Healthcare reform

[StrangeSox]

You won't find deficit neutrality.

 

Yeah, I've said several times I have no idea how they're going to pay for this thing.

 

I'm happy with my current plan. I don't really care one way or the other about a public option. I would probably oppose an NHS-style system. I'm just sick of the criticisms of the bill largely being completely inaccurate demagoguery.

[Y2HH]

Wouldn't the government then need to hire a s***load of people to help them with the influx of people that need to be covered?

 

So that would happen overnight?! And everyone that lost their jobs would be guaranteed new ones...or do you think that these jobs would go to friends of friends who happen to have government connections? And isn't this what we were trying to reform in the first place, taking the administrtive work out of it to make it cheaper? Sounds like the government just took over insurance and made it the latest government works project for employing people who do almost nothing.

[StrangeSox]

So that would happen overnight?! And everyone that lost their jobs would be guaranteed new ones...or do you think that these jobs would go to friends of friends who happen to have government connections? And isn't this what we were trying to reform in the first place, taking the administrtive work out of it to make it cheaper? Sounds like the government just took over insurance and made it the latest government works project for employing people who do almost nothing.

 

Would private plans evaporate over night?

[StrangeSox]

Also, "they'll lose their jobs" is a pretty s***ty argument against progression. Buggy makers lost their jobs when cars came around. Steam boat builders lost their jobs when diesel engines were put into ships. Etc. etc.

[Y2HH]

Would private plans evaporate over night?

 

They wouldn't last long with a mass exodus of companies and private citizens jumping to the public option...

 

Hell, most insurance companies already laid off people because of the downturn in the economy and they were the most resilient part of it.

[Y2HH]

Also, "they'll lose their jobs" is a pretty s***ty argument against progression. Buggy makers lost their jobs when cars came around. Steam boat builders lost their jobs when diesel engines were put into ships. Etc. etc.

 

You call this progression.

 

Heh.

 

The government taking something over is not progression, it's regression.

[BigSqwert]

You call this progression.

 

Heh.

 

The government taking something over is not progression, it's regression.

So if they're going to be so bad at running it why would people switch from their private plans?

[NorthSideSox72]

You call this progression.

 

Heh.

 

The government taking something over is not progression, it's regression.

How could it be regression? Did the federal government run healthcare before?

 

[kapkomet]

So if they're going to be so bad at running it why would people switch from their private plans?

Because they will be forced to. Employers will not offer insurance after this passes.

[StrangeSox]

They wouldn't last long with a mass exodus of companies and private citizens jumping to the public option...

 

Hell, most insurance companies already laid off people because of the downturn in the economy and they were the most resilient part of it.

 

Your problem here seems to be that the government option will be so bad ass everyone will leave the private plans and they won't even have a chance to react.

 

If its really going to be that good, what on earth is the problem?

[StrangeSox]

Because they will be forced to. Employers will not offer insurance after this passes.

 

Why not?

 

And isn't that part of your plan?

[Y2HH]

Your problem here seems to be that the government option will be so bad ass everyone will leave the private plans and they won't even have a chance to react.

 

If its really going to be that good, what on earth is the problem?

 

It won't be that good.

 

Kap just showed you why.

 

Why would a company choose to pay for private care for their employees when they can just say, nah...go on the public plan, we aren't doing it.

[kapkomet]

My lord. Really?

 

They haven't NOT proposed we cede Alaska back to Russia either. Should we fund the Palins to buy some tanks and fighter jets to keep those Ruskies at bay?

 

Your argument could literally be used to protest anything, even things that do not exist, and then somehow cast us all as "not paying attention", because we don't see the non-existent. This argument reminds me of the character from Mystery Men who claimed he was invisible, but only when no one was looking at him. Makes a nice piece of fiction, but... really?

Ok, the GOP is using it as a talking point, so it MUST NOT be true. End of story.

 

[kapkomet]

Why not?

 

And isn't that part of your plan?

My plan, yes, and give it back to individuals - not a government takeover. Extremely big difference there.

 

[Y2HH]

Ok, the GOP is using it as a talking point, so it MUST NOT be true. End of story.

 

It's not true, and we are both too dumb to understand why.

 

Good thing we have the guns, Kap. We will win this thing no matter what.

[StrangeSox]

It won't be that good.

Kap just showed you why.

 

Why would a company choose to pay for private care for their employees when they can just say, nah...go on the public plan, we aren't doing it.

 

THEN PEOPLE WON'T ALL SWITCH TO IT.

 

Your argument is self-refuting.

 

 

Also, employers now can say "f*** off, get your own." They don't do that because it allows them to retain better talent while paying less payroll taxes.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, the GOP is using it as a talking point, so it MUST NOT be true. End of story.

 

The Dems haven't NOT proposed forced concentration camps, so that must be their nefarious plan!

 

Kap, you're arguing for irrationality again.

[Y2HH]

THEN PEOPLE WON'T ALL SWITCH TO IT.

 

Your argument is self-refuting.

 

 

Also, employers now can say "f*** off, get your own." They don't do that because it allows them to retain better talent while paying less payroll taxes.

 

Wow. Just...wow.

 

Now, go back and re-read what Kap said, and what I reiterated, and that you ignored multiple times. Then, maybe you'll see the only argument here self-refuting is your own non-argument, since you ignored why we said people would be forced onto the public plan in the first place.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, the GOP is using it as a talking point, so it MUST NOT be true. End of story.

Has zero to do with it. The fact that a party is using it as a talking point is unrelated to whether or not its true.

 

What DOES tell me its untrue is that its NOT IN THE BILL, or at least any part of it I've seen, or has been posted here. If someone can show me something other this - something that runs counter to the bill portions shown here to specifically EXEMPT illegals - then I will start worrying about it.

 

This is what StrangeSox was getting at. The GOP method of arguing against anything seems to have become obscuration by decimation - lay waste any and all fact or information produced by anyone, saying nothing can be trusted, therefore I'm right because I feel that way. It is the utter destruction of useful dialogue.

 

[southsider2k5]

THEN PEOPLE WON'T ALL SWITCH TO IT.

 

Your argument is self-refuting.

 

 

Also, employers now can say "f*** off, get your own." They don't do that because it allows them to retain better talent while paying less payroll taxes.

 

I think the point is that people will be forced to switch to it because Employers will quit offering it as an option, just like they have quit offering pensions after social security came around.

[kapkomet]

THEN PEOPLE WON'T ALL SWITCH TO IT.

 

Your argument is self-refuting.

 

 

Also, employers now can say "f*** off, get your own." They don't do that because it allows them to retain better talent while paying less payroll taxes.

There you go. They're incentivized, more or less. Give that incentive back to the individual, and give them real choice.

 

And employers would be glad to say "f*** off, get your own" when the government provides it. They're not on the hook then. And they'll probably lose their tax writeoffs when this comes down the pike as well.

[Y2HH]

I think the point is that people will be forced to switch to it because Employers will quit offering it as an option, just like they have quit offering pensions after social security came around.

 

AND WE HAVE A WINNER.

[BigSqwert]

And they'll probably lose their tax writeoffs when this comes down the pike as well.

More facts!

[StrangeSox]

This is what StrangeSox was getting at. The GOP method of arguing against anything seems to have become obscuration by decimation - lay waste any and all fact or information produced by anyone, saying nothing can be trusted, therefore I'm right because I feel that way. It is the utter destruction of useful dialogue.

 

Bingo. And its the foundation for my intense dislike of the American political right.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think the point is that people will be forced to switch to it because Employers will quit offering it as an option, just like they have quit offering pensions after social security came around.

Interesting analogy, since the combination of 401k's and social security are much better for everyone involved than pensions.

 

The only way employers start begging off insurance offerings in any great numbers are if:

 

--They are deep financial trouble (in which case they might do that anyway)

--The government plan somehow becomes a truly better alternative, which I find doubtful

--Unemployment gets to some ridiculous number like 20% and employees lose all leverage