Jack, Obamacareless is beyond fixing and has been for some time. Time to dump it entirely next year and completely replace it with something that actually works and market based.
This is what we call cliche. Your line there is cliche.
Our insurance system is not a failed system. Investing profits allows for maximum pay out on the worst losses. It’s this simple. You are acting like insurance is bad at this while the fact is they are good at this.
The insurance industry has been anything but a “free market”. It has been over regulated for some time. We just re-over-regulated it.
Universal Health Care is Obamacare on steroids. You already have it in Medicaid & Medicare. Not needed for the general population. Get rid of all the mandates for a start and stop giving subsidies to the freeloaders who are the ones driving up the costs. Re-institute Pools for the chronically sick.
We don’t need another VA. We have seen how bad that government program is and how many veterans have died due to lack of care or long waiting lists to be seen.
Does your plan have the chronically sick to pay actuarial sound rates? Does it include subsidies?
Does it eliminate the evil VA, Medicaid and Medicare?
Does it provide coverage for all citizens?
Does it provide total freedom to get care where you want?
Do people still have to choose between in-network and out-of-network providers and hospitals?
Does it allow companies to deny people for pre-existing conditions? Does it place limits on coverage? Does it allow companies to cancel for being sick?
Do people have to postopone retirement until solely due to high cost of health insurance?
There will be limits on coverage, and there will be overhead. For every dollar you receive, you will not pay a dollar out.
Insurance does for a fact pay out more than 1 dollar for every dollar received, due to investing. This is even after profits. You know this. Stop thinking ideologically, and think with facts.
If we have a proper insurance market, and then a government one, people can get the best bang for their buck who can afford it, and everyone else can get some level of assistance.
Also, please note that even in Canada Universal Healthcare is not only not free due to taxes, you have exclusions and deductibles based on location that can be very high, and if you don’t pay them you can then be punished by losing your driver’s license, or other rights.
These are all elements of extreme government control.
Please explain my plan in detail, especially the payment and distribution methods. Based on your post, who do not know what mt plan entails.
September 13, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron,
A typical reply, you didn’t actually say anything that can be disproved because you didn’t spell out all the elements of single payer. I am more inclined to believe you are arrogant, and you didn’t think about them in your post, and now you want me to appear to have been the personality who is labeling your ideals. That tends to be the only way you can debate.
It’s up to you to frame why a single payer is a good option. I can only base it on the common issues they face, and my comment about those issues are quite real. You cannot shrug them off because as you imply I don’t know your imaginary plan that you say is so much better.
Back on point:
Please explain how the government will pay out as well as the insurance companies that you know exceed 1.0 on dollars paid out inclusive of profits.
Please explain how you intend to deal with government punishment of not paying taxes or deductibles, and government over reach.
Please do explain your plan.
You said your plan resolves a lot of issues. Explain how. If you’re going to talk solely ad hominem to me, I’m going to bite you in the butt for it, and force you to stop.
September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Does your plan have the chronically sick to pay actuarial sound rates? Does it include subsidies?
Does it eliminate the evil VA, Medicaid and Medicare?
Does it provide coverage for all citizens?
Does it provide total freedom to get care where you want?
Do people still have to choose between in-network and out-of-network providers and hospitals?
Does it allow companies to deny people for pre-existing conditions? Does it place limits on coverage? Does it allow companies to cancel for being sick?
Do people have to postopone retirement until solely due to high cost of health insurance?
My plan solves all of these problems.”
So you get to say your plan can fix everything without saying what “your plan” is? You sound like what you say conservatives are.
“Another step toward Universal Health Care. The only true fix.”
I went with the assumption that this was your plan.
Outside of this if you have issue that I debated the universal healthcare issues, you might then want to actually explain your plans when you say them.
However, I believe your intent was originally to state universal care was the plan, and you didn’t have one.
You only switched footing when I basically tore apart the universal plan, and you basically didn’t like that you had just lost the debate and or you didn’t want to debate a universal plan.
This is dishonest debate Ron. I am amazed you take part in this type of behavior, and I very much so doubt it is without intent.
September 13, 2016 at 9:47 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob,
I have been explaining my plan for over a year. Thank you for paying attention. When you said, “Your plan does not solve all those problems.”
Here it is:
-The government collects premiums in the form of taxes
-The government pays private insurance companies
-No deductibles or co-pays.
-Private health care providers and hospitals administer the care.
-All citizens are covered under the same plan for necessary, including preventative, care.
-“Cadillac” plans can be sold by private companies for elect procedures
-Illegal immigrants cannot be denied care, but will be detained, then deported as soon as a health care professional deems they are healthy enough for the trip back.
-Medicaid, Medicare and the VA are all eliminated removing the government from health care administration.
I am open to some discussion and compromises.
You have threaten to force me to stop. More threats? Exactly how would go about that?
September 13, 2016 at 11:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“You have threaten to force me to stop. More threats? Exactly how would go about that?”
SHUT UP!!!! We aren’t going on this divisive type of talk. Yes. I said I would bite you in the butt, and stop you from turning an argument against facts and using the character to make an argument, which you just did again! You had no reason to throw that line in. I have NOT threatened YOU I have threatened to stop your clear inappropriate behavior. There is a big difference kiddo.
Moving on:
You CANNOT assume that everyone knows your position on this matter. I have said mine several times. Please explain off the top of your head, why my plan wouldn’t work.
Now as for yours:
Adding an additional layer of giving government dollars to insurance companies this creates far too many risks to be done. This is how we get Putin style government.
What issue do you have with a private and public plan?
I have an issue with “Cadillac” being used. If you want to say higher quality, fine. The reason Obama called these Cadillac plans is to tie wealth to them, and justify taxing them. Cadillac owners after all can afford their Cadillacs to be taxed higher.
These are only starting points on this, and I will reiterate, you did not start this by making your point, instead you went after me ad hominem as the basis for your argument, then you tried to discredit me by saying I was harassing you.
You don’t get to just lace those comments in.
If we are to continue, you’re going to admit what you did, and you’re going to make it right. Meaning, you went after my character when there was no need.
I have no need to converse with a pompous prick who keeps decrying harassment when people tell him he should learn how to make his points better and stop trying to pull the arguments away from the argument and instead to things that have nothing to do with it.
We will stay on topic if we debate. If you want to say something I said is idiotic. Fine. I’ll tolerate it. If you want to say you have been harassed by online commentary when someone said you were out of line, no. We won’t talk.
I’m not playing into your crap anymore Ron.
So decide. Debate right, or don’t debate at all.
September 13, 2016 at 11:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have to emphasize this:
When you didn’t debate and instead went Ad hominem I said I would force you to stop ad hominem attacks, and you said you were threatened.
We are pausing this conversation exactly there, and you’re going to admit you were out of line, dishonest, and unethical with it.
And then we will move forward.
September 9, 2016 at 6:50 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh, for the record, steroids are consistently used to speed up healing and help people deal with difficult medical conditions.
Allowing the health insurance industry the ability to write insurance as best they can, and then having a public delivery system for those who are too poor is the only true fix.
This allows for the insurance companies to do what they do best, and allows the government to help when people need it.
That is what we had and tens of millions of working citizens could not afford insurance, were denied due to pre-existing conditions, and/or went bankrupt.
1. They were denied insurance coverage. They are not denied service.
2. The insurance industry as I put above is one of the most highly regulated industries out there. What we have is a failed over regulated insurance industry. Regulating it more is not the answer. Right now there are limits of how much of each dollar they can invest to grow for future pay outs. Please explain how this helps their ability to grow capital?
3. If their ability to grow capital is harmed, will they not have less money to pay out to claims? This is the phrase Obama keeps saying, the making sure that 70 cents to every dollar immediately goes to claims, or even 80. If they only invest 20 percent of each dollar, they must have really good returns.
4. Bankruptcy rates as a whole are just as high in Canada. What you are saying does not make sense. It is impossible with the data on bankruptcies and poverty.
5. You are speaking in cliches again. You are not using data. If insurance companies deny pre-existing conditions there must be no coverage correct? Only that isn’t correct and we have laws against that. Then you say there are certain cases where people die that slip outside of that. How many? I have yet to see a sizeable percentage that does not get matched or exceeded by single payer options.
6. The WHO shows our life expectancy is poor, however as I have showed you before, and you refuse to listen, our obesity rate which contributes to heart attacks and cancer (and I have linked studies to this in the past for you) is 3 times that of nations that have the best life expectancy in the world, our smoking rates are also 3 times higher, which is also linked to heart disease as well as cancer. Adjusting for that and our higher vehicular deaths and violent crime which is the leading cause of death for our youth, we can see that our life expectancy is actually far too high considering our lifestyles. Our system works. If you are a fat, obese, unhealthy slob, you can survive here. You will get a bill. You will survive. It is better than any other nation in the world from my perspective based on these numbers. You have not done a credible analysis of the system on your own. I gathered WHO data, Gov data from the nations on all these particulars several years ago. This was before my dad died. I showed it to him, and he was a life long democrat until Carter. He only flipped due to being Catholic and abortion issues. But before he died, he became a republican after he saw my studies. I am completely about facts. Completely. I do not accept cliche methods of debate. Ever.
Just yesterday as a side comment my brother and I were watching a college debate video.
I do this often, I might add. There are several prestigious schools who tape debates on issues.
Moving on, I paused the video on what normal people would consider to be a rather large change. This was a transgender male to female talking about whether or not gender was a social construct. Interestingly, this person not only argued it was not, they said they took it rather illogical for people to simultaneously say gender was a social construct and then claim that people like him were born transgender. That was a huge statement. Do you grasp it? Did you catch it? Short and powerful. He then explained how he never related to the female side and explained if gender was a social construct the pushes he had to his gender would have constructed him a male, and he went over brain differences between the genders, as proven by science.
I said to my brother:
I’ve always known this and said this to some degree, but what if people who believe they are born gay are, but not in the same way they think they are? This comes back to the whole “did God make me this way” argument. Religious folks say well God doesn’t make sin. And he doesn’t. God is science. And God makes people with strengths and proclivities that we can reject.
So let’s say brain differences and hormone differences while they are usually geared toward gender strengths and gifts, what if God specifically gives certain males and certain women a mix of some of the opposite gender to make them able to unify the differences of the sexes and the intent is NOT for them to be gay or transgender but it is a consequence of how people and Satan corrupt God’s goodness perfectly in an imperfect way (see Catholic Theory on sin is a perfect twist to make God’s perfection perfectly imperfect)
So this person is what a Catholic may consider to be sinful, and it is sinful, in regards to Gay behavior, but if they tap into their gift they will give great insight.
I say this to show a point. I will change drastic sections of my belief system if someone debates properly. The element I changed here was: God did create Gay people and Transgender uniquely the way they were. Do you watch debates looking for the epitome moment?
I have always listened to gay debaters more prominently on gay issues and relationship theory, as well as women debaters on feminist issues, black people who go against norms on black issues, and you can see the pattern here. I want to see people who challenge typical stereotypes for their gender, sex, or religion and see why. This is because I intentionally challenge my beliefs with the intent to grow and change them.
I very much so doubt that of those here. But you are free to prove me wrong and debate facts and to challenge yourself and core beliefs.
1. So, you are OK with denying sick people coverage? Very Christian of you.
2. My plan would actually reduce government interventions into health care. Since they are guaranteed to receive their premiums, companies would be better positioned to budget for investments and grow capital.
3. Fair enough
4. I really do not care what is happening in Canada and feel comparing us to any other country is irrelevant. The number one cause for bankruptcies here, where it matters, is health care expenses at 62%. http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0310/top-5-reasons-people-go-bankrupt.aspx
5. My point regarding companies denying those with pre-existing conditions is pre-PPACA, your plan.
6. I am not sure why you brought this up, but I will concede.
September 13, 2016 at 11:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“1. So, you are OK with denying sick people coverage? Very Christian of you.
2. My plan would actually reduce government interventions into health care. Since they are guaranteed to receive their premiums, companies would be better positioned to budget for investments and grow capital.
3. Fair enough
4. I really do not care what is happening in Canada and feel comparing us to any other country is irrelevant. The number one cause for bankruptcies here, where it matters, is health care expenses at 62%. http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0310/top-5-reasons-people-go-bankrupt.aspx
5. My point regarding companies denying those with pre-existing conditions is pre-PPACA, your plan.
6. I am not sure why you brought this up, but I will concede.”
1. Again, ad hominem. I am stating how our system works. When someone doesn’t get insurance coverage it is usually due to in part their own actions if you’re talking about pre existing conditions. The mandate sought to get rid of that issue. Instead of debating honestly you again went to say, very Christian but you will note I talked about how it is ILLEGAL to not give someone care. If someone cannot afford coverage they will receive it. In my numbers I challenged you to give me a number of people who don’t. This is because if you’re going to claim people don’t get coverage and thus don’t get care, it is a lie. Instead of backing up your claims you went after whether or not I was Christian. You need to instead back up your claims.
2. “My plan would actually reduce government interventions into health care. Since they are guaranteed to receive their premiums” Contradiction. And what if per say a person is behind on tickets or other government aspects? Will the government halt payment? Your plan would increase government involvement with insurance. Why not have a government plan separately from a private one? Also, you have said nothing that suggests that the industry would be less regulated. Nothing. You have implied the payment system would differ. So are you implying the government would relinquish their regulatory system as it is now? I don’t think so. Not in the real world if anything like your plan came to day.
3. Ok.
4. I compared for a reason. It is relevant. You imply the poor here are screwed due to not having insurance. I went over both that they get care, and that if they don’t have insurance they get a bill. And despite this, we have less bankruptcies. This goes to the efficiency of our system. Also, wrong. My numbers already dissected bankruptcies, your numbers are incorrect. But more importantly, was not just bankruptcies. It is the affect of universal plans and if it alleviates poverty, causes more care, etc.
5. Your point in light of 1 is moot. They still get care.
6. I brought it up because you are not thinking on your own. Often when you comment here you think my ability to form my own thought is hindered, but you yourself don’t often go into your own thought. On this one, you appear to have done so, but you left a lot to oversight.
(Sarcasm) I am absolutely in shock. What happened to that $2,500 savings for a family of four?
+1 for leading with (Sarcasm) to alleviate any confusion from the get-go.
This post is NOT sarcastic!
Newsflash: you can substitute any of our 50 states’ name for Connecticut’s and it will still be a correct headline.
Until the system is fixed…….
Jack, Obamacareless is beyond fixing and has been for some time. Time to dump it entirely next year and completely replace it with something that actually works and market based.
Agent,
We had market based health insurance. It was a failed system. Profits cannot come before people when it comes to health care.
This is what we call cliche. Your line there is cliche.
Our insurance system is not a failed system. Investing profits allows for maximum pay out on the worst losses. It’s this simple. You are acting like insurance is bad at this while the fact is they are good at this.
The insurance industry has been anything but a “free market”. It has been over regulated for some time. We just re-over-regulated it.
And it turns out that doesn’t work.
I will borrow from the person below:
What form of regulation would solve the issue?
Okay – you have the floor – spill the plan on what “actually works”.
Another step toward Universal Health Care. The only true fix.
Universal Health Care is Obamacare on steroids. You already have it in Medicaid & Medicare. Not needed for the general population. Get rid of all the mandates for a start and stop giving subsidies to the freeloaders who are the ones driving up the costs. Re-institute Pools for the chronically sick.
We don’t need another VA. We have seen how bad that government program is and how many veterans have died due to lack of care or long waiting lists to be seen.
Does your plan have the chronically sick to pay actuarial sound rates? Does it include subsidies?
Does it eliminate the evil VA, Medicaid and Medicare?
Does it provide coverage for all citizens?
Does it provide total freedom to get care where you want?
Do people still have to choose between in-network and out-of-network providers and hospitals?
Does it allow companies to deny people for pre-existing conditions? Does it place limits on coverage? Does it allow companies to cancel for being sick?
Do people have to postopone retirement until solely due to high cost of health insurance?
My plan solves all of these problems.
Your plan does not solve all those problems.
There will be limits on coverage, and there will be overhead. For every dollar you receive, you will not pay a dollar out.
Insurance does for a fact pay out more than 1 dollar for every dollar received, due to investing. This is even after profits. You know this. Stop thinking ideologically, and think with facts.
If we have a proper insurance market, and then a government one, people can get the best bang for their buck who can afford it, and everyone else can get some level of assistance.
Also, please note that even in Canada Universal Healthcare is not only not free due to taxes, you have exclusions and deductibles based on location that can be very high, and if you don’t pay them you can then be punished by losing your driver’s license, or other rights.
These are all elements of extreme government control.
Please explain my plan in detail, especially the payment and distribution methods. Based on your post, who do not know what mt plan entails.
Ron,
A typical reply, you didn’t actually say anything that can be disproved because you didn’t spell out all the elements of single payer. I am more inclined to believe you are arrogant, and you didn’t think about them in your post, and now you want me to appear to have been the personality who is labeling your ideals. That tends to be the only way you can debate.
It’s up to you to frame why a single payer is a good option. I can only base it on the common issues they face, and my comment about those issues are quite real. You cannot shrug them off because as you imply I don’t know your imaginary plan that you say is so much better.
Back on point:
Please explain how the government will pay out as well as the insurance companies that you know exceed 1.0 on dollars paid out inclusive of profits.
Please explain how you intend to deal with government punishment of not paying taxes or deductibles, and government over reach.
Please do explain your plan.
You said your plan resolves a lot of issues. Explain how. If you’re going to talk solely ad hominem to me, I’m going to bite you in the butt for it, and force you to stop.
“Does your plan have the chronically sick to pay actuarial sound rates? Does it include subsidies?
Does it eliminate the evil VA, Medicaid and Medicare?
Does it provide coverage for all citizens?
Does it provide total freedom to get care where you want?
Do people still have to choose between in-network and out-of-network providers and hospitals?
Does it allow companies to deny people for pre-existing conditions? Does it place limits on coverage? Does it allow companies to cancel for being sick?
Do people have to postopone retirement until solely due to high cost of health insurance?
My plan solves all of these problems.”
So you get to say your plan can fix everything without saying what “your plan” is? You sound like what you say conservatives are.
“Another step toward Universal Health Care. The only true fix.”
I went with the assumption that this was your plan.
Outside of this if you have issue that I debated the universal healthcare issues, you might then want to actually explain your plans when you say them.
However, I believe your intent was originally to state universal care was the plan, and you didn’t have one.
You only switched footing when I basically tore apart the universal plan, and you basically didn’t like that you had just lost the debate and or you didn’t want to debate a universal plan.
This is dishonest debate Ron. I am amazed you take part in this type of behavior, and I very much so doubt it is without intent.
Bob,
I have been explaining my plan for over a year. Thank you for paying attention. When you said, “Your plan does not solve all those problems.”
Here it is:
-The government collects premiums in the form of taxes
-The government pays private insurance companies
-No deductibles or co-pays.
-Private health care providers and hospitals administer the care.
-All citizens are covered under the same plan for necessary, including preventative, care.
-“Cadillac” plans can be sold by private companies for elect procedures
-Illegal immigrants cannot be denied care, but will be detained, then deported as soon as a health care professional deems they are healthy enough for the trip back.
-Medicaid, Medicare and the VA are all eliminated removing the government from health care administration.
I am open to some discussion and compromises.
You have threaten to force me to stop. More threats? Exactly how would go about that?
“You have threaten to force me to stop. More threats? Exactly how would go about that?”
SHUT UP!!!! We aren’t going on this divisive type of talk. Yes. I said I would bite you in the butt, and stop you from turning an argument against facts and using the character to make an argument, which you just did again! You had no reason to throw that line in. I have NOT threatened YOU I have threatened to stop your clear inappropriate behavior. There is a big difference kiddo.
Moving on:
You CANNOT assume that everyone knows your position on this matter. I have said mine several times. Please explain off the top of your head, why my plan wouldn’t work.
Now as for yours:
Adding an additional layer of giving government dollars to insurance companies this creates far too many risks to be done. This is how we get Putin style government.
What issue do you have with a private and public plan?
I have an issue with “Cadillac” being used. If you want to say higher quality, fine. The reason Obama called these Cadillac plans is to tie wealth to them, and justify taxing them. Cadillac owners after all can afford their Cadillacs to be taxed higher.
These are only starting points on this, and I will reiterate, you did not start this by making your point, instead you went after me ad hominem as the basis for your argument, then you tried to discredit me by saying I was harassing you.
You don’t get to just lace those comments in.
If we are to continue, you’re going to admit what you did, and you’re going to make it right. Meaning, you went after my character when there was no need.
I have no need to converse with a pompous prick who keeps decrying harassment when people tell him he should learn how to make his points better and stop trying to pull the arguments away from the argument and instead to things that have nothing to do with it.
We will stay on topic if we debate. If you want to say something I said is idiotic. Fine. I’ll tolerate it. If you want to say you have been harassed by online commentary when someone said you were out of line, no. We won’t talk.
I’m not playing into your crap anymore Ron.
So decide. Debate right, or don’t debate at all.
I have to emphasize this:
When you didn’t debate and instead went Ad hominem I said I would force you to stop ad hominem attacks, and you said you were threatened.
We are pausing this conversation exactly there, and you’re going to admit you were out of line, dishonest, and unethical with it.
And then we will move forward.
Oh, for the record, steroids are consistently used to speed up healing and help people deal with difficult medical conditions.
No. That is not the only true fix.
Allowing the health insurance industry the ability to write insurance as best they can, and then having a public delivery system for those who are too poor is the only true fix.
This allows for the insurance companies to do what they do best, and allows the government to help when people need it.
That is what we had and tens of millions of working citizens could not afford insurance, were denied due to pre-existing conditions, and/or went bankrupt.
Wrong.
1. They were denied insurance coverage. They are not denied service.
2. The insurance industry as I put above is one of the most highly regulated industries out there. What we have is a failed over regulated insurance industry. Regulating it more is not the answer. Right now there are limits of how much of each dollar they can invest to grow for future pay outs. Please explain how this helps their ability to grow capital?
3. If their ability to grow capital is harmed, will they not have less money to pay out to claims? This is the phrase Obama keeps saying, the making sure that 70 cents to every dollar immediately goes to claims, or even 80. If they only invest 20 percent of each dollar, they must have really good returns.
4. Bankruptcy rates as a whole are just as high in Canada. What you are saying does not make sense. It is impossible with the data on bankruptcies and poverty.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/263547-the-myth-of-medical-bankruptcy
5. You are speaking in cliches again. You are not using data. If insurance companies deny pre-existing conditions there must be no coverage correct? Only that isn’t correct and we have laws against that. Then you say there are certain cases where people die that slip outside of that. How many? I have yet to see a sizeable percentage that does not get matched or exceeded by single payer options.
6. The WHO shows our life expectancy is poor, however as I have showed you before, and you refuse to listen, our obesity rate which contributes to heart attacks and cancer (and I have linked studies to this in the past for you) is 3 times that of nations that have the best life expectancy in the world, our smoking rates are also 3 times higher, which is also linked to heart disease as well as cancer. Adjusting for that and our higher vehicular deaths and violent crime which is the leading cause of death for our youth, we can see that our life expectancy is actually far too high considering our lifestyles. Our system works. If you are a fat, obese, unhealthy slob, you can survive here. You will get a bill. You will survive. It is better than any other nation in the world from my perspective based on these numbers. You have not done a credible analysis of the system on your own. I gathered WHO data, Gov data from the nations on all these particulars several years ago. This was before my dad died. I showed it to him, and he was a life long democrat until Carter. He only flipped due to being Catholic and abortion issues. But before he died, he became a republican after he saw my studies. I am completely about facts. Completely. I do not accept cliche methods of debate. Ever.
Just yesterday as a side comment my brother and I were watching a college debate video.
I do this often, I might add. There are several prestigious schools who tape debates on issues.
Moving on, I paused the video on what normal people would consider to be a rather large change. This was a transgender male to female talking about whether or not gender was a social construct. Interestingly, this person not only argued it was not, they said they took it rather illogical for people to simultaneously say gender was a social construct and then claim that people like him were born transgender. That was a huge statement. Do you grasp it? Did you catch it? Short and powerful. He then explained how he never related to the female side and explained if gender was a social construct the pushes he had to his gender would have constructed him a male, and he went over brain differences between the genders, as proven by science.
I said to my brother:
I’ve always known this and said this to some degree, but what if people who believe they are born gay are, but not in the same way they think they are? This comes back to the whole “did God make me this way” argument. Religious folks say well God doesn’t make sin. And he doesn’t. God is science. And God makes people with strengths and proclivities that we can reject.
So let’s say brain differences and hormone differences while they are usually geared toward gender strengths and gifts, what if God specifically gives certain males and certain women a mix of some of the opposite gender to make them able to unify the differences of the sexes and the intent is NOT for them to be gay or transgender but it is a consequence of how people and Satan corrupt God’s goodness perfectly in an imperfect way (see Catholic Theory on sin is a perfect twist to make God’s perfection perfectly imperfect)
So this person is what a Catholic may consider to be sinful, and it is sinful, in regards to Gay behavior, but if they tap into their gift they will give great insight.
I say this to show a point. I will change drastic sections of my belief system if someone debates properly. The element I changed here was: God did create Gay people and Transgender uniquely the way they were. Do you watch debates looking for the epitome moment?
I have always listened to gay debaters more prominently on gay issues and relationship theory, as well as women debaters on feminist issues, black people who go against norms on black issues, and you can see the pattern here. I want to see people who challenge typical stereotypes for their gender, sex, or religion and see why. This is because I intentionally challenge my beliefs with the intent to grow and change them.
I very much so doubt that of those here. But you are free to prove me wrong and debate facts and to challenge yourself and core beliefs.
1. So, you are OK with denying sick people coverage? Very Christian of you.
2. My plan would actually reduce government interventions into health care. Since they are guaranteed to receive their premiums, companies would be better positioned to budget for investments and grow capital.
3. Fair enough
4. I really do not care what is happening in Canada and feel comparing us to any other country is irrelevant. The number one cause for bankruptcies here, where it matters, is health care expenses at 62%.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0310/top-5-reasons-people-go-bankrupt.aspx
5. My point regarding companies denying those with pre-existing conditions is pre-PPACA, your plan.
6. I am not sure why you brought this up, but I will concede.
“1. So, you are OK with denying sick people coverage? Very Christian of you.
2. My plan would actually reduce government interventions into health care. Since they are guaranteed to receive their premiums, companies would be better positioned to budget for investments and grow capital.
3. Fair enough
4. I really do not care what is happening in Canada and feel comparing us to any other country is irrelevant. The number one cause for bankruptcies here, where it matters, is health care expenses at 62%.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0310/top-5-reasons-people-go-bankrupt.aspx
5. My point regarding companies denying those with pre-existing conditions is pre-PPACA, your plan.
6. I am not sure why you brought this up, but I will concede.”
1. Again, ad hominem. I am stating how our system works. When someone doesn’t get insurance coverage it is usually due to in part their own actions if you’re talking about pre existing conditions. The mandate sought to get rid of that issue. Instead of debating honestly you again went to say, very Christian but you will note I talked about how it is ILLEGAL to not give someone care. If someone cannot afford coverage they will receive it. In my numbers I challenged you to give me a number of people who don’t. This is because if you’re going to claim people don’t get coverage and thus don’t get care, it is a lie. Instead of backing up your claims you went after whether or not I was Christian. You need to instead back up your claims.
2. “My plan would actually reduce government interventions into health care. Since they are guaranteed to receive their premiums” Contradiction. And what if per say a person is behind on tickets or other government aspects? Will the government halt payment? Your plan would increase government involvement with insurance. Why not have a government plan separately from a private one? Also, you have said nothing that suggests that the industry would be less regulated. Nothing. You have implied the payment system would differ. So are you implying the government would relinquish their regulatory system as it is now? I don’t think so. Not in the real world if anything like your plan came to day.
3. Ok.
4. I compared for a reason. It is relevant. You imply the poor here are screwed due to not having insurance. I went over both that they get care, and that if they don’t have insurance they get a bill. And despite this, we have less bankruptcies. This goes to the efficiency of our system. Also, wrong. My numbers already dissected bankruptcies, your numbers are incorrect. But more importantly, was not just bankruptcies. It is the affect of universal plans and if it alleviates poverty, causes more care, etc.
5. Your point in light of 1 is moot. They still get care.
6. I brought it up because you are not thinking on your own. Often when you comment here you think my ability to form my own thought is hindered, but you yourself don’t often go into your own thought. On this one, you appear to have done so, but you left a lot to oversight.