Eliminate pre-existing conditions? That's one of the main things that is fucking so many people up in this country. How can you eliminate one of the most important parts?
Here's the problem, and the exact reason we need universal health care.
Health plans don't want high utilizers, because they spend more than they put in.
The law requires plans to cover high utilizers, which is going to increase their costs.
If there isn't an influx of low utilizers paying premiums, then the plans will have to offset their costs some other way - mostly, by increasing premiums and reducing coverage.
This will make health coverage less attractive to even fewer people, causing more low utilizers to drop out, which reduces plan revenue, which will further increase premiums and reduce coverage... basically creating a death spiral.
We're already in this death spiral now, it is just very slow, because health insurance decisions for most people are made at the employer level.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Alright [chat]folk, off for now. Accomplishing tasks and all that jazz. Be good to Spool. And everyone else too.
But mostly Spool because he appears to be grossly outnumbered.
well ... He was always skeptical of the paternalistic tendencies of the Council and he wanted to just go his own way without interference ... I need to reinterpret me2 now that I have new information.
spool, honest question here: why do you believe government should be small?
Big question.
I guess I would say that I believe government should be limited in scope, not that there is a good size and a bad size. "Small government" is properly shorthand for 'a government of limited powers'. One reason I believe this is desirable is that a government with broad powers and few checks against its activity inevitably constrains and reduces liberty.
That's a pretty wide-angle response, but the question was very broad as well.
spool, honest question here: why do you believe government should be small?
Big question.
I guess I would say that I believe government should be limited in scope, not that there is a good size and a bad size. "Small government" is properly shorthand for 'a government of limited powers'. One reason I believe this is desirable is that a government with broad powers and few checks against its activity inevitably constrains and reduces liberty.
That's a pretty wide-angle response, but the question was very broad as well.
Follow-up question: Why is liberty the most important thing?
85yr old men weren't part of the militia but had rights. I would say that a law requiring all people buy any product is unconstitutional, yes. Congress doesn't have the power to compel private enterprise when the individual is unwilling to engage in it.
It is an expansion of regulatory power, because it regulates doing nothing, as opposed to regulating some action taken.
I'm not pretending it's a legal complaint, and suggestions that I am reveal your partisan opinion. It IS a legal complaint. Your precedent (the wheat growing case, the militia case) don't apply to this case. Give me a bit to link you sources, I don't have them to hand.
Due to problems in the wheat industry, the federal government regulated the industry by mandating a maximum amount of wheat a person could grow. Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than he was allowed, but argued that since he didn't sell that wheat (instead using it for personal consumption), it was never commerce.
Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
...
It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. [n28] One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and, to that end, to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market, and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress [p129] may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.
It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated, and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. [n29] Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do.
I've been doing a ton of those for a while and I have no pain.
And therefore no gain.
I was doing this with a 9lb bar on my shoulders. Then we dropped low and did small ...I forgot what it's called but I want to say vibrations.
Oh that's different. What kind of training are you doing?
Well it's called TN'T, but I think it's really strength training. I do that, pilates and yoga. I'm hoping to fit in some cardio but I'm kind of hoping to not lose my new boobs.
I've been doing a ton of those for a while and I have no pain.
And therefore no gain.
I was doing this with a 9lb bar on my shoulders. Then we dropped low and did small ...I forgot what it's called but I want to say vibrations.
Oh that's different. What kind of training are you doing?
Well it's called TN'T, but I think it's really strength training. I do that, pilates and yoga. I'm hoping to fit in some cardio but I'm kind of hoping to not lose my new boobs.
Oh I want to do P90X. Alf did it and he got fucking hot in about two months.
I want to do P90X but only after I've been working out for awhile so I know I can handle it.
@Feral I don't bother with Slate articles, have you got a source less obviously biased?
it's just not worth wading through the drek for the occasional objective nugget.
Edit: Checked the byline on that article... yeah, not bothering. Sorry man, no offense to you.
Just to be clear: when you ignore an article because of who the author is, that's okay. But when I ignore the article both because of who the author is and because the author quotes a fucking shitfaced retard as if he was an authority, that's different?
Well.
When I say "have you got another source because I don't find that one fair-minded?" that's OK.
When you dismiss an idea because you don't like who spoke it, and don't bother to even ask for an alternate, that's different yes.
Glad I could clarify that for you!
So, when I said pretty much exactly that, and your response was "well, you should read it, because even a broken clock is right twice a day!" you only meant that to apply to people who you like, right?
I also linked you to the source in that exchange, and stopped berating you for your intransigent attitude, and forgot about the whole thing.
Sorry I got under your skin there.
Oh, you weren't under my skin; I just feel the need to point out blatant hypocrisy where I see it.
So every so often, one of our customers calls up and says, "All of the data in our application is gone!"
And every time, it turns out this is by design, and it's not gone, but the data was old enough to hit the archive cutoff date and it was archived and is still available if they run the entire report.
spool, honest question here: why do you believe government should be small?
Big question.
I guess I would say that I believe government should be limited in scope, not that there is a good size and a bad size. "Small government" is properly shorthand for 'a government of limited powers'. One reason I believe this is desirable is that a government with broad powers and few checks against its activity inevitably constrains and reduces liberty.
That's a pretty wide-angle response, but the question was very broad as well.
Yeah, just look at how horribly oppressed the Scandinavians are, with all of their government.
Boy, howdy, I sure would hate to be oppressed like that.
Posts
Here's the problem, and the exact reason we need universal health care.
Health plans don't want high utilizers, because they spend more than they put in.
The law requires plans to cover high utilizers, which is going to increase their costs.
If there isn't an influx of low utilizers paying premiums, then the plans will have to offset their costs some other way - mostly, by increasing premiums and reducing coverage.
This will make health coverage less attractive to even fewer people, causing more low utilizers to drop out, which reduces plan revenue, which will further increase premiums and reduce coverage... basically creating a death spiral.
We're already in this death spiral now, it is just very slow, because health insurance decisions for most people are made at the employer level.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But mostly Spool because he appears to be grossly outnumbered.
there's a reason my ex calls me The Finisher
*sobs*
well that would be vastly better than the ACA which itself is better than what's happening right now.
Has a spiffy ring to it.
Hint hint
It would be incontrovertible proof that the slippery slope is real.
I think he's forgot or he got buzy because it's getting late now
;_;
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I am so sorry!
No, it would probably mean american rethoric had started infecting our politicians.
And if that happened, I would go terrorist.
BF:BC, BF:BC2 and BF3 all had russians
BF3 single play might be slightly US vs Russia, but I don't want to spoil the kind of boring campaign so I won't confirm anything.
BF3 is basically "The Sum of All Fears" the game.
Big question.
I guess I would say that I believe government should be limited in scope, not that there is a good size and a bad size. "Small government" is properly shorthand for 'a government of limited powers'. One reason I believe this is desirable is that a government with broad powers and few checks against its activity inevitably constrains and reduces liberty.
That's a pretty wide-angle response, but the question was very broad as well.
Follow-up question: Why is liberty the most important thing?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Due to problems in the wheat industry, the federal government regulated the industry by mandating a maximum amount of wheat a person could grow. Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than he was allowed, but argued that since he didn't sell that wheat (instead using it for personal consumption), it was never commerce.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Did they make you buy your Selective Service card from Blackwater or something?
Why? Because I've clearly gone power mad and normal wibble mad too wibble.
one advantage of getting a little older: Not having to worry about the slim chance of that mattering.
Whew, sucks for you younger guys! Good luck with that World War III draft!
What.
I want to do P90X but only after I've been working out for awhile so I know I can handle it.
Sure there is! The Government selects you to do service!
You can select to serve or select to spend a weekend with the pain monster!
And every time, it turns out this is by design, and it's not gone, but the data was old enough to hit the archive cutoff date and it was archived and is still available if they run the entire report.
But this keeps happening.
Seeing as how I don't know what Thanatos looks like, it was just Patrick Warburton
Boy, howdy, I sure would hate to be oppressed like that.