115th Congress defunds ACA: Senate: 51-48 House:227-198; Executive Order signed 1/20

[David_TheMan]

good luck finding a country that doesn't have a social contract breh. i think syria is in anarchy right now, you might enjoy it there

No country has a social contract. They operate on monopoly of power principles.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Republicans Want to Kill Obamacare Without the Blame

Yet Obamacare’s problems don’t fit the death-spiral description. To economists, a death spiral is a very specific type of failure. It’s what happens when premiums are too high for the healthiest people, who don’t expect to need much care. So those people drop out, leaving behind a slightly sicker population that’s more expensive to care for. Insurers raise premiums, which forces out the next tier of healthy people, making the remaining insured population even sicker, and so on, until the system breaks down completely.

The authors of Obamacare equipped it with a circuit breaker that prevents a death spiral from ever getting started. Everyone, even the healthiest, must be covered or pay a tax penalty. More important, more than 80 percent of people who buy insurance through the exchanges qualify for subsidies. The credits also insulate them from premium increases: If premiums go up, the tax credits go up as well. Since healthy people don’t feel premium increases, they have no reason to drop out of the risk pool. Because they don’t drop out, insurers can continue to have a profitable mix of healthy and not-so-healthy people in their pool of coverage. The tax credits are “an enormous stabilization force,” says Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Urban Institute think tank.

If Obamacare were in a death spiral, it would show up in declining enrollment. In fact, enrollment appears to be growing. Health and Human Services reported that sign-ups, including renewals, reached 8.8 million by Dec. 31. That’s an increase of 2.3 percent from the same time last year.

Republicans could reverse that progress by eliminating the individual coverage mandate, which has been at the heart of GOP opposition to Obamacare. That would reduce the incentive for healthy people to enroll. Says Levitt: “If the GOP repeals the individual mandate immediately but keeps in place the guarantee of coverage for preexisting conditions, that could very well produce the death spiral.”

It might be politically impossible for Republicans to get rid of regulations prohibiting insurers from denying coverage or raising costs for people with preexisting conditions. Trump carried 12 of the 14 states with the largest percentages of non-elderly people with preexisting conditions in 2015, according to a Kaiser study released in December. He also got one electoral vote in Maine, the 13th state in the group.

Congressional Republican aides say they’re likely to soften the coverage rules rather than eliminate them altogether, by limiting protections to people who maintain continuous coverage. “The preexisting condition provisions in Republican proposals are less protective,” says Levitt. “With fewer protections, you could piece together other mechanisms to keep the market stable.”

Developing a Republican alternative will take longer. House conservatives want a two-year horizon for finding a replacement. Republican leaders prefer at least three years, and there has been discussion of putting it off until after the 2020 elections, staffers say.

Even if Republicans scrap Obamacare’s premium subsidies, they will need to come up with something similar to make insurance affordable. Trump has proposed high-risk pools to cover sick uninsured people, but financing them will be a challenge. A 2010 estimate in the policy journal National Affairs by conservative health-care experts Tom Miller and James Capretta pegged the cost at $150 billion to $200 billion over a decade to insure up to 4 million people. House Republicans have been reluctant to spend anything close to that.

Republicans Want to Kill Obamacare Without the Blame

 

[im not you]

No country has a social contract. They operate on monopoly of power principles.

whatever you want to call it, society wouldnt exist without it. you want to go back to caveman status so bad, you don't have to participate breh. leave

 

[David_TheMan]

whatever you want to call it, society wouldnt exist without it. you want to go back to caveman status so bad, you don't have to participate breh. leave

Well the theory of a social contract is different than the theory of monopoly of violence or force being the underlying principle of the state.
So its not a whatever you call it situation, they are two different theories of government powers.
Now you present a false dilemma as if not accepting the social contract theory means going back to caveman status, which makes no sense to me because i don't even know what that entails.

That said you do you, hopefully you can respond to me with a logical reply

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm talking about the thread you posted, unless you have problems reading english I don't understand why you are confused
I never said you said anything about Communism, you literally made that up out of thin air, again, which seems to be a habit with you.
I know about our lincoln convo, and you failed in your argumentation in that debate and we ended it there.

Engels and marx are in the thread so i really don't see what you are talking about, you posted the thread for all to see, now it seems you didn't actually read it, nor my post in this thread that you are quoting.

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/17465319/
Thats the post that got my communist discussion started by the way.

I bring up a conversation and link to it, you respond by talking about it like it's a different conversation that wasn't on that page and that I had nothing to do with, and I'M the one making things up?

Your attempts to claim that Lincoln was killed because people were angry about corruption, that the war was over completely when Lincoln died, that John Wilkes Booth wasn't pissed off about the ending of slavery and the giving of rights to Blacks, that the 15th Amendment came before Lincoln's death, that Lincoln wasn't popular until the 1920s, and that your line of argument wasn't based on NeoConfederate claims were ALL clearly proven wrong there.

There wasn't one place you scored a point on anything. You were wrong on every single point you made. Everyone can look at the thread and see that:

Ta-Nehisi Coates dropping more gems on why blacks still getting screwed

It was scrambling to me, you can have the last word or the first word, your argumentation was terrible and you never really argued your point. As a matter of fact you keep changing your argument.

Okay, live in your own personal reality.

The best part of this post and the link is that it proves exactly what I'm talking about you literally make up strawmen arguments and get mad when I tell you that isn't what I said. Its pretty said.

Difficult to parse what you're even saying here, but since I'm the one who brought up the link, the person who ignores the actual conversation we had to bring up an entirely different conversation on a different page that I had nothing to do with is the one who needs to be lectured about strawmen arguments.

Sure you didn't you insult me and my intelligence and then claim you didn't do so when your post clearly has you taking personal shots at me and insulting my intelligence. You looking real funny in the light right now.

I didn't say that I didn't insult your intelligence. But that's not what you accused me of. You accused me of name-calling (an accusation you seem to have to make a lot here), and you said I called you an idiot. Both of those claims were false. What you're doing now is "moving the goalposts". I described the exact behavior I saw from you.

If you don't like your behavior being described that way, then stop it.

It's not like you haven't heard this repeatedly from other people already.

 

[David_TheMan]

I bring up a conversation and link to it, you respond by talking about it like it's a different conversation that wasn't on that page and that I had nothing to do with, and I'M the one making things up?

Your attempts to claim that Lincoln was killed because people were angry about corruption, that the war was over completely when Lincoln died, that John Wilkes Booth wasn't pissed off about the ending of slavery and the giving of rights to Blacks, that the 15th Amendment came before Lincoln's death, that Lincoln wasn't popular until the 1920s, and that your line of argument wasn't based on NeoConfederate claims were ALL clearly proven wrong there.

There wasn't one place you scored a point on anything. You were wrong on every single point you made. Everyone can look at the thread and see that:

Ta-Nehisi Coates dropping more gems on why blacks still getting screwed







Okay, live in your own personal reality.





Difficult to parse what you're even saying here, but since I'm the one who brought up the link, the person who ignores the actual conversation we had to bring up an entirely different conversation on a different page that I had nothing to do with is the one who needs to be lectured about strawmen arguments.






I didn't say that I didn't insult your intelligence. But that's not what you accused me of. You accused me of name-calling (an accusation you seem to have to make a lot here), and you said I called you an idiot. Both of those claims were false. What you're doing now is "moving the goalposts". I described the exact behavior I saw from you.

If you don't like your behavior being described that way, then stop it.

It's not like you haven't heard this repeatedly from other people already.

You bring up a conversation I mention you moving goalposts and strawman, then say I felt I held my own in the thread very well and detail how I did so and you get mad about it even though I never directed anything at you in the thread discussed that you didn't say, and talked about things that did actually occur in the thread that you simply just didn't take the time to read. Don't really know what to say.

There rest is just beating a dead horse, then I say you insulted me and you admit you did you just didn't say what I said verbetim as if that improves the low level of discourse you sunk to. Its alright man, I see what type of cat you are, its bright and clear your methods are about nothing but deflection and strawmen. Its alright, I know how to talk to you in the future.

 

[Saiyajin]

Obamacare and the Romneycare (heritage neo con concoction) that it copies is nothing more than a backdoor government handout to businesses, that actually destroys the market. It has taken providers out the market, run up price of insurance, run up price of medicine all because of government subsidization and selling the ignorant rubes of the US on the concept that there is a such thing as a free lunch.

I hope it is competely dismantled and a actual market oriented solution can be implemented, which means Ryan must be far away from developing a solution.

The benefit, lower insurance premiums, more market competition for insurance, which leads to better service as well.

:skipmjlol:


this is satire right ?

 

[David_TheMan]

:skipmjlol:


this is satire right ?

Satire of what.
Just talking facts, you think differently?

 

[Idaeo]

 

[hashmander]

yeah that's the "we told them we'd replace it later."

it's the new "we told them it would trickle down."

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That has to be a photoshop.


I can't breathe right now.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

There rest is just beating a dead horse, then I say you insulted me and you admit you did you just didn't say what I said verbetim as if that improves the low level of discourse you sunk to. Its alright man, I see what type of cat you are, its bright and clear your methods are about nothing but deflection and strawmen. Its alright, I know how to talk to you in the future.

You used a NeoConfederate's book to attack Lincoln, the Heritage Foundation to describe an ideal Indian economy, and Tea Party arguments to claim that Obamacare was killing people. You are continuously caping for the most pro-supremacy, pro-corporate, pro-trickle down, anti-reality economic views I've ever seen on this forum. When faced with opposing arguments and opposing research, you constantly misinterpret the arguments being given to you and then provide references that neither pertain to the arguments made nor even say what you claim they are saying. When facts you claim are clearly proven wrong, you either refuse to admit it or you shift the goalposts incessantly, then you project and claim that that's what your opponent is doing even as the exact receipts are there right in front of everyone's eyes. And I've seen at least half-a-dozen people call you out on it.

I don't care how you talk to me in the future, it can't possibly be more useless than what you've already been doing. In the future, I will continue to post clear and referenced rebuttals to your initial arguments, and then stop replying much quicker when it's clear that no one serious is following you down the ridiculous rabbit holes you make anymore.

 

[David_TheMan]

You used a NeoConfederate's book to attack Lincoln, the Heritage Foundation to describe an ideal Indian economy, and Tea Party arguments to claim that Obamacare was killing people. You are continuously caping for the most pro-supremacy, pro-corporate, pro-trickle down, anti-reality economic views I've ever seen on this forum. When faced with opposing arguments and opposing research, you constantly misinterpret the arguments being given to you and then provide references that neither pertain to the arguments made nor even say what you claim they are saying. When facts you claim are clearly proven wrong, you either refuse to admit it or you shift the goalposts incessantly, then you project and claim that that's what your opponent is doing even as the exact receipts are there right in front of everyone's eyes. And I've seen at least half-a-dozen people call you out on it.

I don't care how you talk to me in the future, it can't possibly be more useless than what you've already been doing. In the future, I will continue to post clear and referenced rebuttals to your initial arguments, and then stop replying much quicker when it's clear that no one serious is following you down the ridiculous rabbit holes you make anymore.

I haven't supported trickledown or supply-side economics.
I attack Lincoln using sourced material.
I pointed out actual tax rate and overview of indian trade with sourced material.
You never were able to counter anything I posted with actually sourced material.
You then when you realize I'm not backing down after you name calling, get mad and quit discussion and just focus on personally insulting me and throwing out lies, like this post .

Like I said its clear what you are, you don't have the ability to debate you don't have the ability to engage in rational and logical discourse.
Again its okay, I know what you are now, its all good.

 

[im not you]

Well the theory of a social contract is different than the theory of monopoly of violence or force being the underlying principle of the state.
So its not a whatever you call it situation, they are two different theories of government powers.
Now you present a false dilemma as if not accepting the social contract theory means going back to caveman status, which makes no sense to me because i don't even know what that entails.

That said you do you, hopefully you can respond to me with a logical reply

this all goes back to that line i quoted you originally. if im understanding you correctly, you think that the government 'steals' your money through the IRS or whatever tax authority in your country to help the rest of society. you feel that you never agreed to this, and that you shouldn't be forced to give up your money you earned to benefit others, and that you only abide by this because otherwise, the government will throw you in jail.

without tax money, whether you subscribe to the social contract or monopoly of violence theory, society as we know it simply could not exist. for example, a bus driver who thinks he should pay taxes, but without taxes, roads aren't kept up, so what is he driving his bus on? how does he make his living if everyone else in his society doesn't pitch in their share to make sure roads are maintained?

 

[David_TheMan]

this all goes back to that line i quoted you originally. if im understanding you correctly, you think that the government 'steals' your money through the IRS or whatever tax authority in your country to help the rest of society. you feel that you never agreed to this, and that you shouldn't be forced to give up your money you earned to benefit others, and that you only abide by this because otherwise, the government will throw you in jail.

without tax money, whether you subscribe to the social contract or monopoly of violence theory, society as we know it simply could not exist. for example, a bus driver who thinks he should pay taxes, but without taxes, roads aren't kept up, so what is he driving his bus on? how does he make his living if everyone else in his society doesn't pitch in their share to make sure roads are maintained?

Society can most definitely exist without without the threat of force of a group of elites, and in general people generally find ways to work with each other and keep a peace, typically your laws and roads developed before there was a state as well, we saw this with the native american tribes having clearings and roadways that the white europeans seemed to think appeared by magic. That said I'm of the opinion that relaying on the old tradition of praising of violence and kings or oligarchs is just a cover, it isn't neccesary to function in society and we see that everyday in jobs (organizations built up, heirachy built up, rules either accepted or rejected and party leaving) we see it in religious communities Mormons or Minnanites or Amish, you see it all the time, spontaneous order, and the services that you would say aid in keeping the peace or enablihg trade, I think could be performed commercially.