You didn't get a public option or you didn't get single payer and now your pissed.

[upaloopa]

I can understand that. I also would like single payer or at least a public option. I always thought that we could have a two tiered system. One tier for those who want to purchase insurance and one for those who want a single payer. For single payer you pay into the pool that pays for the care provided.

One way or the other you have to pay something. Care givers don't treat people for free and medications, medical supplies and fixed costs don't grow on trees.

The thing I see about those who say they don't like the mandate but want a public option or single payer is that they seem to think that they won't have to pay for the public option or single payer.

It looks like what they really want is a free ride. They won't come out and admit it but the thinking is that "I am well so why should I have to buy insurance?" The answer is that "there ain't no free ride!" Somebody has to pay! If not you then the rest of us. At some point you will need care. You should have to pay no matter what the system if you are able to.

I have no sympathy for the "I hate the mandate, I want single payer or I want public option" What you want is not to have to pay for your medical care. That isn't going to happen now that the SCOTUS has ruled.

Does it really matter if an insurance company or the government provides the coverage if the care is the same? Answer is no. But some think that if the government provides the coverage it is free!

There ain't no free lunch!

If you can't handle what I say, then think of this. If you are well and have to pay into the system you are doing a very Christ like thing. Treating the sick!

[Bjorn Against]

1. I am more than happy to pay taxes to cover my health care costs

Quit with the right-wing talking points, we are not asking for a free ride we are asking for a system of health care coverage that puts the common good over corporate profits.

[upaloopa]

3. Quit with right wing talking points bull shit already! You think doctors shouldn't make a profit?

You think drug companies shouldn't make a profit? You think suppliers of medical supplies shouldn't make a profit? You think clinics shouldn't make a profit?

Oh No they all should just treat you because you are sick and have a right to their education and labors and skills!

Free loader !

[DevonRex]

8. More fucking RW talking points and name calling.

Enough already.

[dionysus]

79. oompa loompa, doopity doo, he has RW talking points for you...

[DevonRex]

87. Hey you!!

And where have you been?

[dionysus]

90. wadsworth dragged me on another one of his blasted safaris. i can't stand the heat

and the truffles hardly keep at all in the humidity. even the gold dust is all clumpy and melting. and the buttons on the mobile cruise missile console haven't been used so long they're sticking. i accidentally took out a village while testing the darn thing.

and you?
are the fires under control?

[Fumesucker]

12. Freeloader is one word, not two..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=freeloader

At least have the decency to correctly spell your personal insults..

[DevonRex]

14. Favorite group: RKBA. nt

[Bjorn Against]

18. I am no freeloader, I pay taxes and for insurance

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

You are making false judgments of people.

To answer your questions though, no doctors should not make a profit, they should however make a really good salary. Pharmaceutical companies should not make a profit either, I certainly think their workers should be paid well though. Profits usually don't go to the workers they go to the shareholders, the shareholders are the real freeloaders as they rake in all the money but do very little work for it.

[arthritisR_US]

89. We in Canada don't pay the cost of drugs you

do, we just have free market economies of scale working for us because we purchase the medications in such large blocks under our "socialized" system. No, indeed no one could ever call you a freeloader, obtuse maybe...

[Bjorn Against]

101. I support socialized medicine, what makes me obtuse?

[rocktivity]

19. Not if it means that people have to die because the PRICES of the medical care and drugs

are too high.


rocktivity

[HiPointDem]

94. 20% to insurance companies v. 2% to public administrators.

[Zorra]

15. I totally agree. A progressive tax to fund health care would be the perfect funding solution.

And by cutting out all the middle men, the costs of goods and services drops drastically.

I have many friends/acquaintances who live in, or are from Canada, who absolutely love their health care system.

I believe they would riot if someone tried to change it to a US like HC system.

Being politically inclined, I naturally ask all of them how they like their HC system.

"Hey, Gordy, how to you like your healthcare system?"

"Ya know, Z, what's not to like? It's free, eh?"

[laundry_queen]

28. Yes we would riot.

Us Canadians are pretty vehement about defending our health care - even the right wingers here.

OP is ignorant. We gladly pay our taxes for a humane system not based on profits. By 'not based on profits' I mean the insurance industry. Doctors and nurses still make great wages. Doctors have private clinics that they run that they can profit on. What a ridiculous assertion that we want doctors to starve or something. OP, LOL, please educate yourself.

[frazzled]

84. Well, the ACA contains a progressive tax

The largest tax increase in the law is on high earners, who will see their Medicare payroll taxes increase by 0.9 percentage point and who will also pay a slightly higher rate on investment income. That raises more than $200 billion. There’s also the tax on unusually expensive health insurance plans, which raises $30 billion in the first decade, and much more in the second. There’s a $60 billion tax on insurance companies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/no-obamacare-isnt-the-largest-tax-increase-in-the-history-of-the-world-in-one-chart/

Also, one might add that the tax "penalty" for those who don't insure themselves (i.e., the "mandate&quot is progressive: people at the bottom are exempt, and the rest get a penalty based on incoming, which increases as a family's income does.

[Zorra]

88. Thanks! That's great! I know the RW trolls that are reading this must totally hate this fact,

but taxing the rich is definitely one way to solve many of our problems.

Now we need to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and cut defense spending

And I don't mind paying taxes, when my tax money goes into actually helping people.

[girl gone mad]

2. "What you want is not to have to pay for your medical care."

No. What I want is to not have to pay parasitic middle men to interfere with and control my access to health care while leeching away massive profits for themselves.


"Does it really matter if an insurance company or the government provides the coverage if the care is the same? Answer is no. But some think that if the government provides the coverage it is free! "

Yes, it matters. Our government does not need to turn a profit to please its shareholders and enrich its executives. Our government is not revenue constrained. Our government can provide "free" coverage that expands money available within the private sector, increasing the purchasing power and reducing debt levels for average Americans. Private insurers can only remove money from the productive sector, and will only do so while taking their significant cut which amounts to an enormous burden on the rest of the economy. Private insurers will do everything within their power to reduce protection to policy holders and decrease service and costs, often paying for the least expensive care rather than the most beneficial care.

[treestar]

32. You've been paying those parasitic middlemen up till now

So at least there is some improvement and they are being managed by government. Failing to see this as a step in the right direction is untenable.

[Zalatix]

57. I got news for ya

Remember, I warned that the individual mandate is a dangerous weak spot in the ACA law.

Not even 2 days later, the corporations are already set to work on exploiting that weak spot:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=881764

[treestar]

60. Insurance companies were against it all along

If it's such a gift to them, they would not have. And the post you reference seems to indicate they want it rolled back. They wouldn't if it was such a gift to them.

[MadHound]

63. Actually they weren't,

"As the nation awaits the Supreme Court ruling on the fate of the Affordable Care Act, let’s take a trip down memory lane on the industry that was the biggest supporter of the now controversial requirement to buy coverage, also known as the “individual mandate.”

The idea was pushed early in the debate by America’s Health Insurance Plans perhaps like no other health care lobby in Washington. AHIP, as it is known, includes the biggest names in health insurance such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH); Humana Inc. (HUM); Aetna Inc. (AET) and Cigna Corp. (CI) along with most big Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/06/17/mandate-to-buy-coverage-health-insurance-industrys-idea-not-obamas/

"Later in the program, Chavern stressed that while the organization is looking to lower the penalties on employers who don’t offer coverage, it supports the individual mandate, a position shared by the health insurance industry, which the Chamber represents."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/01/11/171870/chamber-repeal/

The insurance industry just looooves the mandated monopoly that was just handed to them, have all along.

[Poll_Blind]

64. The individual mandate was THEIR IDEA. How can there be people who still do NOT know this?

Really, please educate yourself. Google up Frontline episode "Obama's Deal". You will be so fucking confused about which way is up until you understand the rug was pulled out from under the President during healthcare reform and he took the legislation he could get...which is what the health insurance industries would give him + other changes he had to make to appease senators to get the bill passed.

PB

[treestar]

65. How can one not know what is not true?

The status quo is much better for insurance companies.

They worked to stop this from happening. And many people have insurance through their jobs and don't want to lose it to a government program, making it politically tougher to change. And no doubt they scared their employees with "you won't have a job" if this passes.

And naturally they want it repealed. Which they would not if it were such a great idea.

Insurance companies have no vote in Congress. Senators might be affected by their constituents working for insurance companies or their constituents not wanting any government programs to the extent of single payer.

[Poll_Blind]

69. Then why did they propose it less than two weeks after the President was elected? (LINK)

Press Release:Health Plans Propose Guaranteed Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions and Individual Coverage Mandate

Like I said, educate yourself:
Forbes: Mandate To Buy Coverage: Health Insurance Industry's Idea, Not Obama's
Frontline: Obama's Deal

PB

[DJ13]

34. +1

A single payer system takes a pool of taxes in, then spends as necessary, spreading the costs out so it ends up cheaper for everyone.

The mandate requires an individual purchase insurance, which is nowhere near as cost effective.

Thats why many only wanted single payer.

[frazzled]

4. Your two-tiered system doesn't really make sense

You speak of "one tier for those who want to purchase insurance and one for those who want a single payer."

First, both these things are "insurance." You're talking about private insurance and public insurance.

Second, single payer, by definition, means a system in which everybody pays into the same public insurance pool. Having a private and public insurance pool would not be economically sound, probably. Or not as sound as a single, national single-payer system.

[dionysus]

81. some people in canada, probably the richie riches, buy private insurance to supplement the govt plan

there's a market for it, i guess.

[frazzled]

83. The OP wasn't talking about supplemental insurance, I think

but rather a system in which those who want to get private insurance get private, and those who prefer public insurance get public. Medicare doesn't work like that, nor the Canadian system. In both, people buy supplemental because not all the costs are covered. But having the two-tiered system the OP proposes I think would lead to adverse economic issues for both the private and public systems.

[senseandsensibility]

5. Fellow DUers, don't let the ignorance of this post bother you.

I have confidence in your ability to rebut it with facts very easily and quickly. Will the OP read the responses and learn from them? We shall see.

[Zalatix]

56. I love the ACA overall, I only hate the mandate, I vastly prefer to PAY TAXES into Medicare for All.

Did I answer all of the OP's objections?

[Skidmore]

72. Well, work for it then. We have a foundation now to build on.

I think the OP is correct so far is that there are some who have this perception of how it should have worked. Taxes or premiums both need to come from somewhere.

[tosh]

6. Wrong.

Many of us believe that the entire third-party-makes-profit-on-healthcare is a total waste of resources.

It's as simple as that.

[treestar]

30. Maybe, but making them cover everyone is a step

And we could not get more than what we got, there's no sense in saying it's not enough - it's a step.

The insurance companies won't be shut down overnight. Most people want to keep the insurance they have - that's why the President in talking about it has to keep reassuring people they won't lose what they have.

It is more than unreasonable to just keep going on and on about it.

[tosh]

51. Hi, treestar. I agree with you 100%

and I have not complained one bit. I was simply pointing out one of the many FAILS of the OP.

I am happy!

[Fumesucker]

7. So you think everyone in the UK doesn't want to pay for their medical care?

ETA: What about Canadians, they don't want to pay either?

How about the French?

[treestar]

29. They do pay, and they know they do

The point is why is it making such a huge difference that it's still private insurance companies for a while? At least we have everyone covered. And that shows it to be a step of progress. Mainly though, it got through the House and Senate.

Those countries have parliamentary systems, too, so it's easier for them to get things through when their liberal parties are in power. Our system is set up to stop new things from getting passed if at all possible.

[slipslidingaway]

45. Everyone is not covered and everyone does not have the freedom to move ...

within the system and seek the best treatment.

[treestar]

61. I thought the UK had a national health care plan.

[slipslidingaway]

66. ?????? This sentence refers to the UK system ....

"...The point is why is it making such a huge difference that it's still private insurance companies for a while? At least we have everyone covered. And that shows it to be a step of progress. Mainly though, it got through the House and Senate..."

My response was to that sentence ... everyone is not covered under the ACA.

[treestar]

70. Who is not covered under the ACA?

I thought you were saying the UK's program does not cover everyone.

[limpyhobbler]

76. With ACA anynbody who can't afford insurance but shows too much income on paper

to get the help they would need - that group will still be uninsured, no? Tens of millions of people isn't it?

[treestar]

82. People in that group get subsidized

The only gap would be the red states who refuse to expand Medicare, since the Court decision says they don't have to.

and those people live in those states and have to deal with their state government. In the end Jindal and those like him may have to back down.

[limpyhobbler]

103. You are wrong in several ways.

First of all, not everybody who needs help will qualify. To determine who will get a subsidy, they are only going by the income you show on paper. Some people have much lower true disposable income than what it says on their pay stub. The government has no way to determine what people can really afford to pay when they are on the margin. Or the subsidy they receive may not be enough. If someone receives makes $40,000/year, after taxes they could bring home just over $2000/month. Subtract from that rent or mortgage, car payment/subway pass/ bus pass/ transportation. Subtract groceries and clothes to wear to work. Subtract the cost of shoes. Subtract education loan payments to banks. Occasional restaurants or movies. Subtract money they give to relatives to help the relatives pay their rent or mortgage, to keep them from being homeless. Obamacare, or ACA, does not account for any of these things when determining what someone "can afford to pay".

Most people who can afford to buy health insurance already have health insurance. The mandate is trying to get get blood out a stone by bringing more healthy people into the system and forcing them to pay (some will get subsidies, or will get Medicaid if they make less $13000/year in a state that opts in).

The new law will help many people but some people could get screwed.

Second, in your previous post, you said something about states refusing to expand Medicare. Do you know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid? There is an issue with states that decide not to participate in the Medicaid expansion for all people under 133% of federal poverty. People who would have been helped by this but live in states that don't participate will get screwed because they are forced to pay for health insurance they can not afford, where previously they could have chosen not to purchase it. Or they can pay the tax/penalty and still not have insurance.

You should read up on what the law actually does if you are planning to defend every single thing about it.

What is the Medicare expansion you refer to?

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. You're.

free ride

[Marrah_G]

11. I want to pay for my health care in a single payer system

Nothing is more disgusting then a company making a profit by denying care to those who need it most. Every American should feel embarrassed that our so called representatives continue to allow, even encourage this.

[backscatter712]

13. Oh, I get it! We liberals want to do nothing but freeload!

Thank you for your concern...

[rocktivity]

16. "Does it really matter if an insurance company or the government provides the coverage

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:49 PM - Edit history (12)

if the care is the same?"

The difference with paying the private health industry is that the difference fattens the pockets of its execs, lobbyists, and stockholders while they invent excuses for not covering people (or even paying their employees) so they can turn an even bigger profit.

I don't mind paying for health care, which is why your post does not offend me. However, I do mind paying to further enrich those who do NOT "trickle down" the money via "job creation." I'd rather spend it on preventing EVERYONE from getting sicker than they need to -- and dying sooner than they ought to.


rocktivity

[quinnox]

17. is this your flame out post?

This argument sounds like it came straight from free republic...

[marmar]

20. "what they really want is a free ride"

Dios mio.

[Enrique]

21. there's a free lunch in Canada

[stlsaxman]

22. Dear Skinner, et al- PLEASE bring back "Un-rec", if ONLY for this single OP!?!?!

please oh please?!?!?

[Zalatix]

58. Bah, who cares. Unrec or no unrec, we can still speak our opinions. Or even trash the thread.

[stlsaxman]

59. correct- and un-rec IS my opinion, tyvm.

ps- i think un-rec is stupid, too. but the OP's ignorance hit on so many levels that to address them all would have taken a short essay to accomplish. times like that an un-rec seems like a viable- and convenient option.

[derby378]

23. Hoo boy...

[TheKentuckian]

24. What free lunch is to be had from Single Payer, a public option, or an NHS?

I'm sure some may believe such but get real if you think most advocates of these approaches think it is free.

Personally, I wasn't even opposed to any and all mandates but to this specific design. I do not understand the mandate is a mandate is a mandate people, I tend to think them simplistic regardless of where they stand on this one.

Many are aware that these systems would rely on taxes rather than fees which are almost always more progressive and affordable for poor and working folks. They also have pretty good reasons to trust government as the gatekeeper to access over what has been one of the most predatory industries in history.

You built in a dangerously naive assumption in your "hypothesis", that the quality of care is the same and skipped cost because you want to unload on this overblown "free rider" horseshit.

Let's be honest, high earners, the rich, and the wealthy always come out ahead on fees because in scale with the economy, the fees have to be at least arguably affordable for the masses so they do much better than typically would be in the cards with progressive taxes and conversely with progressive taxes the poor and working class folks take on less weight and those with the most take more of the load.

Now, personally I opposed the mandate as passed and agree that the Commerce Clause was stretched out of all proportion to justify the action and The Supreme Court bailed Congress and the President out by magic wanding the whole deal into a tax, which was stridently not the intention of the writers of the legislation.

I oppose the law in totality because I think it is bad law and poorly structured, to the point of needing an even more drastic overhaul by far than this fake reform that leaves the existing system fully in place and profit centers unaffected.
I've paid shitloads into the system and have got back far less than put in and that is accounting for birth and childhood. The only major ailment I've had, I had no coverage being employed where nothing was offered and nobody paid my bills, I did and still do (another reason the free rider shit gets little traction with me, I suspect as much blood as can be squeezed from busted folks with no coverage and then they jack the rates to hit the worst off far harder than multi-billion dollar members of the cartel).

What I'm wanting is value and you don't get that by schemes to get premiums as low as possible with a bunch of scammy cost sharing, no consumer choice, and thousands of tiny fragmented pools overseen by flat busted, or plain overwhelmed state regulators going against a very over powered industry with an anti-trust exemption.

Can a brotha get access to an exchange? Shouldn't we at bare minimum, make the exchange a single national entity to maximize or collective bargaining power and volume purchasing?
Why should most people be locked out of the exchanges and how do we get to even apply basic market pressure on a product we are mandated to buy but have no choice in?

Also, why do you want single payer if you believe the cartel is just as good, as you assert? Seems like double talk to me and you misrepresent positions to accuse when I've been banging the same drums before this shit even started.

I support single payer but did not push it during the debate, didn't even demand a public option (though it at least would allow an alternative gatekeeper which would keep the cartel from rebelling in unison and forcing NHS/Congress to back down because there is no other choice) but instead focused on the structure being put into place and thus ignored on the left caught up in nearly impossible shiny objects and blown off by the "sensible" types who drummed fear of failure and pushed pay for play features.
No, I wouldn't be satisfied with the "sliver" public option because it would only serve as a dumping ground for customers the cartel sees as too undesirable.

Seriously, folks are trying to pretend someone (an unresourced someone at that) is going to be breaking balls when we couldn't even muster a repeal of an anti-trust exemption? Really? How honest is that position?

Too many people just need tight little answers to everything, sound bite shit, when in reality things are complex and you have to mind the moving parts.

[banned from Kos]

40. Single payer is by definition a "free lunch" for any who never pays taxes.

This is not a value judgement. It is a statement of fact.

[Fumesucker]

47. Who never pays taxes?

[banned from Kos]

52. People who have never earned any income.

In single payer they still get medical care.


DUHHH!

[Fumesucker]

55. Who never earns any income?

[girl gone mad]

100. All those free riding toddlers and children.

Quelle horreur!

[TheKentuckian]

73. Broke people that need a free lunch, working to middle class families with children

(which is a willful tax code values decision rather than one created by a government system), large corporations, and rich folks with the right accountants and tax lawyers.

Seems the only change in the "soup lines" is more room at the trough at the expense of the more former groups which seems kind of contrary to the idea of quality affordable health care for all or at best agnostic to it.

Your "how" is always a values statement whether it is intended to be or not because all the theory is put into practice and the weight is distributed as the system dictates. Somebody is going to get a free ride no matter what you do whether it be in hard fact or in functional proportion. The way that plays out is what values mean beyond notions bouncing around one's head.

[sabrina 1]

25. Sigh! Wrong:

The thing I see about those who say they don't like the mandate but want a public option or single payer is that they seem to think that they won't have to pay for the public option or single payer.

It looks like what they really want is a free ride. They won't come out and admit it but the thinking is that "I am well so why should I have to buy insurance?"

Please stop spreading these Right Wing talking points here. It is insulting to Democrats who have long had to argue against this false attack on the poor from the Right. I don't come here to have to see it here.

There was an article recently that dealt with advice given to President Obama on how to push the Mandate which he opposed in the Campaign. He was advised to use this right wing talking point, to demonize the poor, to create anger among people who are able to afford to pay for premiums.

Fyi, and I am so sick and tired of repeating this, we Democrats, know that nothing is FREE. Do you understand that?

What we are aiming for and always have been, is a system similar to SS, as they have in every other civilized country in the world, where we take care of the most vulnerable among us, as a decent society does, by paying into a system that works for everyone.s

Are you against a National HC system btw? The fact that you used those vile, right wing talking points distracted me and I am not really sure what you are advocating.

[treestar]

26. Very True

Sometimes it seems so unreasonable it's hard to believe. Maybe it's better to do away with insurance companies, but that will have to be gradual. Just common sense. Americans resist change, too. This makes it easier to get out of the bind that employers only provide health insurance.

[Puregonzo1188]

27. Do you consider Medicare to be a free ride?

What about the United States military?


The Post Office?


I really can't understand the logic of your post.

[flamingdem]

48. Don't most seniors pay for an extra kind of insurance along with Medicare?

Excuse me if I'm uninformed

[laundry_queen]

31. Ah, well, a post and run.

couldn't take all the facts, could ya?

[eridani]

33. Huge logic FAIL

People who want single payer and/or a public option want to pay for health care. We want to pay the government, which will then pay providers. We prefer not to have for-profit mass murderers standing between us and our health care providers.

[FarLeftFist]

35. Jeez, I'm guessing you're under 18 and completely unaware of how healthcare is run.

People would pay for a public option, that's why it's called an "option" not a public free. It's an option to cut the middleman and just pay the Govt directly.

[quaker bill]

99. Making the government the new middleman

not that I have a problem with that.

[EFerrari]

36. Fail. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

37. You are so far off base, you're sitting in the bleachers

But hey. Nice try.

I know a lot of people who want single payer.

I don't know anyone who thinks it should be free. I don't know anyone not willing to pay for it.

I know a lot of ill informed people who don't understand this and use it as a way to hate on liberals.

Have a swell day.

Bless your heart.

[pacalo]

38. "There ain't no free lunch!"

What you don't seem to understand is, we are Democrats because we know that helping those who cannot afford to pay for life's necessities is the right thing to do.

Your OP is very hateful.

[banned from Kos]

42. It is not hateful. The OP agrees with Jesus and "healing the sick".

And is even willing to pay for such.

[Bjorn Against]

43. I am picturing Jesus screaming "NO FREE LUNCH FOR YOU FREELOADER!!11!!!"

[banned from Kos]

44. The OP has not said such.

I support a "free lunch" for sick children (SCHIP) to pick on an easy example.

Hey kids, FREE LUNCH! (both lunch and medicine)

But I do not begrudge them for a moment. Our society should embrace this policy!

[Bjorn Against]

46. He sure as hell did not say anything Christ like

And he seems to think the way to "heal the sick" is to send money to the insurance industry that denies care to the sick. He did a lot more yelling about freeloaders than he did presenting a real plan to heal the sick.

[RandySF]

39. I admit that I am disappointed.

I think Obama should have leaned harder on a few senators like Libermannn and Nelson for the public option. But ACA is what it is: A very good start.

[Cary]

62. What makes you think he didn't lean on them?

That kind of thing doesn't go on in public.

[Romulox]

68. The most logical explanation is that the President got EXACTLY what he fought for. No more, no less.

There were no imaginary battles for Single Payer; the President offered up Single Payer as a concession to insurers before the negotiations even began.

[Cary]

71. I disagree.

The most logical explanation is that neither you nor I are privy to anything other than what is offered up for public consumption.

They know what they have and what they don't have.

[Romulox]

74. Well, we might as well conjecture that Martians intervened, if all speculation is equally plausible.

Back here on earth, we have to work with the evidence we have. And there is simply no evidence of any fight for Single Payer. Quite the contrary.

[Cary]

75. I'm perfectly comfortable with my understanding.

A former law partner of mine was a United States Senator and I have a few good friends who are State Senators and Representatives. You're the only one here bringing up Martians.

[Romulox]

91. Appeal to authority notwithstanding, you have no evidence for your claim. All known evidence is to

the contrary, in fact.

[Cary]

92. Hahahahaha!

You accuse me of the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority simply because I tell you that I know legislators, and then you claim that "All known evidence is to the contrary, in fact."

It's a pity that you don't understand what you just did here, and lack the humility to own up to it.

ROTFLMAO

[Romulox]

95. Oh dear. "Appeal to authority" is one of the "logical fallacies"; it has a specific meaning, and

that meaning is not "referencing established facts".

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

[Cary]

96. So you think that every time someone says that they know what they're talking about it's

a logical fallacy?

ROTFLMAO.

[Romulox]

98. This: "A former law partner of mine was a United States Senator" is an appeal to authority.

And it's not I who thinks it's a fallacy--it's the rules of formal logic which regard your style of argument as fallacious.

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".[1] By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Less laughing, more reading, perhaps?

[Cary]

105. More laughing, since you offer nothing to read. ROTFLMAO

My law partner is not a social relationship. It's a professional relationship from which I gleaned direct and wholly relevant information. Stating that I have knowledge because of my experience gleaned from my law partner is certainly not any kind of appeal to emotion in any meaningful way.

If you had actually studied logical fallacies and actually knew what you were talking about you would know that generally they boil down to relevance.

Oh, and you might notice too that you shifted here from your weak accusation of "appeal to authority" to an even weaker claim of "improper argumentation."

Nice try, almost. But quite amusing.

Want to try again?

[Romulox]

106. Laugh until milk comes out your nose; a lawyer shouldn't be proud of being ignorant of the rules of

formal logic.

[Cary]

107. Now you're just being ridiculous.

There's no shame in being wrong Romulox. Citing my former law partner and my experience with him just isn't an appeal to authority.

Simply admit your error and move on. Or you could continue to dance for me. I am indeed enjoying the show.

[slipslidingaway]

41. Fail, fail, fail and not much more to say ...

to the misguided screed you have written here, but I'll give it a rec for others to see.

"...The thing I see about those who say they don't like the mandate but want a public option or single payer is that they seem to think that they won't have to pay for the public option or single payer..."

[flamingdem]

49. I asked elsewhere if seniors pay in addition to Medicare for extra coverage

I believe many of them do -- 100 - 200 a month -- seems similar

[slipslidingaway]

53. Many do pay extra to help defray those added costs ...

the ones that hardly ever get mentioned and that bankrupt most people who already have insurance.

"Stanley Ann Dunham didn't have a problem with her health insurance coverage but with her co-pays
And out of pocket expenses."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002876868

[zbdent]

50. and the people who constantly scream about "personal responsibility"

are the ones who backed the people suing over the "mandate" issue, which essentially is the CONSERVATIVE argument, making sure that nobody gets anything for "free" ...

[Zyzafyx]

54. Scream at the Swedes!

Or carp to the Canadians. The ACA is an improvement, but single-payer is the solution!

[Romulox]

67. The OP is a nonsensical swipe a Straw Man; nobody thinks Single Payer is free. nt

[HughBeaumont]

77. Dumb post is a hot pile of dumb.

There are some things in life that cannot be handled with people's individual incomes and savings. Health care is one of them.

Logically explain to me how one person not earning the income of Steve Wynn foots a $330,000 cancer treatment bill. Logically explain to me how they do that. The answer is they don't and cannot, which is why health care should be a separate tax, government funded and comprised of a huge pool of tax monies to provide basic care. Preventative treatments would flourish, leading to less probability of a $330,000 cancer treatment bill, and would save money and cost less in the long run. What about this do you not get?

[Marrah_G]

78. The scolding is getting old

Off to ignore you go Mr/Ms 142 posts.

I'm an unapologetic socialist (oh yes and NOT a follower of Christ) and my views on ISSUES do not change just because someone or something has a D in front of it.

[dionysus]

80. no one wants "free" health care (maybe a few dolts, not many). single payer\public option

isn't free, it's paid for by your taxes, and you don't get ripped off by having most of your money go to an insurance company as profit.

our insurance industry is too powerful to defeat in one fell swoop, but i think ACA is the first step into moving towards single payer. it's a foot in the door for true reform.

what pisses me off is that some of the single payer proponents refuse to acknowledge any oft he improvements of the ACA...

[NCTraveler]

85. Nice PSA from the RMoney campaigh. nt

[Bake]

86. Free lunch my ass!

My taxes might go up, but not nearly as much as the premium for my shitty health insurance that my employer barely pays anything for.

Medicare for ALL!

Bake

[HiPointDem]

93. 20% to insurance companies. that's what i'm pissed about.

[julian09]

102. They could bring costs down with that money, insure more people, and help employer be more

competitive. As far as the worker, many had to give up raises, to keep up with insurance copay increases.
That is why their is such an income disparity in the last few decades. The middle class lost much of its' buying power.

[girl gone mad]

104. They are about to lose even more of their purchasing power.

The ACA shifts costs off of the government (general fund) and onto the middle class by forcing people to choose between costly under-insurance or an often hefty tax which will get them nothing.

[mattclearing]

97. Can't believe y'all are still feeding this. n/t