Wait.... what's wrong with "Obamacare"?

[Fatman3001]

Welcome to my ignore list Fatman3001. You are the first one to get this privilege. I hope you are proud of yourself...

And thus Grubering comes to the Forum.

You mean that guy who wrote that bill for the republican presidential candidate?

I mean you.  And by the way, this is not trolling.  I'm saying that you are bringing Grubering into the forum with this thread.  Since "Grubering" is actually a new word in English, I figured we should use it.  Why not?

I didn´t start this thread

[1714116405]

1714116405

[1714116405]

1714116405

[1714116405]

1714116405

[Fatman3001]

what's wrong with obamacare? kooky conservatives. we already knew how well it would work, since it had already happened in MA, and although it wasn't perfect, it was an improvement.

I don't get that. Yes some people want a single payer model. Fine. But does that mean everything is acceptable to reach that goal no matter what? Do you want to have something like 0bamacare to be remembered as The First Grubering forever? Does that mean you cannot be better humans than those kooky conservatives and need to be sneaky sleazy lying liberals to have your ideas be forced on people? How does that make you better than a conservative?

Hey, that's not fair.  Obamacare will certainly be remembered as the First Gruber (Although I think Climate Science was actually the first...).

Here, Fatman is the Gruber.

Let him spin it.

We already know how the Gruber thinks.  But we don't know what clever nuances the Fatman may add to the lie set.  I think the novel thing about The Gruber is he comes right out and says the things that shouldn't be said, but that everyone thinks.  In a sick and twisted and perverted way...

....that's worthy of some respect.

This made my day, you make me sound like an evil genius. An evil genius who will manipulate the world into healing the sick and helping the poor. Maybe I can become a villain in a Marvel movie some day. Vey nice, chenquieh!

[Spendulus]

....An evil genius who will manipulate the world into healing the sick and helping the poor. .....

The Ends justify the Meanies!

Be a meanie!

[Kluge]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

[Spendulus]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?....

Does it successfully enable the buying of votes?

Other alternatives, such as a true market based solution, are not bendable to corruption, therefore they would not be proposed by politicians.

[Fatman3001]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state must take responsibility to make sure everybody has access to affordable health care is that the demand is not price sensitive. Therefore the idea of a free market within this sector is not very realistic. If you need an operation or some medicine to keep an arm, a leg, or even your life, you will pay whatever it takes. If your child is seriously injured or ill you are not going to take it to the vet and put it to sleep because you can't afford to treat the child. In that sense these american drug dealers really are like drug dealers, and it's not a pretty sight.

[Spendulus]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....

....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

[Fatman3001]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....

....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

Yeez man! Chillax a bit! Go watch a movie. I would suggest Garden State or Little Miss Sunshine, that should mellow you out.

[BitMos]

administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. ...(even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations).... Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. ...
Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

Digitalization less and less admin fees, never believe rating (mercyless), The free Market created America, what can't it do? Is there an example of a market freed by it's handlers (central banks)?.

[Spendulus]

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?

There is a deeper problem here. One of the reasons just about every other country other than the US has come to the conclusion that the state ....

....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

Yeez man! Chillax a bit! Go watch a movie. I would suggest Garden State or Little Miss Sunshine, that should mellow you out.

Triple someone's insurance costs while providing less (yes, that's me) then suggest they chill out and watch a movie.

Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective.

[jaysabi]

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin. 

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

[Wilikon]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?

Grubergate is just one of the score of scandals, frauds, and failures that have destroyed any trust in this collection of creeps by anyone except the most leftist and the most stupid, two sets which, if graphed in a Venn diagram, would be represented by a single circle.

IRS oppression. Executive amnesty. VA death lists. The Benghazi filmmaker frenzy. You’d think that statistically this Administration would have to act honestly and/or competently sometime. Instead, Obama’s managed to create the political equivalent of a broken clock that’s never right.

The liberals are fuming, infuriated that Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag. Then let out another. And another. In fact, he dumped out a whole bag of cats as new media detectives released fresh clips daily depicting his smarmy confessions that he thinks the people who fell for Obamacare are drooling idiots. No, don’t look at us conservatives – we saw through this crypto-fascist scheme from Day One. Your boy Gruber is just telling it like it is – when liberals aren’t liars, they’re morons.

Like the hip kids say, hate the game, not the single payer.

What to do? With apologies to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, the liberals in the media, which is to say “the media,” ran through the first four of the five stages of grief in record time.

Stage One – Denial: “Gruber who? Never heard of the guy I said was key to the whole Obamacare idea. And I never heard of Obamacare either. Look, a squirrel!”

Stage Two – Anger: “This is an outrage, citing the statements of a guy we spent years touting as an expert on Obamacare who says it was all a giant scam! You are the worst human being since that inhuman monster who wore a whimsical shirt to a comet landing!”

Stage Three – Bargaining: “Well, uh, Mitt Romney hired him too so it’s not so bad. Wait, what? You say that for conservatives, defending Mitt Romney over Romneycare is not a thing?”

Stage Four – Depression: “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”


http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/11/24/america-youve-been-grubered-n1921636?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

[RodeoX]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

[Fatman3001]

I am not going to nitpick too much, but I would like to suggest regarding [1]: You falsely assume that everyone is behaving rationally when anyone who has lived a little knows that people are a bit more complex than that.
And regarding [2]: I hate to break it to you but that is kind of the point of a state. The state is the monopoly of violence within a given geographical area.  Its role is to force through its decisions, that is why it is so important that the people take part in the democratic processes of the state so that the state doesn´t morph into a tyrannical entity. But the idea that simply forcing the unwilling is in itself tyrannical is inconsistent with the idea of a state. That does not mean that everything the democratic compact agrees to can´t be tyrannical. But if you look at the consequences of not being covered by health insurance, the fine for not buying health insurance, and the benefits of having sufficient coverage, you would be hard pressed to find this particular policy tyrannical.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin.  

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. [1] Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: [2] life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

And thank you as well for your civil responses! It is nice when someone actually gives what one writes some thought. I am not going to offer any real counter argument other than identify a couple of issues that may lead to the basis of our disagreement. [1] In order to make such a claim you need to view the world in far more relativistic terms than I am willing to concede. [2] I believe it is insufficient to view this particular right as a purely negative right. It needs to be a positive right as well, ie. if your life is at risk the state/society should be obligated to help you.

[Fatman3001]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

[Spendulus]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......

Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

[RodeoX]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

[Fatman3001]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......

Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

Yeah, it's better to trust those guys who sent you to war to find Saddams nukes.

[Wilikon]

America, You’ve Been Grubered!

The most important effect of the revelations of the Administration’s flunkies’ history of cheesy lies about Obamacare is that liberals must now answer one threshold question before discussing the substance of any new socialist scheme:

Why should we trust anything liberals say about anything?
......

Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

Yeah, it's better to trust those guys who sent you to war to find Saddams nukes.

So liberals lie better? I could agree with that...
By the way... http://news.yahoo.com/600-us-troops-exposed-chemical-agents-053000684.html

[picolo]

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

That is a substantial amount! Do you get the impression that the negativity around "Obamacare" is mostly overblown or do you think that your result is different from what most might experience?

I really don't know? Among a few people I talked to at work, they all saved some. But lucky me, I saved the most. However I don't know how shitty my old plan was. At least at the exchange you can see all the options at once and compare them. It was certainly the first time in many years that I paid less than the previous year. 

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up