Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WHY MANDATES ARE MANDATORY
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 58 (825492)
12-15-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals
12-14-2017 5:49 PM


Over 70% of the 80 million homeowners in the US have mortgages on their homes. All these mortgages MANDATE that he homeowners carry adequate house insurance. This mandate is not to protect the bank owners and executives: it is to protect the bank’s depositors who put up the money for the mortgages. And this mandate doesn’t just apply to home loans. 107 million Americans have auto loans on their vehicles. These loans also MANDATE that the owners carry full car insurance on those vehicles. Insurance only works when there is a broad base of insured paying affordable amounts each year to cover what could be devastating expenses to the few who incur losses. 49 of the 50 states MANDATE that automobile owners carry full liability insurance on their cars. Why is there no drive to repeal those mandates?
One major difference is that I can choose to not own a home or car and avoid buying the insurance.
To avoid the health insurance mandate I would have to choose to not be alive.
Also, the mandate as it was originally proposed was unconstitutional. The had to spin it from a fine to a tax for it to be allowable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-14-2017 5:49 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 1:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 58 (825518)
12-15-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
12-15-2017 1:41 PM


I also hold access to affordable healthcare (bounded by the expanse of the national economy) an unalienable right that is the responsibility of governmental agency.
I don't.
Healthcare requires another person's labor and you don't have a right to force people to work for you.
I also don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare. Take the DMV, Postal Service, and VAs as examples of how well they run things.
The required "how" and "fairness" is a mass of detail, but the principles of our Declaration of Independence of equality and an unalienable right to life demands affordable healthcare for all.
I agree that everyone ought to have access to healthcare, but we already have that because hospitals don't turn people away. It's just not affordable. I think that's a systemic problem and not something that needs a federal government solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 1:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 3:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2017 8:06 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2017 8:25 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 58 (825532)
12-15-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
12-15-2017 3:50 PM


"Force people to work for you?" Passion and accuracy needn't be adversaries.
I misread - you said access to healthcare not healthcare itself.
If you have a disease or illness you can't afford to treat (read Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right? that I posted a link to upthread), you're dead.
I didn't get that from the article... I also don't believe it as a general statement, but I'm sure it happens.
People can run through their life savings treating a serious disease, then they die. Read Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich.
Sure, and people also spend a lot of money on newborns with congenital heart defects so they can suffer for a few months before they die.
But it *does* need a solution. If not the federal government, who?
The entities that make up the system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 3:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2017 8:32 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 12-16-2017 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 58 (825685)
12-17-2017 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
12-16-2017 10:07 AM


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant potentially lethal diseases, like lupus, the disease mentioned in the article.
About where you said that you didn't get from the article that death could have happened, recall that the writer only obtained healthcare by getting married.
That was their choice. They also could have chosen to not get married, obtain the healthcare, and then get the bill and deal with the financial ramifications. My best friend went through medical bankrupcy, it's not that big of a deal. No insurance does not equal death, it means you're gonna have bad credit.
Your point isn't apparent to me, but I just looked up newborn CHD.
The CHD, itself, is beside the point. I've been talking with this new friend that works in a hospital with infants and respiration. The stories about how these babies are treated, and how much money is spent on them, only for them to die anyways, is... well I dunno what it is. Or what my point is. You said that people can run through their life savings treating a serious disease and then they die. That was in response to me saying that people do have access to heathcare (even when they don't have insurance), but it's just not affordable.
So yeah, not having insurance doesn't mean that you'll die, it means that you'll be broke financially.
But proper treatment is dependent upon insurance.
But it's not. You can get proper treatment without insurance. It's just too expensive and will break you financially.
But getting back to my original point, people with serious diseases but without insurance will live only as long as their money holds out.
Or they go into debt.
But don't we want a country where everyone has the best chance of being healthy and productive, rather than one where we perpetuate a subclass in sickly poverty that exists only because they can't afford healthcare?
Sure, and I definately helped my best friend a lot when he was going through bankrupcy. But that doesn't mean I want government dictating that to and forcing that upon me.
By "entities" you mean doctor's offices, hospitals and insurance companies? Given the size of the country and the number of states with different laws, they still need a federal legal framework.
Why does it have to be federal? That's the last group I'd want in charge of this.
Here's an example of the problem with letting things work themselves out. When I retired I was eligible for COBRA, which means I could stay under my employer's health care plan for 18 months as long as I paid the premiums myself. But there are numerous COBRA exceptions, and I fell under one of them. If you live in or move to a state where the insurance provider does not do business, you get no COBRA benefits. Since I worked in Massachusetts (where the insurance company does do business) but lived in New Hampshire (where the insurance company does not do business), I was out of luck.
It is situations like this (and there are scores of different kinds of situations that can leave people without health insurance) that require a federal legal framework.
You didn't have any other options? Couldn't you have purchased another insurance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 12-16-2017 10:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 58 (825829)
12-18-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
12-18-2017 10:35 AM


That's your solution? Those who can't afford insurance go bankrupt?
That's not a solution, that's an issue. But the issue is not "no insurance = death".
No insurance can equal death. If you're a woman, try delaying having that lump in your breast checked out because you can't afford a doctor, X-Rays, radiologist, etc.
There's still the alternative to death in the form of getting the treatments that you cannot afford.
You've been misinformed. Of course some die, but the vast majority live. Perhaps your friend works in the "terminal" section of the ward.
I'm not talking about just CHD. They work in the NICU.
Well, if that's the kind of society you wish to live in,
I don't wish it, but it is what it is.
Just because you have an aversion to government solutions doesn't mean you should have an aversion to any solution or not be open to reasonable compromise.
Sure, I'm open, bring it on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 12-18-2017 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 58 (825912)
12-19-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
12-18-2017 10:49 PM


I was just speculating about where you got your misinformation about newborn CHD. Regardless of where your misinformation came from, you gave a very strong misimpression about the mortality rate of newborn CHD.
That was a mistake. The article you linked to was talking about congestive heart failure and my mind went to CHD because I was recently talking about that in RL. I got confused. But the disease, itself, was beside the point - and it wasn't really much of a point anyways.
I wasn't trying to imply that CHD was particularly deadly - I was just contrasting your point that people spend their life savings treating a disease and then they die. People also spend shit-tons of money trying to save babies that will never make it. Hell, people spend shit tons of money on healthcare for their pets. Spending lots of money on health is a thing, yes. And sometimes they die anyways, sure. That's all I was saying.
Problems too big and requiring too much coordination and cooperation for numerous independent organizations like doctors, hospitals and insurance companies across many states is where national governments should step in.
As a last resort, imho. But I don't want the feds in charge of my healthcare, or anywhere near it really. They suck.
The single payer system proposed by Trump.
I'm not familiar with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-18-2017 10:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 1:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2017 7:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 58 (825937)
12-19-2017 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 1:25 PM


What is it that you think you are doing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 1:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 58 (825941)
12-19-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NoNukes
12-19-2017 2:37 PM


Being retarded?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-19-2017 2:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2017 8:53 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 58 (826037)
12-20-2017 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rrhain
12-19-2017 7:49 PM


Completely off topic: Do you think that you are a bit of a narcissist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2017 7:49 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 12-21-2017 8:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 58 (826059)
12-21-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
12-21-2017 8:50 AM


I hope this doesn't mean you'll be making no meaningful reply to Rrhain's Message 30, which was a reply to your Message 25, which was a reply to my Message 24. I didn't reply to your Message 25 because Rrhain had already replied and done as good a job as I could have ever hoped to do, though I concede he does tend to come on a bit strong.
I have no interest in discussing with that person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 12-21-2017 8:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by xongsmith, posted 12-21-2017 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 58 (826063)
12-21-2017 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by xongsmith
12-21-2017 10:14 AM


NCE has been something of an asshole lately
I got a lot going on in RL and there's a couple people here who I just plainly dislike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by xongsmith, posted 12-21-2017 10:14 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 58 (826066)
12-21-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
12-21-2017 8:50 AM


libertarian "every-man-for-himself"-ism
So that's a strawman and not worth addressing.
the success of national health care systems in other countries,
What about it?
the example of Opdivo
Should the government pay for it? That depends on the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
your sacrifice of the realities of how to provide fair and decent healthcare on the pyre of your antagonism toward government
I just don't want the government in charge of my healthcare. But I'll pay taxes to support a national health care system. I don't want to be forced into something, tho. And I don't like the sound of single-anything. Options, not force.
and why government has to be part of the solution.
By all means, have the government be a part of the solution. But it doesn't have to be the solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 12-21-2017 8:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 12-22-2017 9:58 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 01-17-2018 5:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 58 (826996)
01-15-2018 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
12-22-2017 10:57 AM


I don't think it's an impression but a fact that New Cat's Eye is uncaring and self-centered.
So much for Rule 10.
Whether New Cat's Eye stays or goes is his choice.
I'll say... and ignore the personal attacks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 12-22-2017 10:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 7:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 58 (827038)
01-16-2018 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
01-15-2018 7:53 PM


You don't get to express opinions that are uncaring and self-centered and then expect people to ignore that your opinions possess those qualities.
But you don't say that my position is uncaring. You say that I, personally, am uncaring.
As you explain in the rule ("Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."), opinions expressed in debate are not necessarily personally held opions of the debater.
You can have the debate while leaving the person out of it - and it's better that way.
I notice you don't deny that you're uncaring and self-centered,
There's no need to dignify those lies with a remark.
It would only be a personal attack if it were untrue.
They're personal attacks.
If you want people to say nicer things about the opinions you express here then express nicer opinions.
Oh, I see. Only nice opinions are worth exploring kindly here. Hmm. Maybe I will leave then. The debates lately seem to just be getting denigrated into irrelevant pedantry anyways.
Basically your position is that you don't care whether people can afford decent healthcare as long as you've got yours. Don't I have that right?
No, not even close.
Or am I retarded,
No, you're tribal. If I don't agree with you then I must be taking the exact opposite position
Have fun with the strawman. I'm not going to waste my time pulling it apart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 7:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 01-16-2018 1:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2018 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 01-17-2018 6:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 58 (827101)
01-17-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phat
01-16-2018 5:07 PM


Re: Left and Right Ideology
Hey Phat, I'm willing to explain myself to you.
I realized that NCE was conservative when I talked with him about unionism.
I always test out as being politically center - between both left and right, and up and down. I do lean towards conservatism though, but more financially and less socially.
Perhaps he feels outnumbered here, where many are more liberal.
I'm not a fan of circlejerking - I avoid conservative sites and would rather argue with liberals because they are different from me. It easier to learn something. But when it ends up just being talking about me personally it gets lame.
Being outnumbered becomes a problem when my posts are spun and twisted into multiple directions by multiple people. The discussion degrades into explaining what I really meant and the actual points go unaddressed. Oppenents tend to be awefully uncharitable and assume that I must be posting the worst thing they can imagine. Then I'm defeneding myself against things I've never meant to say. People assume their interpretation of my words is what I really meant, then there's doubt that my explanation of what I actually meant are even honest. A little charity goes a long way.
All that can be avoided by addressing the position and forgetting the person. But people would rather get into a pissing match. And I'm done with that.
Further, the black and whiteness only problem shows where when I say that I'm not pro-Trump and the response is wondering where all my anti-Trump sentiment is. If I'm not one then I have to be the other - there is no grey area allolowed.
Or with the Charlotte protest - if I don't immediately jump into the circlejerk and start calling statue supporters Nazis, well then obviously that's because I think there's good people within the Nazis
Or with healthcare - if I don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare then that's because I don't care about people and am perfectly fine with people going bankrupt over medical bills Oh, it also somehow means that I think that all of my accomplishments were achieved by myself alone
It's all complete bullshit and a waste of my time to try to unpack that crap and explain how peoples' spin and misrepresentation are not apt.
I mean, I asked Stile what he meant when he said that only people who receive a message get to decide if it contains hate or not and then I'm being accused of denying that mens rea is a thing in a discussion about me saying this thing in this message that was a reply to that thing in that message - what a stupid waste of time to just ask one poster a question.
Then I get to deal with complete illogic on top of all that - hey, I like guns and Trump likes guns: therefore I must be a Trump supporter How stupid can we get?
So to reiterate - it's the black-n-white only tribalism stained with an uncharitable tendency to assume a person means the worst which acts as a foundation to spin and misrepresent my words into something that doesn't even resemble what I meant, which is then falsely ascribed to being something that I personally think and feel. If you want to explore a position you're unfamiliar with, then either deal with the hate or be called a troll. DO NOT try to understand something by discussing it - you'll only have to defend yourself against false accusations.
Yeah, no thanks.
Plus he may get frustrated that his views are not respected.
I don't care if my views are respected, but I'd rather not defend myself against disrespect to me personally. Y'all know very little about me personally - what you think you know from what I write is in your head.
The problem, here, is that everything is treated as either black or white. And the folks are extremely tribal.
For example, when I admit that I may not be emotionally committed to a position and the response to that is that I must be trolling then. There's a whole grey area between those two extremes - playing devil's advocate, being unsure of where you stand so you take an uncommmitted position to explore the posibilities, taking a position you don't agree with in pursuit of the spirit of a good debate, or just trying to learn about something you have little experience with.
If you're jerking in the circle then you're fine, but deviate from that by one step and everyone is going to pounce on you for being a piece of shit. There is no grey area and if you're not white then you're black - and deserve to be ridiculed and hated - even if it has to come from lies.
Don't worry about the points of the discussion, this is about what you personally think and feel and nothing can be said that doesn't relate directly to that. Stop towing the part line, or step out of the echo chamber, and face being called a jerk from various angles you've never stood near.
No thanks, I'll pass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 01-16-2018 5:07 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2018 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 01-17-2018 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024