And here come the taxes - Obamacare Fees

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So you are saying the free market couldn't take care of the poor?

In the early 1900's this country was relatively quite poor. The economy was agricultural based. Free market or 100% state run, no matter, it was what it was and that was not going change no matter who ran it. It's technological advances that have created wealth and a better standard of living and that didn't kick in til much later.

Fern
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
In the early 1900's this country was relatively quite poor. The economy was agricultural based. Free market or 100% state run, no matter, it was what it was and that was not going change no matter who ran it. It's technological advances that have created wealth and a better standard of living and that didn't kick in til much later.

Fern

So if we had free market now, the poor would magically have health coverage?
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
If free market health care was such a success, why was Medicare created?
Which man woman or child should get no health care?
Who signed the legislation that forced hospitals to treat all comers?
Do you really want to make health insurance interstate commerce instead of something regulated at the state level?

Medicare was created so the government could pay for the healthcare of those who couldnt afford it themselves. The same reason we have hundreds of billions spent on other social net programs, ultimately a large portion of people cant take care of themselves.

Who shouldnt get it? Those who cant afford it, simple enough. Same as with a BMW or beachfront property.

Who signed the legislation? What difference does it make? EMTALA was passed forcing hospitals to take any and all people who show up at the door. A cost passed directly on to those of us who can afford out coverage....ie...legislation passed which implemented wealth transfer.

Interstate commerce would allow better rates at a minimum. More importantly its a great baby step in resolving healthcare issues, rather than going full retard with "We gotta pass it to see whats in it" ACA.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
Medicare was created so the government could pay for the healthcare of those who couldnt afford it themselves. The same reason we have hundreds of billions spent on other social net programs, ultimately a large portion of people cant take care of themselves.
But why were these social programs necessary in the first place if free markets were taking care of these problems?
Who shouldnt get it? Those who cant afford it, simple enough. Same as with a BMW or beachfront property.
So healthcare under free markets is a luxury like a BMW or beachfront property? Do tell us more.
Who signed the legislation? What difference does it make? EMTALA was passed forcing hospitals to take any and all people who show up at the door. A cost passed directly on to those of us who can afford out coverage....ie...legislation passed which implemented wealth transfer.
Clearly whoever signed it into law didn't believe health care was like a BMW.
Must have been a commie lib.
Interstate commerce would allow better rates at a minimum. More importantly its a great baby step in resolving healthcare issues, rather than going full retard with "We gotta pass it to see whats in it" ACA.
Who regulates interstate commerce?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Medicare was created so the government could pay for the healthcare of those who couldnt afford it themselves. The same reason we have hundreds of billions spent on other social net programs, ultimately a large portion of people cant take care of themselves.

Who shouldnt get it? Those who cant afford it, simple enough. Same as with a BMW or beachfront property.

Who signed the legislation? What difference does it make? EMTALA was passed forcing hospitals to take any and all people who show up at the door. A cost passed directly on to those of us who can afford out coverage....ie...legislation passed which implemented wealth transfer.

Interstate commerce would allow better rates at a minimum. More importantly its a great baby step in resolving healthcare issues, rather than going full retard with "We gotta pass it to see whats in it" ACA.

It's refreshing to see the values of Compassionate Conservatism in all their glory. Or, "I got mine. Screw you."

I suppose they'll need to do damage estimates at the emergency room to see if totaling your carcass is cheaper than repairs. Whatever happens, keep that insurance card with you, always. Like if you get mugged & stabbed, for example.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
Oh weird I missed the part in the Constitution detailing that this was and must forever be a purely 'capitalist' country.

You need to get yourself an "unskewed" version of the Constitution from your local tea party ASAP. No general welfare clause for you.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Show me where it guarantees a House, car, job, fat bank account and free healthcare.
It doesn't (so it's a good thing no one is claiming it does).

My point is that it's a vapid argument to claim that America 'just is' a capitalist country, as if that's an a priori obvious and good thing. America has always used mixes of social organization that you could today call capitalism or socialism (though the terms would be anachronisms, having changed meaning in important ways lots of times). Historically, we've had socialized libraries, school, police, military, post office; private health care, factories, etc. What 'the Founders' believed the country should be for themselves is irrelevant to how we should govern ourselves today. If today we think more socialism can be helpful, it's stupid to argue that America is a 'capitalist' country and thus it must always be so. We are and always have been a country where we govern ourselves with some capitalism, some socialism, and some policies that don't fit either model.

Socialism isn't the enemy any more than capitalism is the enemy. They're ways of organizing things, both of which we use all the time, both of which are sliding scales rather than binary options, both of which can be poorly implemented to disastrous consequences.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
It doesn't (so it's a good thing no one is claiming it does).

My point is that it's a vapid argument to claim that America 'just is' a capitalist country, as if that's an a priori obvious and good thing. America has always used mixes of social organization that you could today call capitalism or socialism (though the terms would be anachronisms, having changed meaning in important ways lots of times). Historically, we've had socialized libraries, school, police, military, post office; private health care, factories, etc. What 'the Founders' believed the country should be for themselves is irrelevant to how we should govern ourselves today. If today we think more socialism can be helpful, it's stupid to argue that America is a 'capitalist' country and thus it must always be so. We are and always have been a country where we govern ourselves with some capitalism, some socialism, and some policies that don't fit either model.

Socialism isn't the enemy any more than capitalism is the enemy. They're ways of organizing things, both of which we use all the time, both of which are sliding scales rather than binary options, both of which can be poorly implemented to disastrous consequences.

Oh but some people are claiming it does.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
It's refreshing to see the values of Compassionate Conservatism in all their glory. Or, "I got mine. Screw you."

I suppose they'll need to do damage estimates at the emergency room to see if totaling your carcass is cheaper than repairs. Whatever happens, keep that insurance card with you, always. Like if you get mugged & stabbed, for example.

Its interesting to see emotions applied to accounting and numbers. I suppose your next hat trick will be to say the Federal budget should be created base on feelgood rather than numbers right? Its "feels good" to spend money on the poor so lets spend more. It "feels good" to end money overseas, let do more of that! Facts and accounting be damned, who needs math and science when we have....FEEL GOOD!

heh. Indeed.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
But why were these social programs necessary in the first place if free markets were taking care of these problems?

So healthcare under free markets is a luxury like a BMW or beachfront property? Do tell us more.

Clearly whoever signed it into law didn't believe health care was like a BMW.
Must have been a commie lib.

Who regulates interstate commerce?

You are simply repeating questions I've already answered.

The free market was never intended to "take care of" everyone. You are trying to say that every single person should be able to walk into the hospital and be treated, and since the free market didnt allow for that then it failed. The fact is free market doesnt mean everyone gets everything.

The free market was doing just fine in offering healthcare. The fact some couldnt afford it isnt a problem of the free market, not by any means.
 

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,230
4
81
It doesn't (so it's a good thing no one is claiming it does).

My point is that it's a vapid argument to claim that America 'just is' a capitalist country, as if that's an a priori obvious and good thing. America has always used mixes of social organization that you could today call capitalism or socialism (though the terms would be anachronisms, having changed meaning in important ways lots of times). Historically, we've had socialized libraries, school, police, military, post office; private health care, factories, etc. What 'the Founders' believed the country should be for themselves is irrelevant to how we should govern ourselves today. If today we think more socialism can be helpful, it's stupid to argue that America is a 'capitalist' country and thus it must always be so. We are and always have been a country where we govern ourselves with some capitalism, some socialism, and some policies that don't fit either model.

Socialism isn't the enemy any more than capitalism is the enemy. They're ways of organizing things, both of which we use all the time, both of which are sliding scales rather than binary options, both of which can be poorly implemented to disastrous consequences.
Socialism naturally relies more on the government. Problem is I don't trust the government to properly implement a strong healthcare system without causing undue damage in the process.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
Socialism naturally relies more on the government. Problem is I don't trust the government to properly implement a strong healthcare system without causing undue damage in the process.

Why do you think government has been able to successfully do so in basically every other industrialized nation on earth, but don't think our government could do it here? Are we uniquely incompetent and helpless in America?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
You are simply repeating questions I've already answered.

The free market was never intended to "take care of" everyone. You are trying to say that every single person should be able to walk into the hospital and be treated, and since the free market didnt allow for that then it failed. The fact is free market doesnt mean everyone gets everything.

The free market was doing just fine in offering healthcare. The fact some couldnt afford it isnt a problem of the free market, not by any means.

It's not a problem of the free market, it's a problem for our country. The free market is simply a tool, like a knife. Some things it is enormously useful for, like a knife is for cutting your dinner. Sometimes it can be harmful, like when someone uses a knife to mug you.

The goal of a national health care system is (broadly) to provide the best health care possible to the most people possible in the most efficient manner possible. The free market was not very successful at doing that due to all the screwed up incentives inherent in the health care marketplace. Therefore, it's a bad solution to our nation's health care needs.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
It's not a problem of the free market, it's a problem for our country. The free market is simply a tool, like a knife. Some things it is enormously useful for, like a knife is for cutting your dinner. Sometimes it can be harmful, like when someone uses a knife to mug you.

The goal of a national health care system is (broadly) to provide the best health care possible to the most people possible in the most efficient manner possible. The free market was not very successful at doing that due to all the screwed up incentives inherent in the health care marketplace. Therefore, it's a bad solution to our nation's health care needs.

The goals and promises of the ACA have been largely modified from the original legislation passed by one party. Why is our government at risk for screwing this up further? Does one really need to ask this question?
No theories here, no opinions, the progress to date speaks for itself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
The goals and promises of the ACA have been largely modified from the original legislation passed by one party. Why is our government at risk for screwing this up further? Does one really need to ask this question?
No theories here, no opinions, the progress to date speaks for itself.

What goals and promises do you think have been modified from the original legislation? Be specific and tell me how you think how the legislation has been altered through regulation or implementation.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
What goals and promises do you think have been modified from the original legislation? Be specific and tell me how you think how the legislation has been altered through regulation or implementation.

I'm not going down this road....watch the news, look at the polls of which the majority of Americans are opposed or at least want a delay of this POS legislation. That square peg is going to fit into the circular hole no mater how many adjustments and delays are applied to this law in a potentially unconstitutional manner.

Again, its our government telling us whats best for us like it or not. I suppose I'm still a freeloader for being counted as one of those Americans who aren't buying it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
I'm not going down this road....watch the news, look at the polls of which the majority of Americans are opposed or at least want a delay of this POS legislation. That square peg is going to fit into the circular hole no mater how many adjustments and delays are applied to this law.

Again, its our government telling us whats best for us like it or not.

You aren't going down that road because you can't back it up.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
You aren't going down that road because you can't back it up.

Just typical....and expected. It's apparently not my sole opinion based on the majority of those polled. I'm not writing a paper for you....look it up yourself. I'm not going down that road because I'm not playing the game.

You explain to me just how successful the law has been to date and why it's just so damn popular because that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
Just typical....and expected. It's apparently not my sole opinion based on the majority of those polled. I'm not writing a paper for you....look it up yourself. I'm not going down that road because I'm not playing the game.

You explain to me just how successful the law has been to date and why it's just so damn popular because that doesn't seem to be the case.

Saying 'people think x' is not the same as 'x is true'. You said something, I just asked for some specifics. If aspects of the bill have been changed from the initial legislation it should be easy to point them out, as legislation is written down.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Its interesting to see emotions applied to accounting and numbers. I suppose your next hat trick will be to say the Federal budget should be created base on feelgood rather than numbers right? Its "feels good" to spend money on the poor so lets spend more. It "feels good" to end money overseas, let do more of that! Facts and accounting be damned, who needs math and science when we have....FEEL GOOD!

heh. Indeed.

Going for the math is a bad mistake. Math says that other first world countries provide universal care for a lot less than we spend for less while often having better overall outcomes.

So much for the whole concept of markets & healthcare.

Feelgood? Apparently you get a lot of it ranting the way you do.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Saying 'people think x' is not the same as 'x is true'. You said something, I just asked for some specifics. If aspects of the bill have been changed from the initial legislation it should be easy to point them out, as legislation is written down.

Cripes sake....why? Why in God's name do I have to do research and publish a paper to have a discussion all to satisfy your whim? I realize you're a statistician by trade but do we all have to operate and think this way? What I'm stating is not my sole opinion and things aren't trending too well for the law. It's common sense and another example of big government telling people in this country what's best for them whether they want it or not.

Here from various sources:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...its-record-highs-support-crashes-to-new-lows/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...care-approval-drops-to-record-low-in-cnn-poll
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...heath-care-law-support-drops-to-all-time-low/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
Cripes sake....why? Why in God's name do I have to do research and publish a paper to have a discussion all to satisfy your whim? I realize you're a statistician by trade but do we all have to operate and think this way? What I'm stating is not my sole opinion and things aren't trending too well for the law. It's common sense and another example of big government telling people in this country what's best for them whether they want it or not.

Here from various sources:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...its-record-highs-support-crashes-to-new-lows/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...care-approval-drops-to-record-low-in-cnn-poll
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...heath-care-law-support-drops-to-all-time-low/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Things are trending fine for the law. At this point it is un-repealable.

Showing polls that say people don't like the law is not what I'm asking for. Just tell me what about the legislation has changed!
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Things are trending fine for the law. At this point it is un-repealable.

Showing polls that say people don't like the law is not what I'm asking for. Just tell me what about the legislation has changed!

So the people's voice isn't important....got it. Your definition of being fine is different than most.

He's going to keep adjusting and extending whatever the consequence to see his presidential legacy survive. Never mind if it's a turd.

From Nov....there have been more "adjustments" since. Mass confusion and representative of the efficiency of our huge government.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...e-changes-grace-marie-turner-tyler-hartsfield
http://www.galen.org/topics/at-least-27-significant-changes-already-have-been-made-to-obamacare/
 
Last edited: