Now we can see why health care should not be left to politicians in Washington

But you don't get it, the government is still paying someone money from taxes and although this is totally earned it is still involvement in healthcare. If you believe that the government should 100% not be involved in healthcare then you can't be in favor of this.

 

Trump and the Republicans are actively trying to hurt ObamaCare by not enforcing the mandate and not funding the cost-sharing for premiums.

this is causing insurers to totally pull out or drastically increase premiums.

one insurer said that they will only increase rates by 8% if Trump let's ObamaCare run its course, but has to raise them 28% if they continue with their hobbling policies.

 

I'm fine with an employer contracting a benefit for a good and valuable consideration. We're also required to pay debts already contractually owed which anyone currently in the system would be no matter what I think or don't think.
That doesn't mean the feds have any business in the non-employee healthcare providing department, or in doing it in some sort of top down fashion. Or of mandating the purchase of private insurance.

 

Ok so instead of the government not being involved in healthcare, its that the government should not be involved in healthcare for non-government employees. Involvement in healthcare also involves regulations, and people suing healthcare providers if they were harmed out of negligence. Do you believe these protections should be dropped?

 

You're really in love with inserting your arguments into people's mouth's ain't ya bub?

An employer may of course provide a benefit in lieu of direct compensation. Providing it as an entitlement to citizens generally is a different story, as is single payer, as is mandating purchase of private health insurance on pain of "tax" (actually a fine). Regulations can be alright, but only if they'd allow the markets to cross state lines it being INTERstate commerce they properly have jurisdiction over (Wickward v Filburn and its progeny being terrible abortions of justice). That doesn't mean any regulation you can think of is a good idea, or constitutional. They must each be judged on their face.
But for the sentence or two I've added here, where in the **** did you get the rest of that **** you typed?

 

Yes, it is their diabolical plan to make one lie into a truth - "ObamaCare is failing" - Now it will but only because of their sabotage.

 

Your left wing BS phrase tax cuts for the rich is about as believable as yelling racist all the time.

 

Lol, you're tripping over, "they do not mean..." and getting confused over that statement.

Either you're struggling with really basic sentence structure, or are fabricating laughable straw men.

 

How can you say the government shouldn't get involved in healthcare and believe it should provide free healthcare to millions of veterans who earned it? Its like if I said that I am so tired of the county fair and this year I am not going to get involved at all and will 100% keep out of it, but then provide free tickets to veterans. Is that really "not getting involved?" Or I won't get involved an a lawsuit against my company but then start helping them pay their legal expenses.

 

What you really mean is that you are against the government running the healthcare system or providing free healthcare services as an entitlement? But you are in favor of providing free healthcare to current and sometimes former government employees, reasonably regulating, legally judging, and taxing healthcare? You don't actually believe the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare in any way or that it should completely get out of healthcare? I am really trying not to put words in your mouth but I am actually having to try hard here to get you to fully explain your position.

 

By not being pedantic. By not quibbling over how precisely something is said, and addressing the meaning that is plain and obvious to any lay man. By not making ones entire argument ring of "mmmm, well, technicallyyyy" nonsense.

 

I am literally using the English definition of "not getting involved" and "keeping out" of healthcare. It literally means that nothing the government does should have anything to do with healthcare. That just english. If that's not what you mean then maybe you should explain exactly what you want the government to not do.

 

You are literally performing the English definition of being pedantic, quibbling, and the dictionary definition of "stick figure guy on the left"



If your entire argument is based on some, "mmm, wellll, technically" bs, no one is going to care. No one cares for that kind of stupid pedantic and quibbling. If you didn't understand what was meant, that's a you problem.

And it wasn't something I had said - it was something someone else had said, which is plainly understood by people left and right. Pedants excepted.

 

I've explained my position clearly. An employer mat contract benefits in lieu of straight compensation, the government has no business giving entitlements, or forcing purchase of private insurance. If it's interstate commerce the constitution allows them to regulate but that is not some plenary power their actions are still subject to review and limitations. Each would be reviewed on its own merits.


It doesn't fit into a sound bite, that doesnt make it hard to grasp or mean I'm obfuscating.

 

I am not being pedantic. When you say the government should get out of healthcare, this means that the government should have zero involvement with healthcare, that the plain common sense meaning of that statement, no pedantics involved here. If I told you to get out of my life it is very clear that I don't want you to have any involvement in my life in any way. What is clear is that you do not believe the government should get out of healthcare, and only that its role in healthcare should be reduced in some ways, can we at least agree on that?

And by the way, the person on the left isn't using the proper dictionary definition of a "drug." I am using proper definitions while you seem to have you own strange idea of what "getting out" or "no involvement" means which really means "get out in some ways but you will have to read my mind to figure out what exactly I mean because I refuse to tell you".

Definition of a Drug
1: a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medicationc according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
2: a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary
3: a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease prescription drugs for treating high blood pressure
4: a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body
5: a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device

 

Why do you believe the government has no business giving entitlements or forcing purchase? What is the benefit gained from not doing this?

 

You realize of course that there are outright limitations placed on government? You realize that whether or not you think it might be of benefit (which is arguable) is not the standard?
Show me the explicit constitutional grant of the power to take money from Peter and pay Paul with it at the federal level. Show me the same for the government to force you to purchase anything for the privilege of drawing breath. You're the one wanting the machine to move, it's on you to prove it up.

 

That's because veterans were employed by the federal government when they were injured, unless you want the States to pick up the Worker's Compensation tab.

 

Some states do.

 

And you would tax the people more, so get lost.

 

Once you surrender your care to government run single payer, you will never again have any care other than what useless bureaucrats decide you can have.
No thanks.
I'd rather not be a wussy citizen, and take care of my own needs

 

Just because we have universal care doesn't mean it has to be a certain way. There are essentially three types of universal healthcare systems:
Beveridge Model
Bismark Model
National Health Insurance (Single-payer)

The Bismark model is the most capitalist and healthcare is privately run and paid for but the government has policies to ensure near-universal coverage and lower costs, its a bit like Obamacare but usually far better structured and cheaper. Universal healthcare doesn't mean that the government runs and pays for everything.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

 

My point is that if the government pays for veteran's benefits then they are involved in healthcare which means if you believe in it then you believe that the government should be involved in healthcare. The real question then becomes exactly how the government should be involved.

 

The ACA and Medicare already control medicine. It only gets worse

 

The way Americans manage both public and private care are horribly expensive and inefficient. In other countries healthcare about 2 1/2 times cheaper yet our care isn't 2 1/2 times better. What we basically need to do is overhaul our system completely and move to another system and not just try to patch it up and add to the complexity without really fixing it entirely.