Obama Care Could Be Deadly

Certainly made me feel better.:rofl: Hard to tell someone to better themselves when you don't practice what you preach though. Of course I'm betting our definitions of "bettering yourself" are a little different too.

Anyway, I am bettering, have bettered, and continue to better myself. That takes an open mind though, and yours is harder to open than a bank vault.
 
[quote name='Clak']Hard to tell someone to better themselves when you don't practice what you preach though.[/QUOTE]

I'm not the one griping about those who have it better than I do.
 
Re: Msut: I think I've said it before, but I think my most successful trolling ever was attending a Republican closed door Q & A session with Grover Norquist and getting him to call it the estate tax instead of the death tax. He stopped mid sentence after saying it the second time in reaction to a question of mine and corrected himself.
For-Profit Dialysis Centers Have Higher Mortality Rates, Up To 24%

If you're a patient at the largest for-profit dialysis chain in America, you're 19% more likely to end up dying than if you went to a non-profit chain. If you're at the second-largest for-profit chain, you're 24% more likely to die. These disturbing results were released in a new study in the Health Services Research journal.
Click to expand...
Quality is job #1 in the marketplace.

http://consumerist.com/2010/12/for-profit-dialysis-centers-have-higher-mortality-rates-up-to-24.html
 
(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional -- setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/?hpt=T2
 
I don't understand the difference between being required to purchase health insurance versus being required to purchase auto insurance.
 
nor are you required to purchase auto insurance in all states by the federal govt. That would be your point of distinction.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/?hpt=T2[/QUOTE]

Should be a fun ride.

[quote name='Clak']I don't understand the difference between being required to purchase health insurance versus being required to purchase auto insurance.[/QUOTE]

Well, to quote some people on here, "PEOPLE AREN'T CARS DERP DERP" (or something like that).

Anywhoo, as some have said, no one is *required* to purchase auto insurance. You're simply required by the state to have coverage if you own a vehicle that you plan to drive on government/public property. Even then, it's typically coverage to pay for damages you inadvertently cause to someone else's person/property.
 
[quote name='nasum']nor are you required to purchase auto insurance in all states by the federal govt. That would be your point of distinction.[/QUOTE]
Hah, New Hampshire is the only state that doesn't require auto insurance, so yeah huge difference there. I would say to let each state decide whether they want to require health insurance, but we could probably predict how that would end up.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Should be a fun ride.



Well, to quote some people on here, "PEOPLE AREN'T CARS DERP DERP" (or something like that).

Anywhoo, as some have said, no one is *required* to purchase auto insurance. You're simply required by the state to have coverage if you own a vehicle that you plan to drive on government/public property. Even then, it's typically coverage to pay for damages you inadvertently cause to someone else's person/property.[/QUOTE]
It's still forced purchase of insurance by a large majority of the people in those states, why doesn't that get your libertarian spidey sense a-tinglin'? Or will you just say "Well they can sell their cars and walk if they don't like it"?
 
[quote name='Clak']It's still forced purchase of insurance by a large majority of the people in those states, why doesn't that get your libertarian spidey sense a-tinglin'? Or will you just say "Well they can sell their cars and walk if they don't like it"?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. They can walk, use public transportation, etc. There are other options besides being forced to buy a product from a private company.

However, if we're forced to purchase health insurance, the other other option (besides being illegal) would be to die.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's still forced purchase of insurance by a large majority of the people in those states, why doesn't that get your libertarian spidey sense a-tinglin'? Or will you just say "Well they can sell their cars and walk if they don't like it"?[/QUOTE]

The difference though is that mandating auto insurance is to protect the public, not the individual. It's so the other person in a car accident, who through no fault of their own, doesn't get screwed by some uninsured idiot hitting their car and not being able to cover the damages.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Exactly. They can walk, use public transportation, etc. There are other options besides being forced to buy a product from a private company.[/QUOTE]
Except a hospital can't refuse you, so you're offloading your liability onto a private company who then offloads it to the government. lolpersonalresponsibilitywut?

The car insurance model doesn't apply because mechanics are not required to work on your car. Doctors are.
It's so the other person in a car accident, who through no fault of their own, doesn't get screwed by some uninsured idiot hitting their car and not being able to cover the damages.
Click to expand...
In the health insurance example everyone gets screwed by an uninsured which somehow makes it different and better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...anti-health_care_pr_shop_raises_questions.php

This fucker should have recused himself.[/QUOTE]
It's even worse than that article. That one makes it sound like the firm has no direct connection to the case other than generally working against it.
Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who filed the lawsuit that Hudson ruled in favor of today, paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 for services rendered in 2010.
Click to expand...
Whoops! That's time to step down because your judgment is obviously flawed territory.

edit: Oh it's there as an edit at the bottom. Yup.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Exactly. They can walk, use public transportation, etc. There are other options besides being forced to buy a product from a private company.

However, if we're forced to purchase health insurance, the other other option (besides being illegal) would be to die.[/QUOTE]
Are we seriously about to get into another "car as a necessity" argument? I'm not going down that pot marked road with you again. There isn't anyhting to explain to me, I understand you perfectly, I just don't agree with "derp, derp derp, deeeeerp derpderpderp".
 
[quote name='dopa345']The difference though is that mandating auto insurance is to protect the public, not the individual. It's so the other person in a car accident, who through no fault of their own, doesn't get screwed by some uninsured idiot hitting their car and not being able to cover the damages.[/QUOTE]
That may be the point, but depending on the policy it doesn't just cover the other guy. So it's ok for the hospital to get screwed by taking the uninsured appendicitis patient and take the hit?

Either way, the intent is irrelevant, the point is that it's people being forced to pay for inusrance they not want to pay for. And no, not everyone can be a Bob (thankfully) and say "Screw it, I'm walking" or take public transportation to avoid auto insurance.

Have to ask though, sense Bob's ass clenches shut at the thought of government forcing him to pay for something, how long have you been without a car, Bob?
 
[quote name='Clak']Have to ask though, sense Bob's ass clenches shut at the thought of government forcing him to pay for something, how long have you been without a car, Bob?[/QUOTE]

Government doesn't force me to pay for it, as we've discussed. I make that choice.

Here, I'll make you a deal - when/if the health insurance mandate becomes law, I'll stay in the country and legally give up my auto insurance for three months if you stay in the country and legally give up your health insurance for three months.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Government doesn't force me to pay for it, as we've discussed. I make that choice.

Here, I'll make you a deal - when/if the health insurance mandate becomes law, I'll stay in the country and legally give up my auto insurance for three months if you stay in the country and legally give up your health insurance for three months.[/QUOTE]
If I didn't know better I'd swear you're mentally retarded. You don't make the choice, you make the choice to own and drive your car, the choice of buying auto insurance is forced upon you. And if a car is a necessity for some (again, not getting in that argument again) then it's no different at all.

Why aren't you sitting here bitching about the (state) gubment forcing you to pay for auto insurance on a car you bought with your own hard earned money? You don't think you should be able to legally drive without it?

Come on Bob, lets go full retard libertarian.
 
[quote name='Clak']Come on Bob, lets go full retard [/QUOTE]

I think you already have.

It's really not that hard to understand - I have options open to me that allow me to live a life legally as a US Citizen without the requirement of purchasing automotive insurance from a private company. A health care mandate would not give me any options to live a life legally as a US Citizen without the requirement of purchasing health care insurance from a private company.

Actions have consequences. One of those actions is choosing to own/operate a privately owned vehicle on public property. The consequence is that you are required to have minimum coverage (and, as yayece pointed out, in some states, you're not even required to have that).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think you already have.

It's really not that hard to understand - I have options open to me that allow me to live a life legally as a US Citizen without the requirement of purchasing automotive insurance from a private company. A health care mandate would not give me any options to live a life legally as a US Citizen without the requirement of purchasing health care insurance from a private company.[/quote]

LOLZ..."I can choose to have my arm broken or my leg broken." This is the level of critical thinking you want to have. You're a fucking idiot.

Actions have consequences. One of those actions is choosing to own/operate a privately owned vehicle on public property. The consequence is that you are required to have minimum coverage (and, as yayece pointed out, in some states, you're not even required to have that).
Click to expand...
Wrong, all states have minimum coverage requirements for insurance or proof of financial ability to cover liability(which is just New Hampshire). Just because you don't have liability or bodily injury coverage doesn't mean you don't have collision or comprehensive. People with down-syndrome have better critical thinking skills than you do.
 
Tell me how someone living in a rural area without any sort of public transportation is supposed to live without a car? Hell, I live in the suburbs and there is no bus service here. We're going to end up arguing whether a car is necessary again, since that is the entire crux of your argument. You say that it's different because you don't have to own a car and thus don't have to pay auto inusrance, but if you think that's true for our entire population then you're kidding yourself.
 
I'm guilty. I bit too and I'm an asshole. But for the love of a merciful Christ, please stop quoting Bob so I don't have to read that crap anymore.
 
[quote name='Clak']Tell me how someone living in a rural area without any sort of public transportation is supposed to live without a car? Hell, I live in the suburbs and there is no bus service here. We're going to end up arguing whether a car is necessary again, since that is the entire crux of your argument. You say that it's different because you don't have to own a car and thus don't have to pay auto inusrance, but if you think that's true for our entire population then you're kidding yourself.[/QUOTE]

Ride a bike or move.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ..."I can choose to have my arm broken or my leg broken." This is the level of critical thinking you want to have. You're a fucking idiot.


Wrong, all states have minimum coverage requirements for insurance or proof of financial ability to cover liability(which is just New Hampshire). Just because you don't have liability or bodily injury coverage doesn't mean you don't have collision or comprehensive. People with down-syndrome have better critical thinking skills than you do.[/QUOTE]

If you read his comment as an option to have arms or legs broken then you sir, are the idiot. That's not at all what he said.

Add Virginia to your list as well.

On the other hand, I think what UB is trying to get at, but failing (sorry pal) at, is that the state is requiring compulsory coverage whereas the federal govt is "requiring" (though not necessarily by law which is really weird if you get into the nitty gritty of the proposal, often not done on Rush) health insurance. That's the crux of the libertarian argument at least (in simplified terms with states rights being the theme) which is somewhat valid.

Though I still get a huge kick out of the callers that think their doctor will suddenly become a federal agent. The misinformed are a funny bunch.
 
[quote name='nasum']If you read his comment as an option to have arms or legs broken then you sir, are the idiot. That's not at all what he said.[/quote]

:roll: Any choice is still a choice right? Cause that's the level of nuance he's working with.

Add Virginia to your list as well.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Remind me never to drive in Virginia.

On the other hand, I think what UB is trying to get at, but failing (sorry pal) at, is that the state is requiring compulsory coverage whereas the federal govt is "requiring" (though not necessarily by law which is really weird if you get into the nitty gritty of the proposal, often not done on Rush) health insurance. That's the crux of the libertarian argument at least (in simplified terms with states rights being the theme) which is somewhat valid.

Though I still get a huge kick out of the callers that think their doctor will suddenly become a federal agent. The misinformed are a funny bunch.
Click to expand...
States rights is a lame excuse considering there are going to be federal subsidies to the states for this. But I guess there's no benefit cause poors and welfare queens will take advantage of it and honest god-fearing white retires are going to death panels.
 
[quote name='nasum'] is that the state is requiring compulsory coverage whereas the federal govt is "requiring" (though not necessarily by law which is really weird if you get into the nitty gritty of the proposal, often not done on Rush) health insurance. That's the crux of the libertarian argument at least (in simplified terms with states rights being the theme) which is somewhat valid.[/quote]
It's valid in the sense that Obamacare is trying to keep the private market involved. The only question of any constitutional concern is whether the government can require purchase from a private entity. That would be solved by a single payer. Their argument boils down to a socialist position, which is why it's so absurd.

They want it both ways. They don't want hospitals to have the freedom to let a child die in front of this building over $250 (OMG THEY'RE COMMUNISTS THAT HATE FREEDOM AND THE MARKET), but they don't want to admit that that requires government intervention and that that would be single payer if it is going to be strictly constitutional if past precedent is followed.

Or if they're sociopaths, they want the hospital to have the right to refuse a child of poor parents care that would kill the child. In which case they should be smiled at and slowly backed away from (and don't turn your back).
 
I hardly think he's up to the Neil Peart line of "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice", but I'm not arguing for or against someone else's line of thinking, it's not my place. Mostly I was just having fun at your expense.

Having done it once myself, believe you me there are many other reasons beyond lack of insurance for some drivers to avoid that whole place. Haggling over tax at a gas station, on candy and a super soda no less, by the most obese diabetes laden woman I'll ever see in my life... It brought a tear to my eye man.

That death panel thing is the best lie they've told about the whole thing so far! I mean really, no claim has ever been denied in the free market health insurance deal and actuarial sciences might as well prove the earth round!
 
[quote name='nasum']On the other hand, I think what UB is trying to get at, but failing (sorry pal) at, is that the state is requiring compulsory coverage whereas the federal govt is "requiring" (though not necessarily by law which is really weird if you get into the nitty gritty of the proposal, often not done on Rush) health insurance.[/QUOTE]

Not quite. As far as the health insurance mandate, this is what I'm getting at:
[quote name='speedracer']The only question of any constitutional concern is whether the government can require purchase from a private entity.[/QUOTE]

As for automotive insurance - it's pretty crystal clear - no one is required to have insurance to be a legal US Citizen. No one.

"I can go without automotive insurance by choosing not to own/drive a car."

Now, in a world where there's a government mandate on health insurance, finish this sentence:
"I can go without health insurance by..."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"choosing not to have a body."
"not ever getting sick or injured."
"becoming the Highlander."

but thanks for the attempt at false equivalence.[/QUOTE]

Actually, if the government is mandating health insurance, it wouldn't matter if you managed to never get sick/injured. Or if you were immortal. I suppose you could get by without health insurance if you didn't have a body - are we talking Futurama head-in-a-jar or something more ghost-like?

But you're right - it is a false equivalence. Saying that a mandate for health insurance is the same as requiring drivers to have minimum coverage auto insurance, that is.
 
I'd bang my head against this concrete wall if I weren't afraid of hurting myself and being stuck with the ER bill.

Your idea works in theory Bob, only in theory.

"Well gorsh I could just sell my car and then I wouldn't have to buy insurance for it. Course then I couldn't really get to work....maybe I could find a job closer to home....nothing 'round here that pays as well....that's ok though, I'll take a lesser paying job just so I don't need to buy insurance for a car.

Again Bob, where is your righteous indignation for the plight of the car owner who is forced to buy insurance? Oh but that's right, they don't need that car anyway, so fuck them. I'm going to start calling you a "selective libertarian" because you certainly seem to pick and choose your battles. Then again, you never seem to have a problem with state governments doing whatever they please, just the federal, which makes no sense.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'd bang my head against this concrete wall if I weren't afraid of hurting myself and being stuck with the ER bill.

Your idea works in theory Bob, only in theory.

"Well gorsh I could just sell my car and then I wouldn't have to buy insurance for it. Course then I couldn't really get to work....maybe I could find a job closer to home....nothing 'round here that pays as well....that's ok though, I'll take a lesser paying job just so I don't need to buy insurance for a car.

Again Bob, where is your righteous indignation for the plight of the car owner who is forced to buy insurance? Oh but that's right, they don't need that car anyway, so fuck them. I'm going to start calling you a "selective libertarian" because you certainly seem to pick and choose your battles. Then again, you never seem to have a problem with state governments doing whatever they please, just the federal, which makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
People like bob are funny. They go "blah blah LIEBERALS are fucking up the country and are the real facists...I wantz more freedoms...personal responsibility...BIG GOVERNMENT OUT OF MAH LYFE!!!" When in reality, what they clamor for, thanks to the great pr from the media conglomerates owned by the those with the most capital, they want a Conservative Nanny State.

Books is free online. I read excerpts and you'd be surprised how how well this guy articulates the issues with dumb fucks like bob.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

I'd give a snarky refute to bob point by point, but what's the point...lolz.
 
The state vs fed thing is popular on the radio right now. It's ok for a state to have compulsory auto insurance, but it isn't cool for the fed govt to have compulsory auto insurance since states are "labratories of democracy" and if you don't like your states laws then you can just move to another state. Part of the whole constitutional originalist movement, which is fine as it is, until these people start to realize that things have gotten a tiny bit more complex over the last 230 years. Four Indians in a canoe on the Mississippi River is no longer considered a War Party so there really isn't a need to kill them on sight and go collect your reward...
 
Bob, you couldn't survive 5 minutes in a real debate.It's great that you can ignore the obvious and get away with it on here, but you couldn't do that in a real debate without someone pointing out how incredibly ridiculous you are.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Clak - you do realize that millions of Americans get by daily without owning a vehicle, correct?[/QUOTE]
And how many of those millions under the age of 16?
 
[quote name='dohdough']And how many of those millions under the age of 16?[/QUOTE]

Thank you for providing another example of people who go without automotive insurance but would be required to have health insurance.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Thank you for providing another example of people who go without automotive insurance but would be required to have health insurance.[/QUOTE]
:whistle2:k:-({|=
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top