for some many years to be appointed are legally qualified people.

Is there an underlying fundamental opposition to helping others in your position?

 

So true. Insurance is supposed to match risk to premiums and work off the law of large numbers. When you force High risk people into the system where lower risk people are also paying the same premiums, you step outside the realm of insurance.


Are there incentives (financial) for people who maintain a healthy weight, excercise regulary in Obamacare? If so, I haven't heard anyone mention them. Isn't incentivization the way to effect positive change? Oh wait, the program was built by socialists, they don't beleive in logic and reason.

 

Yes yes hidden taxes etc, lengthy complicated legislation. Not really very important though are these complaints?

Lets test this, if there were no taxes and the legisation was minimal in length would you support it then?

What sacrifices would you like big pharma and doctors to make? Sounds good to me as a leftist..

 

Legally qualified only means understanding basic principles of the study of law, but even that is not necessary as all SC Justices have many trained lawyers working under them to properly write briefs and research dockets. The only thing one needs to be a Sc Justice is an understanding of The Constitution and a functioning brain. All opinions are OPINIONS, and it doesn't matter what previous Supreme Courts have ruled on anything.

I don't follow your second query.

 

If by "Providing Healthcare for All Americans" ... You mean making everybody pay for someone else's healthcare ... then I can say that is pretty much what I said.
I didn't say anything about what anyone deserved ... Except that healthy people deserve the ability to pay less, because they use less.

And Listen to yourself ... It damn sure isn't the responsibility of others to jeopardize their financial security, to pay for healthcare they neither received or had the need for ... through no fault of their own.
You didn't properly identify who exactly doesn't have any fault in the incurred costs.

You want people who are healthy and take care of themselves to bear the burden of people who aren't or don't.
I know people who hate it when others say it ... but I also know there is a public hospital near here that will treat anyone for anything, regardless of whether or not they can pay.
There are hospitals run by the government or universities all over the place that accept anyone under any condition ... So availability of healthcare is not a question.

If people want private healthcare in private hospitals instead of the government healthcare options already available ... then that is a private service you have to pay for.
If people don't want to use the government free hospital ... then that speaks volumes to what they think about the service the government provides.
That is an excellent reason to keep the government as far away from my healthcare as possible.

 

Indeed we do step outsiide the realm of insurance, this agenda was never to keep to the wants and needs of the insurance industry.

There are little such health incentives ive heard of, however there is little evidence that financial incentives work in health. An alcoholic for example will happily spend every single penny he has for a drink. So no, inurance premiums are not a way to affect positive change.

 

Do you have an understanding of the consitution? How can I be sure of that if you havent even practiced law?

Indeed the SC provides an opinion, that opinion is the final arbiter of disputes of law, do you respect the SC's authority to be that arbiter?

 

I believe I have as good an understanding of the Constitution as any SC Justice. Why do I need to practice law to understand the words that were written by our founders? That's illogical.

I respect the SC as a branch our government, but that does not mean I respect all their opinions. We are a country governed by the rule of law, not of man, so the SC has it's place and must be respected as one cog in the wheel. However, that does not mean I have to respect those who sit on the court, any more than I have to respect our president or members of congress simply because their asses fill the seats.

Interesting convo but I have to run now. Thanks for sparking some thought.

 

Are you having difficulty reading? I already answered this. It denies me personal freedom and choice. That's not code, that's clear english.