King/ Dictator Obama strikes again. Rewrites Obamacare

[werepossum]

Well if that's the case I'm sure you will be able to point to a nonpartisan source making that argument. What's the holdup?

I can only assume that you're wading through the reams of sources making such a claim and just trying to pick which one is your favorite. It couldn't be that you're just not defining the word correctly, right?

No, I am exercising my judgment in not debating fundamentally dishonest people. I gave you a non-partisan source for the definition; you may choose to not believe it as you wish.

How does this statement not therefore mean every private industry in the United States has already in fact been nationalized?

Quick, name me any other industry for which the federal government mandates a maximum gross profit and mandatory freebies. For the former, this happens only on specific cost-plus contracts or on exploitation of resources which have been nationalized. For the latter, um . . .

Imagine if in regulating the steel industry the federal government mandated that since kids need bicycles, steel companies must furnish their customers' kids with free bicycles. Imagine if agribusinesses had to provide their customers with free beets. Obamacare goes far beyond regulation.

 

[werepossum]

There is no accepted definition of the amount of "degrees" before government regulation becomes government nationalization. That was my point. You are of course free to cite where the argument has been settled on this, though, as certainly healthcare cannot possibly be considered nationalized based on the traditional definition economists and public policy analysts use. That's just a fact.

Except having actual government employees is exactly the type of reality that probably most precisely characterizes nationalization. You've (inadvertently I imagine) dismissed the single most defining characteristic of nationalized industries.

And telecoms are regulated to the hilt, are you kidding?

Then by your definition, the federal government could control quite literally every facet of an industry, make every decision and set every price, and yet would still be simply regulating it rather than controlling it as long as the employees were not federal employees.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I am exercising my judgment in not debating fundamentally dishonest people. I gave you a non-partisan source for the definition; you may choose to not believe it as you wish.

So you quoted a definition you didn't understand and then thought it proved your point. lol.

As for your decision to call someone else dishonest, you might want to attend that beam in your eye.

Quick, name me any other industry for which the federal government mandates a maximum gross profit and mandatory freebies. For the former, this happens only on specific cost-plus contracts or on exploitation of resources which have been nationalized. For the latter, um . . .

Imagine if in regulating the steel industry the federal government mandated that since kids need bicycles, steel companies must furnish their customers' kids with free bicycles. Imagine if agribusinesses had to provide their customers with free beets. Obamacare goes far beyond regulation.

The ACA does not require the health insurance industry to furnish people with free health insurance.

 

[werepossum]

So you quoted a definition you didn't understand and then thought it proved your point. lol.

As for your decision to call someone else dishonest, you might want to attend that beam in your eye.

The ACA does not require the health insurance industry to furnish people with free health insurance.

LOL It must be SOOO trying for you to live in a world where so many people are so much less intelligent and just simply don't understand, well, everything. Truly, you deserve freebies just for carrying around your giant head for the benefit of the rest of us unwashed masses.

True, the ACA does not require the health insurance industry to furnish people with free health insurance. However, the ACA DOES require the health insurance industry to furnish its customers with free services. But then, you know that. You just aren't being honest.

 

[HumblePie]

And telecoms are regulated to the hilt, are you kidding?

Telecoms can refuse customers. They can charge what they like, most of the time, and venture into business areas where they want. How they venture in is regulated. How they do their privacy is regulated. How they provide content is regulated to a point. Meaning they can run wires in certain places and in certain ways, but they don't have federal employees telling them exactly where every wire must be ran to and from. Every industry has regulations to some degree.

The argument werepossum is basically saying is the amount of regulations on insurance may as well be akin to nationalized. Insurance has no say so on the customers they are allowed to accept, the product they are allowed to sell, and the price they are allowed to sell it for anymore. Customers are only now allowed to choose flavor A from flavor B when it comes to choosing healthcare but they most choose healthcare.

The only thing lacking from a "nationalized" health insurance industry is federal employees staffing everything.

Oh and for shits and giggles. The BANKING industry is nationalized. Or are you going to deny that? Yet the banking industry is not completely staffed by federal employees either. They are just regulated to the point of just about every facet of their business has a government regulation they must follow or answer to. Which is really no different than the current health insurance industry.

 

[HumblePie]

Then by your definition, the federal government could control quite literally every facet of an industry, make every decision and set every price, and yet would still be simply regulating it rather than controlling it as long as the employees were not federal employees.

Didn't you know our banking industry isn't nationalized? I mean just because every facet of a bank's operation has a government regulation regarding it doesn't mean it's nationalized according to First. I mean Compass, Chase, Wells Fargo... blah blah blah don't have federal employees as tellers! So it can't be nationalized.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL It must be SOOO trying for you to live in a world where so many people are so much less intelligent and just simply don't understand, well, everything. Truly, you deserve freebies just for carrying around your giant head for the benefit of the rest of us unwashed masses.

Now you're just lashing out like a child.

True, the ACA does not require the health insurance industry to furnish people with free health insurance. However, the ACA DOES require the health insurance industry to furnish its customers with free services. But then, you know that. You just aren't being honest.

If you think those services are free you're delusional. Their cost is simply folded into the overall premiums. Much in the same way that the ACA does not allow insurance companies to charge people extra for having cancer, it does not allow insurance companies to charge individuals extra for those services that you think are 'free'.

What this leads to is people in certain groups paying less than it actually costs to insure them and others paying more. If that's what you meant by 'free services', then... uhmm... okay. That's kind of the whole point of this thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't you know our banking industry isn't nationalized? I mean just because every facet of a bank's operation has a government regulation regarding it doesn't mean it's nationalized according to First. I mean Compass, Chase, Wells Fargo... blah blah blah don't have federal employees as tellers! So it can't be nationalized.

You think JP Morgan Chase is nationalized?

 

[werepossum]

Now you're just lashing out like a child.

If you think those services are free you're delusional. Their cost is simply folded into the overall premiums. Much in the same way that the ACA does not allow insurance companies to charge people extra for having cancer, it does not allow insurance companies to charge individuals extra for those services that you think are 'free'.

What this leads to is people in certain groups paying less than it actually costs to insure them and others paying more. If that's what you meant by 'free services', then... uhmm... okay. That's kind of the whole point of this thing.

Sorry, I was going for your patented brand of smug mental and moral superiority. But as with all people who aren't you or in lockstep with you, I fell short.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, I was going for your patented brand of smug mental and moral superiority. But as with all people who aren't you or in lockstep with you, I fell short.

You definitely did fall short. That was terrible. Regardless, you've resorted to childish lashing out.

As I said in another thread, you're kind of losing it.

 

[Matt1970]

You definitely did fall short. That was terrible. Regardless, you've resorted to childish lashing out.

As I said in another thread, you're kind of losing it.

Ok, where do you draw the line then? What do you define as Nationalized? And please give us some examples.

 

[Screech]

I have a strong impression some of you don't know what "Nationalized" means.....

pro tip: "the people" (read: government) control of business directly is Nationalization
Throwing money at businessmen is not nationalization....

edit holy typos galore

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, where do you draw the line then? What do you define as Nationalized? And please give us some examples.

When the government takes ownership or control of something.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were effectively nationalized back in 2008. The federal bailout of GM was at least a partial nationalization. There are all sorts of examples of nationalization throughout US history.

 

[Matt1970]

When the government takes ownership or control of something.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were effectively nationalized back in 2008. The federal bailout of GM was at least a partial nationalization. There are all sorts of examples of nationalization throughout US history.

There were a hell of a lot less regulation of GM when the Government nationalized them than the ACA has over the healthcare industry. Thanks for helping with the definition of Nationalization.

 

[RampantAndroid]

When the government takes ownership or control of something.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were effectively nationalized back in 2008. The federal bailout of GM was at least a partial nationalization. There are all sorts of examples of nationalization throughout US history.

Uh...no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_States

I somewhat agree with saying GM was nationalized, but not completely.

 

[fskimospy]

There were a hell of a lot less regulation of GM when the Government nationalized them than the ACA has over the healthcare industry. Thanks for helping with the definition of Nationalization.

That's because regulation is not nationalization, as we've already covered.

In the case of GM the government took a significant ownership stake in the company, which is why it was in my opinion at least a partial nationalization.

 

[fskimospy]

Uh...no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_States

I somewhat agree with saying GM was nationalized, but not completely.

The US government was put on the hook for all of Fannie and Freddie's debts and the government explicitly removed the leadership of those companies and replaced it with its own. The government then proceeded to conduct the affairs of the companies.

To me, that's nationalization. If the argument is that conservatorship is considered to be temporary while nationalization is permanent, I would say that in my opinion that's just a difference in how long something is nationalized, not a difference in whether it is or not.

 

[bradly1101]

Obamacare goes far beyond regulation.

I don't think it goes far enough. There should be no profit in healthcare. It makes the products and services subject to market forces. The more that is needed, the higher the prices will go. Which means with our aging society, prices are likely to keep going skyward. How is that logical?

Single payer, Medicare for all please. It costs about $100/mo. and covers 80% of services and supplies, 100% of some things.

The costs will only go down when profit is taken out of healthcare.

How we fare compared to other countries with more logical systems:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/health-care-costs-_n_3998425.html

 

[lotus503]

Telecoms can refuse customers. They can charge what they like, most of the time, and venture into business areas where they want. How they venture in is regulated. How they do their privacy is regulated. How they provide content is regulated to a point. Meaning they can run wires in certain places and in certain ways, but they don't have federal employees telling them exactly where every wire must be ran to and from. Every industry has regulations to some degree.

The argument werepossum is basically saying is the amount of regulations on insurance may as well be akin to nationalized. Insurance has no say so on the customers they are allowed to accept, the product they are allowed to sell, and the price they are allowed to sell it for anymore. Customers are only now allowed to choose flavor A from flavor B when it comes to choosing healthcare but they most choose healthcare.

The only thing lacking from a "nationalized" health insurance industry is federal employees staffing everything.

Oh and for shits and giggles. The BANKING industry is nationalized. Or are you going to deny that? Yet the banking industry is not completely staffed by federal employees either. They are just regulated to the point of just about every facet of their business has a government regulation they must follow or answer to. Which is really no different than the current health insurance industry.

to the bolded this is untrue, telecomm is regulated on what they can charge for basic phone service, telcomm must provide a low cost option for basic phone service to people who meet the guidelines.

In fact caller ID, call forwarding and those other features were an effort to create unregulated value where they coudl make money.

In most cases things determined to be needed by the population are more regulated than say things determined not necessary.

 

[First]

No, I am exercising my judgment in not debating fundamentally dishonest people. I gave you a non-partisan source for the definition; you may choose to not believe it as you wish.

That's a copout though, since MW doesn't prove your case at all. Your listed definition was already quite thoroughly defeated.

Quick, name me any other industry for which the federal government mandates a maximum gross profit and mandatory freebies.

Uh, the energy business, specifically the DWP and utility companies that must ask for permission to raise their rates. And it doesn't have to be federal; from CA to NY there are plenty of rent control and rent decontrol out there that mandates specific price levels and specific goodies be included. But it's not nationalization, it's just a form of government intrusion. They're not the same thing.

For the former, this happens only on specific cost-plus contracts or on exploitation of resources which have been nationalized. For the latter, um . . .

Imagine if in regulating the steel industry the federal government mandated that since kids need bicycles, steel companies must furnish their customers' kids with free bicycles. Imagine if agribusinesses had to provide their customers with free beets. Obamacare goes far beyond regulation.

Except, uh, no.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think it goes far enough. There should be no profit in healthcare. It makes the products and services subject to market forces. The more that is needed, the higher the prices will go. Which means with our aging society, prices are likely to keep going skyward. How is that logical?

Single payer, Medicare for all please. It costs about $100/mo. and covers 80% of services and supplies, 100% of some things.

The costs will only go down when profit is taken out of healthcare.

How we fare compared to other countries with more logical systems:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/health-care-costs-_n_3998425.html

Three issues here. First, the profit motive is an important efficiency factor. Companies and their employees are moved to be as efficient as possible because otherwise, the company loses out and the employees lose their jobs. Government employees have no such motivation. On the contrary, less efficiency simply means more employees which means more supervisory positions which means a higher chance of personally moving up.

Second, Medicare has been artificially lowered to pay below the cost of providing the services. That works by shifting some of the costs to those with actual insurance. Should be obvious that while this works while only a minority of Americans are on Medicare/Medicaid, putting everyone on Medicare/Medicaid would destroy our actual health care system as doctors and hospitals could not afford to stay in business. Talk to any doctor or medical office manager. This is why so many doctors and medical practices take no new Medicare/Medicaid patients, because those patients must be subsidized from their other patients.

Third, Medicare in particular is famous for most people on it having supplemental insurance to pay what Medicare does not. How does it make sense to take away good insurance from the 80% who have it (well, before Obamacare) and substitute shitty insurance which requires supplemental insurance?

 

[werepossum]

That's a copout though, since MW doesn't prove your case at all. Your listed definition was already quite thoroughly defeated.

Uh, the energy business, specifically the DWP and utility companies that must ask for permission to raise their rates. And it doesn't have to be federal; from CA to NY there are plenty of rent control and rent decontrol out there that mandates specific price levels and specific goodies be included. But it's not nationalization, it's just a form of government intrusion. They're not the same thing.

Except, uh, no.

Please feel free to contact Merriam-Webster and let them know their definition has been "quite thoroughly defeated."

 

[First]

Telecoms can refuse customers. They can charge what they like, most of the time, and venture into business areas where they want. How they venture in is regulated. How they do their privacy is regulated. How they provide content is regulated to a point. Meaning they can run wires in certain places and in certain ways, but they don't have federal employees telling them exactly where every wire must be ran to and from. Every industry has regulations to some degree.

Annnnd nothing you said here really proves your point that the telecom industry isn't highly regulated. It isn't regulated like finance, but it most certainly is tightly controlled in various respects, the most obvious being data privacy laws.

The argument werepossum is basically saying is the amount of regulations on insurance may as well be akin to nationalized. Insurance has no say so on the customers they are allowed to accept, the product they are allowed to sell, and the price they are allowed to sell it for anymore. Customers are only now allowed to choose flavor A from flavor B when it comes to choosing healthcare but they most choose healthcare.

Wrong, wrong annnnd wrong. ACA allows for you to discriminate based on whether you smoke or not, a giant and gaping exception to say the least. The only restriction ACA puts on what insurance companies can sell is skimpier coverage, not the breadth and the extent to which they can offer additional coverage and features.

The only thing lacking from a "nationalized" health insurance industry is federal employees staffing everything.

Yeah, that's it! rofl.

Oh and for shits and giggles. The BANKING industry is nationalized. Or are you going to deny that? Yet the banking industry is not completely staffed by federal employees either. They are just regulated to the point of just about every facet of their business has a government regulation they must follow or answer to. Which is really no different than the current health insurance industry.

The banking industry is not nationalized, and you'd be laughed out of and/or fail any course attempting to make that argument.

Seriously, it's sad you'd even say this. Outside of Fannie and Freddie, there is zero argument for it.

Didn't you know our banking industry isn't nationalized? I mean just because every facet of a bank's operation has a government regulation regarding it doesn't mean it's nationalized according to First. I mean Compass, Chase, Wells Fargo... blah blah blah don't have federal employees as tellers! So it can't be nationalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Do you see Chase or Wells Fargo mentioned? Do you see ACA mentioned? No? Well herpity-derpity, I wonder why? Could it be you're not quite as well informed about what nationalization means as you pretend to be here? That's a yes.

 

[First]

Please feel free to contact Merriam-Webster and let them know their definition has been "quite thoroughly defeated."

MW wasn't defeated, just you.

 

[werepossum]

That's a copout though, since MW doesn't prove your case at all. Your listed definition was already quite thoroughly defeated.

Uh, the energy business, specifically the DWP and utility companies that must ask for permission to raise their rates. And it doesn't have to be federal; from CA to NY there are plenty of rent control and rent decontrol out there that mandates specific price levels and specific goodies be included. But it's not nationalization, it's just a form of government intrusion. They're not the same thing.

Except, uh, no.

MW wasn't defeated, just you.

My listed definition was straight from Merriam-Webster. If you choose to believe that it does not mean what it says, your beef is with Merriam-Webster. If you choose to spin and contort and pretend that words do not mean what they mean when those meanings are inconvenient for you, it's a free country.