UnitedHealth care plans to keep much of Obama's health care regardless of Supreme court ruling

[Deleted member 365]

I am not sure. Would not suprise me at all as politicians are almost all snakeoil salesmen/women.

Well see, that's the problem I have.

For one, the individual mandate is just plain smart. It is for price control. Orrin Hatch and many other conservatives I believe, pushed this idea in the 90s. Now, all of a sudden, they are against it? All of a sudden it's unconstitutional? Why?

It's either because a. A Democrat now suggested it. They are merely playing games to stick it to the "other" side, or B. These conservatives have now gone off the deep end and are aligning themselves with ULTRA-conservative groups/greedy insurance companies who don't want to insure these folks.

Either way, it's despicable.

If Obama included tort reform in health care reform, would conservatives all of a sudden be against that too?

See, that's why I find this upsettting. As you said,

almost all snakeoil salesmen/women.

Sad but true.

 

[franklin]

As long as they have no intent to make money, don't care about making money, don't care about success then I deem them not evil.

Otherwise, wanting to feed your own kids more than other people's kids is the root of all evil.

Don't you know it's the responsible socialists taking initiative to raise as much food as possible to feed the world? It's definitely not the capitalist American farmer growing as much grain as possible. Nope. Greed does no good for the world ever.

Yes, the federal case is about the mandate but if you take away the mandate than much of the new benefits are no longer economically feasible for companies. If you read the article you will see that they are keeping things like keeping wellness checkups free, allowing you to keep your kids on parents insurance until 26, no longer having lifetime limits on how much they will pay, and they will not stop coverage for preexisting conditions anymore. PROPS TO THEM!

You're so naive. Insurance margins are extremely low so they rely on revenue growth to boost profits. What do you think covering everyone and everything will do to revenue?

Weren't conservatives for this in the 90s? Actually, weren't they the ones that came up with this in the 90s?

It was meant as a price control against folks who irresponsibility rolled without insurance only to become sick and then stressing the system more since they had no way of paying for their treatments.

Yes, the mandate came from the all great Heritage Foundation in the 1990's and was spun as personal responsibility nonsense. The current republican version of giving a tax credit is essentially a mandate all the same, but packacked under the typical republican freedom banner. It's government coercion either way.

 

[Stoked]

Well see, that's the problem I have.

For one, the individual mandate is just plain smart. It is for price control. Orrin Hatch and many other conservatives I believe, pushed this idea in the 90s. Now, all of a sudden, they are against it? All of a sudden it's unconstitutional? Why?

It's either because a. A Democrat now suggested it. They are merely playing games to stick it to the "other" side, or B. These conservatives have now gone off the deep end and are aligning themselves with ULTRA-conservative groups/greedy insurance companies who don't want to insure these folks.

Either way, it's despicable.

If Obama included tort reform in health care reform, would conservatives all of a sudden be against that too?

See, that's why I find this upsettting. As you said,

Sad but true.

I think it is a combination. The willingness to compromise and work with those of opposing views is political suicide on both sides right now. That right there is the single most dangerous threat to America in my opinion. Nothing else comes close.

Tha tea party movement has repubs running scared because if they do not fall in line they are replaced or have to fight tooth and nail to retain their seat. There have been about 2 dozen or so house members replaced. A few senators as well.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe you'll be the first one to explain to me the origin of one's non-voluntary obligation to others. I ask the question in all seriousness and have never gotten even an attempt at an answer.

The question can be parsed in a number of ways. Are you referring to oblications when only when one wishes to live in a society, or those of a hermit? Can the effects to 100 people be considered as more important to than the effect of 1 person is some circumstances? Depending on answers to these and a few other questions, there may be no such origin, or there may be an easily seen origin.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Yes, the mandate came from the all great Heritage Foundation in the 1990's and was spun as personal responsibility nonsense. The current republican version of giving a tax credit is essentially a mandate all the same, but packacked under the typical republican freedom banner. It's government coercion either way.

That's right!

I couldn't remember but yeah it was the Heritage Foundation. Interesting.

I think it is a combination. The willingness to compromise and work with those of opposing views is political suicide on both sides right now. That right there is the single most dangerous threat to America in my opinion. Nothing else comes close.

Tha tea party movement has repubs running scared because if they do not fall in line they are replaced or have to fight tooth and nail to retain their seat. There have been about 2 dozen or so house members replaced. A few senators as well.

Good post, will rep when I can.

 

[Gameface]

The question can be parsed in a number of ways. Are you referring to oblications when only when one wishes to live in a society, or those of a hermit? Can the effects to 100 people be considered as more important to than the effect of 1 person is some circumstances? Depending on answers to these and a few other questions, there may be no such origin, or there may be an easily seen origin.

I'm talking about the difference between voluntarily actions vs involuntary ones and obligations that it seems people are either born with or acquire based on other people's want of what they have.

 

[One Brow]

I'm talking about the difference between voluntarily actions vs involuntary ones and obligations that it seems people are either born with or acquire based on other people's want of what they have.

Babies have no obligations. People acquire no bligations based on the desires of other to possess what they possess.

Is that the answer you're looking for?

 

[Gameface]

Babies have no obligations. People acquire no bligations based on the desires of other to possess what they possess.

Is that the answer you're looking for?

Sure, that's basically the conclusion I've come to.

 

[One Brow]

Sure, that's basically the conclusion I've come to.

Do you see those two as teh only potentials sources of non-voluntary obligations to others?

 

[Mission Accomplished]

You're so naive. Insurance margins are extremely low so they rely on revenue growth to boost profits. What do you think covering everyone and everything will do to revenue?

I'm not naive nowhere in this whole thread have I said I'm anti capitalist. I just want those who are out to be socially responsible at the same time. Which doesn't happen usually so I'm praising this company even if they are going to make more money off of this press good for them.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

Looks like Aetna and Humana are joining the party

 

[franklin]

Looks like Aetna and Humana are joining the party

And that, my friends, is what collusive planning looks like. Have fun paying for 20 something deadbeats who need a few extra years of video gaming.