ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags James Hodgkinson , shooting incidents , Steve Scalise , violent rhetoric

Reply
Old 19th June 2017, 03:37 AM   #841
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Other groups that have murdered millions include... several religions, for starters. Do you think that it's okay to randomly punch Christians for the actions of their forebearers? With that said, acting to defend another isn't actually far from self-defense.
Yes he wants a peaceful ethnic cleansing. That is the kind of thing anyone can really get behind.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 03:38 AM   #842
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,346
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Can't you post a link instead of an image?
Well, I could have. The source of the data is in the image.

Anyway...

Links: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...-state-2016-10

Back on point, is there no sympathy for the 27year-old Arizonian who watched his rate for his silver plan more than double? These are real people facing real hardships coming up with higher and higher premiums. I'm sure some are wondering what happened to the $2,500/yr savings that Obama consistently hawked.
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 03:41 AM   #843
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
I know we're supposed to be a skeptical forum, but this tendency to discount the accounts of members is a bit unseemly.
It is looking for the full facts. A lot of cheap health insurance plans were total garbage and useless before the minimum standards of the ACA. There are also the effects of state governments not implementing its provisions that could also have had an effect here.

So there are lots of explanations of why it was good policy and he could have had that effect. To find that out we need to know a lot more details than the simple anecdote provides.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 03:42 AM   #844
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Incidentally, it would probably be better to compare TrumpCare, based on the actually available information, to ObamaCare than to just focus on a repeal of ObamaCare.
Why? no one knows what Trumpcare looks like and will not until it becomes law. Everything is being hidden behind closed doors.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 03:49 AM   #845
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The problem is, ANY issue of more or less government spending can be framed like this. For example, homeless people die at three times the average rate of people their age... how can we justify not providing more government housing? (you'd literally have to be a murderer to have other ideas) etc etc.
And this is why all government actions are the same, and so called tyranny is actually impossible.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 03:51 AM   #846
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
How can we justify NOT providing more government housing? Apparently very easily:
ANd of course many have found that housing them saves money on the whole, but leaving them to die is the most moral option. It provides motivation. Just like decimation in the roman legions.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 03:54 AM   #847
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
So... Not Spencer, then.
Or even traditional Nazi's. To start with they would have been happy to simply export their jews, but no one wanted them so they were forced to find alternate solutions to their problems. Fundamentally there is nothing violent about ethnic cleansing.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 06:28 AM   #848
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,245
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Well, I could have. The source of the data is in the image.

Anyway...

Links: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...-state-2016-10

Back on point, is there no sympathy for the 27year-old Arizonian who watched his rate for his silver plan more than double? These are real people facing real hardships coming up with higher and higher premiums. I'm sure some are wondering what happened to the $2,500/yr savings that Obama consistently hawked.
The short answer is because that 27 year likely didn't have premiums double. 83% of people on the exchange receive subsidies.We would have to look at why that 27 year old is unsubsidized. My first thought is this person would be a good fit for a bronze plan, not a silver one.

I looked it up. This would be a person making over 47.5k a year (assuming no family) and does not have access to affordable insurance at work. Their premium for a silver would be 450 or bronze at 395. The affordable provisions for employee health care is set to under 10%. So this is pretty consistent with that.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 19th June 2017 at 06:36 AM.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:31 AM   #849
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
I think I get it now...

Every time any one of us passes a homeless guy on the street and does not pick him up, feed him and pay for a hotel or take him in to our house . . . we are effectively torturing that homeless guy.

Every time we hear of a sad story where some poor kid got cancer and they are selling barbecue plates to raise funds, we are effectively murdering that kid by not buying as many plates as possible/donating as much as we possibly can.

Or wait, now I confused myself . . . is it only torture/murder if politicians Republitards refuse to force us, through increased taxes/spending, to pay for that stuff?
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 19th June 2017 at 07:36 AM. Reason: Accurace
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:35 AM   #850
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The short answer is because that 27 year likely didn't have premiums double. 83% of people on the exchange receive subsidies.We would have to look at why that 27 year old is unsubsidized. My first thought is this person would be a good fit for a bronze plan, not a silver one.

I looked it up. This would be a person making over 47.5k a year (assuming no family) and does not have access to affordable insurance at work. Their premium for a silver would be 450 or bronze at 395. The affordable provisions for employee health care is set to under 10%. So this is pretty consistent with that.
The problem is that a bronze plan still has significant out of pocket expenses. So their premiums might be right under that 10% mark, but when you consider what they would actually have to pay if they get even a minor, controllable illness, that bronze plan doesn't cover much.

Why not let them pay like $200/month for a catastrophic plan (which is right around what I used to pay for my family of 4)? Even if they paid for a few visits per year, they'd still come out ahead of the game when they are paying $195/month less. They could save and invest the difference.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:36 AM   #851
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I think I get it now...

Every time any one of us passes a homeless guy on the street and does not pick him up, feed him and pay for a hotel or take him in to our house . . . we are effectively torturing that homeless guy.
Try it again, every time we change programs to kill thousands of people.

We are a very wealthy nation, we can afford corporate welfare like the drug screening to receive government care, despite it not even making economic sense.

Now sure you would kill billions of people if you got $5 a head, and that would be totally moral to do.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:40 AM   #852
Crawtator
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I think I get it now...

Every time any one of us passes a homeless guy on the street and does not pick him up, feed him and pay for a hotel or take him in to our house . . . we are effectively torturing that homeless guy.

Every time we hear of a sad story where some poor kid got cancer and they are selling barbecue plates to raise funds, we are effectively murdering that kid by not buying as many plates as possible/donating as much as we possibly can.

Or wait, now I confused myself . . . is it only torture/murder if politicians refuse to force us, through increased taxes/spending, to pay for that stuff?
This is exactly my confusion as well. Every action (or inaction) can be re-framed into a context where a party did not do enough to help someone less fortunate or ill. For example: did you keep your air conditioner set at 68 degrees last month rather than 70 degrees? If so, the cost of doing so could have been used to feed the homeless or provide simple antibiotics which COULD HAVE(????) saved a life or prevented unnecessary hardship. By some of these posters' rationale, this is the same as murder or torture. This is obviously idiotic, to the sane people here.

The sort of rhetoric that people are throwing around here is the reason for such vitriol and disdain from and for both sides.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:42 AM   #853
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Try it again, every time we change programs to kill thousands of people.
Can you direct me to such a program that kills thousands of people?

My point is that refusing to help someone is not tantamount to murder. We each do it every day.

Quote:
We are a very wealthy nation, we can afford corporate welfare like the drug screening to receive government care, despite it not even making economic sense.
And most of us on this forum are pretty well off compared to that homeless guy. We own computers and internet service and have spare time to argue with each other pointlessly. If we don't use that spare time and cash to help the homeless/sick people then aren't we actively contributing to their deaths?

Very easy to say, "If politicians don't spend other people's money to help sick people, they are murderers!" Might make you feel good but it doesn't make it true.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 07:56 AM   #854
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Can you direct me to such a program that kills thousands of people?
The proposed changes in the republican health care laws.

Of course by your standards things like the Soviet Gulags never killed anyone. Because working someone to death while not feeding them isn't the same as killing them.

But it isn't like the so called americans who would die matter. Rural people know their lives are not worth anything and don't expect anything other than a ditch to die in. Like this conservative

http://gawker.com/man-who-would-rath...-go-1704019495

He would rather go blind than have Obamacare right up until he started to go blind from not having insurance. Then he was all "my preexisting condition needs to be treated".

Quote:
My point is that refusing to help someone is not tantamount to murder. We each do it every day.
And the penalty for those who are starving stealing food should be death.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:13 AM   #855
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,245
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The problem is that a bronze plan still has significant out of pocket expenses. So their premiums might be right under that 10% mark, but when you consider what they would actually have to pay if they get even a minor, controllable illness, that bronze plan doesn't cover much.

Why not let them pay like $200/month for a catastrophic plan (which is right around what I used to pay for my family of 4)? Even if they paid for a few visits per year, they'd still come out ahead of the game when they are paying $195/month less. They could save and invest the difference.
A 27 year old is under 30 and eligible for a catastrophic plan on the exchange.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:26 AM   #856
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,346
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And the penalty for those who are starving stealing food should be death.
But not by starvation : that would be cruel and unusual.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:28 AM   #857
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61,874
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Well, I could have. The source of the data is in the image.

Anyway...

Links: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...-state-2016-10

Back on point, is there no sympathy for the 27year-old Arizonian who watched his rate for his silver plan more than double? These are real people facing real hardships coming up with higher and higher premiums. I'm sure some are wondering what happened to the $2,500/yr savings that Obama consistently hawked.
First, if you think Obama said people's insurance premiums would go down $2500/yr, you weren't listening.

Then there is your assumption about a 27 yr old's silver plan doubling. If he was paying $100 and now he has to pay $200 because some deferrals expired, no, I'm not empathetic so the claim is meaningless without the specifics.

Then there is this from the link:
Quote:
Many of the states seeing serious increases share similar traits: They have not expanded Medicaid, they have a low number of insurers active in the state, and they have larger rural populations, which are more expensive to cover.
Those are the issues that could be addressed tweaking the ACA but instead Trump and the GOP controlled Congress are doing all they can to strangle the ACA all to get their tax cuts for the people making >$250K/yr.

And this is why you needed the link, not just a chart:
Quote:
Critics of Obamacare say the price increases show the law is in a "death spiral." Supporters, however, contend that 77% of those on the exchanges can get tax credits that would keep monthly payments under $100 and that the recent increases bring premium payments only up to levels projected before the law passed.
How about an honest discussion?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:31 AM   #858
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61,874
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I think I get it now...

Every time any one of us passes a homeless guy on the street and does not pick him up, feed him and pay for a hotel or take him in to our house . . . we are effectively torturing that homeless guy.

Every time we hear of a sad story where some poor kid got cancer and they are selling barbecue plates to raise funds, we are effectively murdering that kid by not buying as many plates as possible/donating as much as we possibly can.

Or wait, now I confused myself . . . is it only torture/murder if politicians Republitards refuse to force us, through increased taxes/spending, to pay for that stuff?
Conflating one individual helping one person with the collective effort to help groups of people is a dishonest discussion.

Prisons are more expensive than better schools and job training. Why not hire your own security and stop paying to put all those criminals in jail?

Selective collective effort.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th June 2017 at 08:33 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:40 AM   #859
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The proposed changes in the republican health care laws.
You'll have to direct me to the part of the plan that creates a program that kills thousands of people.

Not paying for health care =/= killing. Disease and accidents kill people.

Quote:
Of course by your standards things like the Soviet Gulags never killed anyone. Because working someone to death while not feeding them isn't the same as killing them.
Actually, I would say that the Soviet government actively killed people in that case.

Quote:
But it isn't like the so called americans who would die matter. Rural people know their lives are not worth anything and don't expect anything other than a ditch to die in. Like this conservative

http://gawker.com/man-who-would-rath...-go-1704019495

He would rather go blind than have Obamacare right up until he started to go blind from not having insurance. Then he was all "my preexisting condition needs to be treated".
He is an idiot. He was all talk and no action. You can't say, "I don't need the government to care for me," and then fail to take care of yourself by 1)Continuing to smoke despite the obvious effects on your health; 2) Failing to control your diabetes despite the obvious effects on your health and 3)Failing to put aside funds for your own healthcare when you decide to make a principled stand against government healthcare. Are Conservatives killing him by not creating a law that provides for him or is he killing himself through his own actions?
Quote:
And the penalty for those who are starving stealing food should be death.
I think we need to look at their situation. If they are truly destitute and needed food, that should be a mitigating factor in their punishment. And then we should put them in the existing social safety net -which I think needs some expanding.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:52 AM   #860
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
But not by starvation : that would be cruel and unusual.
Nonsense that is simply not feeding them, that is morally OK. And so intentionally starving sections of the populace to death is also fine. And fighting against a government starving you is not acceptable.

I am not sure when it does become OK to fight against your government though, people are only giving situations they don't think it is ok, not describing ones that they think is ok.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:55 AM   #861
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You'll have to direct me to the part of the plan that creates a program that kills thousands of people.

Not paying for health care =/= killing. Disease and accidents kill people.

Actually, I would say that the Soviet government actively killed people in that case.
No they just did not give them what they needed to live, totally different than killing them. Try to be a bit consistent.

Quote:
He is an idiot. He was all talk and no action. You can't say, "I don't need the government to care for me," and then fail to take care of yourself by 1)Continuing to smoke despite the obvious effects on your health; 2) Failing to control your diabetes despite the obvious effects on your health and 3)Failing to put aside funds for your own healthcare when you decide to make a principled stand against government healthcare.
As such he clearly deserves to die. As does anyone who buys into republican rhetoric.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 08:58 AM   #862
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61,874
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The problem is that a bronze plan still has significant out of pocket expenses. So their premiums might be right under that 10% mark, but when you consider what they would actually have to pay if they get even a minor, controllable illness, that bronze plan doesn't cover much.

Why not let them pay like $200/month for a catastrophic plan (which is right around what I used to pay for my family of 4)? Even if they paid for a few visits per year, they'd still come out ahead of the game when they are paying $195/month less. They could save and invest the difference.
Why can you not get a catastrophic plan?
Quote:
Catastrophic health plans: For people under 30 or with certain exemptions

Catastrophic health insurance plans have low monthly premiums and very high deductibles. They may be an affordable way to protect yourself from worst-case scenarios, like getting seriously sick or injured. But you pay most routine medical expenses yourself.

Who can buy a Catastrophic plan

Only the following people are eligible:

People under 30
People of any age with a hardship exemption or affordability exemption (based on Marketplace or job-based insurance being unaffordable)
If you’re eligible to buy a Catastrophic plan, you’ll see them displayed when you compare plans in the Marketplace.
I'm going to assume you don't qualify for some reason. Does it bother you to pay house and car insurance even when you don't make many claims?

Why should you complain about the same principle applied to health insurance?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:06 AM   #863
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A 27 year old is under 30 and eligible for a catastrophic plan on the exchange.
What happens when they turn 30? And how much are those catastrophic plans? When I looked for my daughter, they were not much cheaper than the bronze plans. Again, we were paying a little over $200/month for a family of 4 for a high-deductible plan that paid nothing, not even preventive, until we paid the high deductible. We were only covered if some really bad event occurred.

Just looked up for my daughter again: A bronze is $250/month and a catastrophic is $257. Makes no damn sense to me.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:09 AM   #864
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,952
Is there a reason this has turned into a thread on Obamacare and the GOP replacement?
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:16 AM   #865
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,419
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Is there a reason this has turned into a thread on Obamacare and the GOP replacement?
Because some folks really want to justify "the other side" getting shot. And they refuse to distinguish between "indifference " and "willful murder".
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:31 AM   #866
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Because some folks really want to justify "the other side" getting shot. And they refuse to distinguish between "indifference " and "willful murder".
All rebellions have been unjustified. We need to view our founders as the terrorist they were. Killing british soldiers because they wanted to pay slightly less in taxes? That is what this nation was founded on.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:32 AM   #867
Civet
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Prisons are more expensive than better schools and job training. Why not hire your own security and stop paying to put all those criminals in jail?
Unappealing as it is to me, I know some Libertarians who fantasize about exactly that scenario.
Civet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:33 AM   #868
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,245
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What happens when they turn 30? And how much are those catastrophic plans? When I looked for my daughter, they were not much cheaper than the bronze plans. Again, we were paying a little over $200/month for a family of 4 for a high-deductible plan that paid nothing, not even preventive, until we paid the high deductible. We were only covered if some really bad event occurred.

Just looked up for my daughter again: A bronze is $250/month and a catastrophic is $257. Makes no damn sense to me.
I'm not sure what the question you are asking is. Are you bothered that you have a lack of choice or affordability? I thought I was answering a question on affordability
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:46 AM   #869
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why can you not get a catastrophic plan?

I'm going to assume you don't qualify for some reason.
Yes. I'm not under 30 and i don't have a hardship or affordability exemption.
Quote:
Does it bother you to pay house and car insurance even when you don't make many claims?
What bothers me is that my health insurance does not work like my house and car insurance. Both of those are issued based on our particular risk profile and only cover catastrophic occurrences.

Quote:
Why should you complain about the same principle applied to health insurance?
Because the same principle is not applied to health insurance.

In my particular case, my wife's job at the hospital comes with some pretty sweet insurance for the current market- which costs us about $650/month. On top of that, we have copays, coinsurances and deductibles and we are limited to network providers -not so sweet after all, especially compared to what we used to have pre-ACA. What I would like is to eschew that "sweet" insurance and my wife can take that money home in actual income. Then I would like to have our former plan that we paid ~$200/month for four people and never used. The excess we currently pay in premium went to savings We just paid for routine care but we were covered if some bad **** ever happened. But that was pre ACA.

Now, in today's market, I don't qualify to get a catastrophic plan so the plan from her employer makes the most sense. But consider my 28 year old daughter. As a young single person, she can get a Bronze plan for $250 and a "Catastrophic" plan for $257. That makes no sense -and that's because "catastrophic" doesn't mean the same thing it used to mean. Such a plan still has to cover preventive care and they are limited as to how high the deductible can be.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:48 AM   #870
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm not sure what the question you are asking is. Are you bothered that you have a lack of choice or affordability? I thought I was answering a question on affordability
I'm bothered that a "catastrophic" plan is not more affordable than a Bronze plan.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:50 AM   #871
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
No they just did not give them what they needed to live, totally different than killing them. Try to be a bit consistent.



As such he clearly deserves to die. As does anyone who buys into republican rhetoric.
That's way too harsh. He doesn't "deserve" to die; he simply will die as will we all at some point. I certainly don't wish death upon him, nor do I wish death on anyone else even if they don't agree with me politically. Shocking, I know.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:50 AM   #872
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,701
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Is there a reason this has turned into a thread on Obamacare and the GOP replacement?
The GOP work towards replacing Obamacare has been put forward repeatedly in this thread as a justification for shooting GOP lawmakers. Some have even gone so far as to characterize such shootings as 'self defense'. What amazes me is that this idea is being given serious consideration, rather than being summarily rejected as the moral horror it is.

Last edited by theprestige; 19th June 2017 at 09:52 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 09:53 AM   #873
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,245
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Yes. I'm not under 30 and i don't have a hardship or affordability exemption. What bothers me is that my health insurance does not work like my house and car insurance. Both of those are issued based on our particular risk profile and only cover catastrophic occurrences.


Because the same principle is not applied to health insurance.

In my particular case, my wife's job at the hospital comes with some pretty sweet insurance for the current market- which costs us about $650/month. On top of that, we have copays, coinsurances and deductibles and we are limited to network providers -not so sweet after all, especially compared to what we used to have pre-ACA. What I would like is to eschew that "sweet" insurance and my wife can take that money home in actual income. Then I would like to have our former plan that we paid ~$200/month for four people and never used. The excess we currently pay in premium went to savings We just paid for routine care but we were covered if some bad **** ever happened. But that was pre ACA.

Now, in today's market, I don't qualify to get a catastrophic plan so the plan from her employer makes the most sense. But consider my 28 year old daughter. As a young single person, she can get a Bronze plan for $250 and a "Catastrophic" plan for $257. That makes no sense -and that's because "catastrophic" doesn't mean the same thing it used to mean. Such a plan still has to cover preventive care and they are limited as to how high the deductible can be.
The longer answer is that the goal of the law was to subsidize care for those who need it while limiting the amount people pay. Your whole family seems to be under that limit. So internal to the goals set by the ACA, it has succeeded in your family's case.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:03 AM   #874
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61,874
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Is there a reason this has turned into a thread on Obamacare and the GOP replacement?
I forgot what thread we were in and just replied to the posts. I shall refrain now that it has come to my attention. Sorry.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:06 AM   #875
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The longer answer is that the goal of the law was to subsidize care for those who need it while limiting the amount people pay. Your whole family seems to be under that limit. So internal to the goals set by the ACA, it has succeeded in your family's case.
Yes, I understand that. I am paying more to put more into the kitty for others to draw as they need. I get it. I don't like it, but I get it.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:07 AM   #876
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That's way too harsh. He doesn't "deserve" to die; he simply will die as will we all at some point. I certainly don't wish death upon him, nor do I wish death on anyone else even if they don't agree with me politically. Shocking, I know.
And the people in the gulag were just not being given the requirements they needed for life. That is a totally different thing than killing them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:09 AM   #877
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,100
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And the people in the gulag were just not being given the requirements they needed for life. That is a totally different thing than killing them.
They were prisoners and thus, the State had a responsibility to see to their needs. Not meeting that responsibility is, IMHO, tantamount to killing them.

Surely you can see the difference between the two situations? Probably not.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:09 AM   #878
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The GOP work towards replacing Obamacare has been put forward repeatedly in this thread as a justification for shooting GOP lawmakers. Some have even gone so far as to characterize such shootings as 'self defense'. What amazes me is that this idea is being given serious consideration, rather than being summarily rejected as the moral horror it is.
Are all revolts immoral? When do the political policies enacted by governments permit violent insurrection?

Unless the answer to the first one is yes, then you need to come up with a line of when violent insurrection is acceptable. What are they?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:12 AM   #879
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,760
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
They were prisoners and thus, the State had a responsibility to see to their needs. Not meeting that responsibility is, IMHO, tantamount to killing them.

Surely you can see the difference between the two situations? Probably not.
And the organized famines by the soviet state were not the state killing people either? It was just one of those little policy things that kills lots of people but doesn't actually kill them.

There have been rather a lot of these government organized famines in history.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 10:38 AM   #880
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,587
As long as we're debating health care policy in a shooting thread:

We all make choices, individually and as a collective political body (such as the United States, as realized in the federal gov't), that through action or inaction contribute to the death and misery of others. Whether choosing to go out to dinner instead of donating that money to charity, failing to do our best to carpool instead of driving alone to work and thus contributing to pollution, or pushing through a health "care" policy that will result in 23 million more uninsured Americans, we are all at least passively complicit in one way or another.

That's not the same as deliberately harming people.

Although I think the GOP plan currently in development is a miserable giveaway to rich folks on the backs of millions of poor and middle-class Americans, I don't claim that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and their gang are rubbing their hands at deliberately causing thousands of more deaths every year due to lack of coverage. The simply don't care.

But there are always going to be plans that fail to save all the lives that could be saved. The specific problem here is that they're avoiding the debate altogether. If they were to say, "Look, we can't afford all this coverage; we have to make sure the country is solvent so that our childrens' children have jobs", that would at least be taking a stand (except that the whole thing is about giving rich folks tax breaks); that could be debated. Instead, we get antidemocratic secrecy and gigantic hypocrisy from the folks who complained how the ACA was "rushed" through, specifically to avoid that debate (and bad publicity).

Well, that, and the Orwellian doublespeak about how making changes that will cost many million their healthcare is giving them "freedom". Sure, Arbeit macht frei.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.