Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 76: Personal Attack Free Edition 2.0

(+) Yeah! (+)

Can't believe we have to make this topic again, but let's try to not have personal attacks. If we gotta keep bringing up Ulti or Inviso or whoever-the-f***'s personal lives/behaviors in a topic about politics, I'm more than willing to let these topics die or will just not be a part of them anymore.
---

shut up jerk butt
---

ur a friggin moon man
---

Don't hate, appreciate (someone else's insult toward the subject of your anger).
---

Pretty good article on the House GOP repeal and replace bill, as well as the challenges it will face: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/barack-obama-healthcare-replacement-bill-214884
---

Can you really make a politics topic without personal attacks. Somewhere down the road, someone will be personally attacking Trump, Clinton(s), Bush, Obama, Putin, etc.
---

IT WILL BE REAL SOON

http://i.imgur.com/GfNslXY.png
---

Also agreed that the best way to do this is probably to do a full repeal first, then think about ways to make healthcare better. Until a repeal goes through, it is hard for this to be debated in a nonsensational way.
---

1. They can't fully repeal the ACA because they need to use budget reconciliation to do anything without cooperation from 8+ Democrats

2. Fully repealing the ACA would be an unmitigated disaster causing tens of millions of people to lose their insurance, would result in people once again being denied coverage for preexisiting conditions, etc etc.
---

Tag
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

1. They can't fully repeal the ACA because they need to use budget reconciliation to do anything without cooperation from 8+ Democrats

2. Fully repealing the ACA would be an unmitigated disaster causing tens of millions of people to lose their insurance, would result in people once again being denied coverage for preexisiting conditions, etc etc.

They can amend the rules to abolish the filibuster. Then, it should be easy to pass an emergency bill banning insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, and forcing them to cover children until age 26.

Then we can begin the difficult debate about how best to allocate the costs, and how to lower total costs.
---

Okay, so even ignoring how stupid it would for the Republicans to kill the filibuster for a full repeal that they almost certainly couldn't get 50 of their own senators to pass, if you force the insurance companies to adopt just the "good parts" of Obamacare through that emergency bill without any incentive for healthy people to get into the market you're just going to cause the entire individual health insurance market to collapse.
---

Is all this more or less likely that Americans will end up with single payer?
---

I don't feel like reading through 300 posts. What would you say were the top personal burns?
---

charmander6000 posted...

Is all this more or less likely that Americans will end up with single payer?

Eventually, but probably not under these dorks.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Okay, so even ignoring how stupid it would for the Republicans to kill the filibuster for a full repeal that they almost certainly couldn't get 50 of their own senators to pass, if you force the insurance companies to adopt just the "good parts" of Obamacare through that emergency bill without any incentive for healthy people to get into the market you're just going to cause the entire individual health insurance market to collapse.

Collapse how? They make less money? That's their problem, not the people's problem.

If you step back a bit and view this as a negotiation, it's not surprising the American people are getting shafted, when it's taken as a given that health insurance companies have to get their pound of flesh or else our healthcare system will collapse. It's a lot like the too big to fail banks and the Great Depression would return if the people didn't bail them out.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Liberals defending the CIA and claiming this is a Roger Stone hit job.

That's it? Was hoping for some nasty personal insults. :(
---

Millions of people lost their insurance from the ACA, too. They just took the middle class's money and gave it to the lower class.

so fix it to not screw the middle class people, don't pull the rug out from under the poors
---

Yeah those Republicans will definitely go for a plan that will wipe out the health insurance industry. They're all about being anti-corporation, especially big ones that donate tons of money to them.
---

If insurance companies cannot offer a product people will buy without being forced to, it's clear the product sucks. Which is all the more reason people should not be forced to buy it.

Car insurance and life insurance, and many other forms of insurance, are perfectly profitable with minimal or no requirements from the government that people must buy them. If it's truly not possible for healthcare then we need single payer.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Collapse how? They make less money? That's their problem, not the people's problem.

No, that's everybody's problem.

If health insurance isn't profitable, it isn't going to be offered. That means that anybody who needs individual insurance isn't going to be able to buy it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If insurance companies cannot offer a product people will buy without being forced to, it's clear the product sucks. Which is all the more reason people should not be forced to buy it.

Car insurance and life insurance, and many other forms of insurance, are perfectly profitable with minimal or no requirements from the government that people must buy them. If it's truly not possible for healthcare then we need single payer.

You realize this is how insurance works in the first place, right? Everyone involved gives money, and that money is then spent on the problems that actually happen. You're essentially complaining that the pool was expanded.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Car insurance

49 states mandate having car insurance in order to drive a vehicle
---

Car insurance and life insurance, and many other forms of insurance, are perfectly profitable with minimal or no requirements from the government that people must buy them. If it's truly not possible for healthcare then we need single payer.

I was under the impression that car insurance was super required
---

Mershaaay posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Car insurance

49 states mandate having car insurance in order to drive a vehicle

But the minimum coverage requirements are very low, and people very frequently buy coverage in excess of the requirement. And car insurance is perfectly profitable in the 1 state that has no minimum. Because they offer a good product.
---

life insurance lives in a permanent contrast of being really profitable and a pitfall of debt that ruins a company.
---

SupremeZero posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If insurance companies cannot offer a product people will buy without being forced to, it's clear the product sucks. Which is all the more reason people should not be forced to buy it.

Car insurance and life insurance, and many other forms of insurance, are perfectly profitable with minimal or no requirements from the government that people must buy them. If it's truly not possible for healthcare then we need single payer.

You realize this is how insurance works in the first place, right? Everyone involved gives money, and that money is then spent on the problems that actually happen. You're essentially complaining that the pool was expanded.

People buy insurance to get something (mitigate their own risk). If the premiums cost too much, they don't want to buy it.

In the unlikely event that it is not possible to have a functional health insurance market, we need single payer.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Mershaaay posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Car insurance

49 states mandate having car insurance in order to drive a vehicle

But the minimum coverage requirements are very low, and people very frequently buy coverage in excess of the requirement. And car insurance is perfectly profitable in the 1 state that has no minimum. Because they offer a good product.

The state without car insurance is New Hampshire.

New Hampshire has the 5th lowest car crashes in the country. The top two unsurprisingly are Alaska and Hawaii.

The reason Car Insurance in New Hampshire is profitable is that they don't have to spend from the pot as much.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If insurance companies cannot offer a product people will buy without being forced to, it's clear the product sucks. Which is all the more reason people should not be forced to buy it.

That's not true. The product is very good if you are sick. It is (probably) a waste of money if you are healthy, but with some low probability it might end up being super useful. If I'm an insurance company, I lose money if I only sell plans to sick people; I might as well close up shop and do something else. But if everyone does this, that means we have just decided as a society that we're fine with saying "f*** sick people." Instead, however, we can make the choice to somewhat burden everybody (by making people buy insurance even if they probably don't need it) in order to ensure that sick people don't get totally f***ed over.
---

SupremeZero posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If insurance companies cannot offer a product people will buy without being forced to, it's clear the product sucks. Which is all the more reason people should not be forced to buy it.

Car insurance and life insurance, and many other forms of insurance, are perfectly profitable with minimal or no requirements from the government that people must buy them. If it's truly not possible for healthcare then we need single payer.

You realize this is how insurance works in the first place, right? Everyone involved gives money, and that money is then spent on the problems that actually happen. You're essentially complaining that the pool was expanded.

It was expanded to people not paying into it. Poor people already have charity care.
---

and bear in mind that there are methods for companies who self-insure to apply a secondary insurance: stop loss. in fact, it's pretty much essential.

that though is an industry that is in constant risk and many have failed. it's a very good product! it just also isn't the most sustainable one. money's gotta come from somewhere and there's often a fall guy somewhere in the chain or premiums high enough to offset it. when neither exists, it's government subsidized.
---

A much better way of looking at it. Nick has made multiple topics about his son having chronic seizures on top of being autistic. Regularly, unless his son is having an extreme emergency with the seizures, his wait times to have his son see a doctor are obnoxious. He lives in Canada with its so called amazing universal health care.

America has its issues but we aren't making people with seizures wait weeks to see doctors. If you have an emergency, you get seen.

(Side note, it's incredible how good a dad nick is. I could never deal with all that.)
---

The product is good if it is good before you know whether you'll get sick or not. I agree that in principle, not denying coverage for preexisting conditions is antithetical to a free market solution.

Hence I suggested it as an emergency bill, while a permanent solution is negotiated. But negotiated from a position of strength, where the insurance companies are the ones afraid for their future.
---

That's not really a position of strength, though

It's a position where we're all trapped in a room and the GOP have activated a time bomb. Sure, the insurance companies lose big if a deal isn't made, but so does everyone who would lose insurance if a replacement was not negotiated, and consequently so would all of the GOP congresspeople would be blamed bigly for the ensuing disaster.

In fact, the people in the best negotiating position there would be the Democrats!
---

red sox 777 posted...

The product is good if it is good before you know whether you'll get sick or not. I agree that in principle, not denying coverage for preexisting conditions is antithetical to a free market solution.

Hence I suggested it as an emergency bill, while a permanent solution is negotiated. But negotiated from a position of strength, where the insurance companies are the ones afraid for their future.

It doesn't work that way

Insurance companies have a warchest

You f*** em over enough, they close up shop, fire all of their employees and start a new venture

Net result is you've made 100k people lose their jobs and the CEOs and board members have not paid any price besides the minor inconvenience of 'gotta start a new enterprise', plus healthcare is less available to everybody

The only way to hold the cards is if you can pin the people of a company down, specifically its top ranks. Which is unbelievably hard without straight up just ignoring law. If you have any suggestions for how congress can pull this off without being unconstitutional, we're all ears.
---

Also, I would be quite happy with a solution where health insurance is subsidized from income taxes, so that upper middle class and rich people pay proportionally more. This is the opposite of Obamacare, which foists the greatest costs (as a percentage of income) on the lower middle class/working class.

Somewho who makes 250k a year should pay more than 6 times what someone who makes 40k a year makes. And that's not even progressive....realistically, a progressive plan would make it at least 10x. Under Obamacare they pay about the same. It's a wonder Democrats are okay with this!
---

red sox 777 posted...

It's a wonder Democrats are okay with this!

I think having to get the Repubs on board too somewhat lowered their standards.
---

UItimaterializer posted...

A much better way of looking at it. Nick has made multiple topics about his son having chronic seizures on top of being autistic. Regularly, unless his son is having an extreme emergency with the seizures, his wait times to have his son see a doctor are obnoxious. He lives in Canada with its so called amazing universal health care.

America has its issues but we aren't making people with seizures wait weeks to see doctors. If you have an emergency, you get seen.

it sounds like they also get seen if they have an emergency

and yeah, it's unfortunate that he has to wait for other things, but the alternative is a bunch of people not being seen at all
---

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/862374700567093/

Wikileaks Vault 7 confirms CIA can hack your car. Thanks for pointing it out Milo! I wonder which model years would be unhackable!
---

red sox 777 posted...

Also, I would be quite happy with a solution where health insurance is subsidized from income taxes, so that upper middle class and rich people pay proportionally more. This is the opposite of Obamacare, which foists the greatest costs (as a percentage of income) on the lower middle class/working class.

Somewho who makes 250k a year should pay more than 6 times what someone who makes 40k a year makes. And that's not even progressive....realistically, a progressive plan would make it at least 10x. Under Obamacare they pay about the same. It's a wonder Democrats are okay with this!

So you support single payer then.
---

oh no, it's worse than that, kan.
insurance companies also insure themselves for losses.

they'll bankrupt someone else first completely, effectively making all their customers needing to change insurance because there's no money, making a massive domino effect that sucks.

from there the initial insurance company will fight over where else the money can come from in courts, run everyone else out of money until settlement hits, then file for bankruptcy as they've saved as much as they can.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Somewho who makes 250k a year should pay more than 6 times what someone who makes 40k a year makes.

you know, i don't think i understand this number very much.
yes, $250,000 is a very small percentage of people. but it's not really rich, rich. not the kind of money people are thinking for that - i don't understand why the argument wasn't just... double that. make it 500k and add a literal millionaire tax for the next level.
---

No, rich people should not pay more for insurance unless they're buying better coverage. If they're paying for the same coverage poor people pay for then they should pay the same price.
---

Wanglicious posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Somewho who makes 250k a year should pay more than 6 times what someone who makes 40k a year makes.

you know, i don't think i understand this number very much.
yes, $250,000 is a very small percentage of people. but it's not really rich, rich. not the kind of money people are thinking for that - i don't understand why the argument wasn't just... double that. make it 500k and add a literal millionaire tax for the next level.

I don't think he was advocating for a hard cutoff.
---

Wanglicious posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Somewho who makes 250k a year should pay more than 6 times what someone who makes 40k a year makes.

you know, i don't think i understand this number very much.
yes, $250,000 is a very small percentage of people. but it's not really rich, rich. not the kind of money people are thinking for that - i don't understand why the argument wasn't just... double that. make it 500k and add a literal millionaire tax for the next level.

Because this is the number that people agree is NOT rich. And establishment Democrats continue to act like they represent the interests of people making 40k, just because they represent the interests of middle class people making 250k against the rich making 500k+.
---