AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → U.S. House of Representatives Passes Bill to Repeal the New Healthcare Law

157 20543
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

On Wednesday, January 19th, the house voted 245-189 (all Republicans, and 3 Democrats) to repeal the Healthcare Law. I was curious as to what AG's response would be to this.

Some sources:

The Hill

The Huffington Post

FOX News

CNN

  • 157 Replies
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

If I am going to pay a higher price for a worse tasting candy bar, I don't care.


Also, the fact you are willing to force everyone to pay for candy bars just because the government can make them cheaper is laughably selfish and wrong at the same time. Just sayin'.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Benefits are absolutely pointless. I see no reason to have them when you can make more money without. Why not pick the option that gives you more choices and control over those choices?


The benefits are chosen by the employee from a list provided by the employer.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

I said health care is not a right. You explained that this is like saying you don't have a right to eating a candy bar after you buy it. That correlation doesn't work for two reasons.

1. The government did not forced you to pay for the candy bar.
2. The government did not pay for the candy bar.

This is the last time I will explain why your candy bar analogy was weak and does not work.


In Democratic Socialistic countries, the government forces you to pay for a cheaper and better candy bar. You'll end up paying for the candy bar, but you'll get the one without the nuts and the caramel and all that delicious crunch.

This proves my hunch to be correct. You were explaining facts about the government without understanding how they work. It was quite obvious this nonsense was your attempt at mirroring your teacher.

I am fully aware of the rule which your teacher mentioned. This only applies to writing papers. When you debate, however, all sources are as welcome to be used as they are to be scrutinized. The source you used against me was actually a very good source, the only mistake you made was that you misinterpreted what he was trying to say.

So, I linked you to a .com website. Does this make my argument too unreliable so that it can't be used? Of course not. This is where you do your research about the author and you try to look into the possibilities of the things he says. You never clicked those links where he said "here, here, and here" did you?

Link


I took a debate class in ninth and tenth grade and that's what my debate teacher said also.

Also, the link you provided about the marijuana really means nothing. There are both the good and the bad, ti just depends on which side you choose to listen. It doesn't mean those facts are incorrect, but it just depends on how you use them to prove your case.

Also, the fact you are willing to force everyone to pay for candy bars just because the government can make them cheaper is laughably selfish and wrong at the same time. Just sayin'.


That makes no sense whatsoever? You think it is funny that people are too poor to pay for rotten chocolate that costs $6 instead of one that is delicious milk chocolate that costs $3?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

In Democratic Socialistic countries, the government forces you to pay for a cheaper and better candy bar. You'll end up paying for the candy bar, but you'll get the one without the nuts and the caramel and all that delicious crunch.


But I don't want a candy bar.

Also, the free market offers cheaper goods at better prices than a government controlled monopoly.

Also, the link you provided about the marijuana really means nothing. There are both the good and the bad, ti just depends on which side you choose to listen. It doesn't mean those facts are incorrect, but it just depends on how you use them to prove your case.


It was unfair for me to assume you already held a position against marijuana prohibition. Because of this, the article holds no value as evidence that .org sites are also far from being immune to error and manipulation.

That makes no sense whatsoever? You think it is funny that people are too poor to pay for rotten chocolate that costs $6 instead of one that is delicious milk chocolate that costs $3?


Yes, I think it's funny. I don't really believe people should be self reliant, or that they should depend on each other instead of the government. No, I just like to watch the poor suffer. I don't really care about creating more jobs in the private sector as a way to create cheaper and more effective goods. Nope, it's all about keeping the poor down. You caught me.

Helping the poor through coercion does the soul no justice.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

But I don't want a candy bar.


Either way you're going to end up paying for it. Think of it this way:

You walk into a convenience store. You see six people, so there are a total of seven people in the store excluding the cashier. Only four people want candy bars, however. Now, there is a bad tasting candy bar, and a good tasting candy bar. One has the nuts sprinkled on, layers of caramel, and a sweet chocolatey crunch to it, while the other is bland marshmellow filled candy with a layer of dark chocolate. The good bar costs $5 and the bad bar costs $8 dollars. Even though you just want to get a soda and leave, the cashier forces you to pay $2 dollars for the candy bar that tastes so good, even though you get a part of it.

You go to the convenience store the next day for another soda, but you kind of want a snack. Again, there are seven people in the convenience store including you. This time, you only have to pay another $2 dollars for a candy bar.

So you decide to come in the next day for another, same seven people in the convenience store. You don't want to get the candy bar, but decide to get the soda only, but you still have to pay those $2 dollars.

On the fourth day, you get a soda and candy bar. Again, you only pay $2. So in four days, you get two candy bars, for the price of 8 dollars, but wait. That's more than what two candy bars alone cost. Compare that to what two of those bland candy bars cost. $8 dollars instead of $10.

Now what if you never ever want the candy bar but just want the soda. You would pay $8 dollars for something you never receive. Well then, on the sixth day, you have the assurance of being able to buy four candy bars at once.

Across the street, there is another convenience store. They only sell those bland marshmellow filled candy bars. Every day you enter, you have to pay $2 dollars. The first day you enter, you buy a soda and nothing else. One the second day, you are kind of hungry. You have only payed $4 dollars so far. A candy bar costs $8. You know have to pay the other $4 even though you only have $2. Now, that's if your even lucky to be allowed to enter. On the first day, if you want to buy a candy bar, they don't let you.

That's basically the outline of what happens. In the first, you pay the same amount for daily, but get both better quality and better quantity. If you don't pay, then if you want, you can get dental check ups (soda), glasses (potato chips), cancer screenings (lottery) just so that your money isn't going to waste.

In the second convenience store, first you have to get admitted. If you have a pre-existing condition (hunger), they won't let you even qualify to be submitted for healthcare. If you do, you pay the same amount, but you get poor quality and less quantity. Even if you never get the candy bar, you still can't get the soda, chips, or lotto tickets because the convenience store doesn't sell it.

Also, the free market offers cheaper goods at better prices than a government controlled monopoly.

Also, the link you provided about the marijuana really means nothing. There are both the good and the bad, ti just depends on which side you choose to listen. It doesn't mean those facts are incorrect, but it just depends on how you use them to prove your case.

It was unfair for me to assume you already held a position against marijuana prohibition. Because of this, the article holds no value as evidence that .org sites are also far from being immune to error and manipulation.


Ever heard of the phrase "lies, ****ed lies, and statistics"? It is how you use the statistics that are deceiving.

Yes, I think it's funny. I don't really believe people should be self reliant, or that they should depend on each other instead of the government. No, I just like to watch the poor suffer. I don't really care about creating more jobs in the private sector as a way to create cheaper and more effective goods. Nope, it's all about keeping the poor down. You caught me.


You're not serious, are you?

Helping the poor through coercion does the soul no justice.


We aren't looking for justice, bu equality.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

That's basically the outline of what happens. In the first, you pay the same amount for daily, but get both better quality and better quantity. If you don't pay, then if you want, you can get dental check ups (soda), glasses (potato chips), cancer screenings (lottery) just so that your money isn't going to waste.


From your setup, I couldn't really tell what your point was that you were trying to get across. However, this could mean 1 of 2 things:

1. You're talking about how 1 company outcompetes another by offering better services.
2. You're giving a fallacious zero-sum view about how more requirements for healthcare companies leads to better coverage.

It is how you use the statistics that are deceiving.


Exactly why one must use logic - statistics are much more subject to correlation errors / stuff like that.

Logic is unmovable. Use this unless you can prove that it's not provable or you simply cannot come up with a good logical thought process.

"Statistics show that of those who take up the habit of eating, very few survive." - Wallace Irving.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

We aren't looking for justice, bu equality.


If you're poor, you have to find a way out of poverty. I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be payed for by people who actually WORK for a living just because you're too lazy to put forth the effort to find a job. I understand that due to circumstances, some people are naturally in a pit and honestly can't get out. That sucks but I shouldn't have to pay for their misfortune.

Don't take money from the working class, nay anyone, with coercion and claim it's in the name of equality!

Either way you're going to end up paying for it. Think of it this way:


I finally understand what you meant by "not having a right to eat your candy bar", but understand that you completely ignored what I had originally said and what you originally quoted. Completely ignored it.

There's a difference between a right and an entitlement. That's what I was saying earlier. What you said about the candy bar had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

Let's look at insurance and determine what it is exactly. When people pay for health insurance, they hope to put in less money than they take out.

Insurance is not supposed to be a guaranteed money saver. Insurance is a "just in case something bad happens" plan. If you already know something bad will happen, or if you already have problems, then the plan turns from a "just in case" to a "you pay us 10 dollars, we pay for the 100 dollar plan".

Let's assume you want to buy a car that needs a new $500 engine. However, you don't want to spend that extra $500. Therefore, you buy the car, then you pay your insurance company $80 to pay for the new engine. That doesn't make sense! That's exactly why it's unfair to have people with pre-existing conditions to benefit off of insurance. Insurance is a plan that covers you for accidents that might happen, and the companies profit off of those who do stay healthy. If they covered everyone who was sick, they couldn't make a profit.

There's the magic word, profit. Insurance companies work for a profit. So you now expect the state to pay for health care, because you feel they don't need to work for a profit. However, that money comes from somewhere, and it must come from the people.

Non-Profit means you give back what you make. It does not mean you can have a system where you give back more than you make, creating a debt.

The article I linked you, the one you dismissed as moot merely because it came from a blog, sums up what I have to say best.

I like to think of the big tradeoff as being between community and liberty. From this perspective, the health reform bill offers more community (all Americans get health insurance, regulated by a centralized authority) and less liberty (insurance mandates, higher taxes). Once again, regardless of whether you are more communitarian or libertarian, a reasonable person should be able to understand the opposite vantagepoint.


Understand that I value personal rights more than security and protection.

Here's the author's conclusion, which I find is a realistic point with little bias.

The Obama administration's political philosophy is more egalitarian and more communitarian than mine. Their spending programs require much higher taxes than we have now and, indeed, much higher taxes than they have had the temerity to propose. Here is the question I have been wondering about: How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

because you're too lazy to put forth the effort to find a job


Your generalization is fallacious not only is it impossible for some people to find work due to disabilities that are not their fault and others who can and want to work may be unable to find jobs. Not everyone who is poor has a bad work ethic and not everyone who is rich has a positive one.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Your generalization is fallacious not only is it impossible for some people to find work due to disabilities that are not their fault and others who can and want to work may be unable to find jobs. Not everyone who is poor has a bad work ethic and not everyone who is rich has a positive one.


True, this is why we must stop protecting the rich with poor work ethic by bailing them out.

I understand that some people can't find a job for one reason or another, this is why we must make it easier for them to make a living, rather than giving them hand outs.

I believe we don't need the government to create a stronger community.

I know you want to help the poor, but can we stop being super heroes and focus on the middle class for once?
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

I know you want to help the poor, but can we stop being super heroes and focus on the middle class for once?


Healthcare will help the middle class; some lower middle class families are not able to afford healthcare. The problem with helping the middle class is that it isn't as clear cut as helping the lower class which simply entails bringing them out of poverty. In my opinion the only way that we can really help the middle class is to invest money into education and technology to create a more intelligent generation with more job offerings being given to them.

this is why we must make it easier for them to make a living, rather than giving them hand outs.


Other than providing them with government created jobs how do you propose we go about this?

I believe we don't need the government to create a stronger community.


We don't need it but it helps
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Healthcare will help the middle class; some lower middle class families are not able to afford healthcare. The problem with helping the middle class is that it isn't as clear cut as helping the lower class which simply entails bringing them out of poverty. In my opinion the only way that we can really help the middle class is to invest money into education and technology to create a more intelligent generation with more job offerings being given to them.


Why do you need the government to do this? Why couldn't this work in a free market society?

Other than providing them with government created jobs how do you propose we go about this?


When the government creates jobs, they often destroy jobs in the private sector or prevent the private sector from creating more jobs. Many business regulations cost businesses big and small money. The huge businesses can generally afford these regulations while the smaller businesses can't. This is why we should protect businesses from corrupt regulations.

We don't need it but it helps


Read this. It explains a simple philosophy that we don't need a master hand to guide the economy.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Read this. It explains a simple philosophy that we don't need a master hand to guide the economy.


Posting economic-policy links?? Read This. It explains the same philosophy, but using only logic. Austrian-School. I would seriously like to see a non-free-market person respond to this... It is interesting, but it may take you a long time to read...
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

BTW, about the link posted above - if you don't believe the free market, the preface and the beginning may seem presumptuous, but please bear with it for a bit...

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Why do you need the government to do this? Why couldn't this work in a free market society?


Because the average citizen is to nearsighted to invest in technology and most people cannot see the value in education. I don't propose a complete government takeover of either but simple that the government stimulate both areas. Of all the issues education is the one I have the most passion for, if the next generation is armed knowledge then what problems will be stumbling blocks for us? Knowledge is the ultimate good.

When the government creates jobs, they often destroy jobs in the private sector or prevent the private sector from creating more jobs.


If the private sector is leaving jobs positions open and available I fail to see why the government shouldn't step in. I believe in the private sector but when they fail to deliver I can't sit by and profess that they will deliver.

This is why we should protect businesses from corrupt regulations.


But where do we draw the line between corrupt and necessary?

Read this. It explains a simple philosophy that we don't need a master hand to guide the economy.


I will soon, I'm currently working on a paper an really shouldn't even be on here haha. When I do I'll let you know so we can continue the debate on that specific point.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Because the average citizen is to nearsighted to invest in technology and most people cannot see the value in education.


I see - *sarcasm* the average citizen is too stupid to know what's good for him, and most people can't are too stupid to realize what's also good for them. */sarcasm*

First thing I see - the idea of the need for force to direct the minds and wills of the "inferior".
Showing 91-105 of 157