[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I say give things time.

Have you signed up yet?

[Shaddim]

Obama is an intelligent person, but as a democratic leader he's a failure. The apparent cause of this is his overdeveloped ego. He sees the direction he wants to go, and "damn the torpedos", he's taking us there. He doesn't dain to come down and speak with the unwashed, nor can he negotiate, he dictates. When there's opposition to his ideas, because that happens when you dictate, he takes it as a personal attack. Nothing rolls off his back, and now the man is a walking cautionary tale of a person coming into power too quickly without sufficient mentorship. In his position, he can't afford to take the offensive at every setback, because he isn't the one who takes the hit when communication breaks down, we are.

The most important quality in an effective leader is their ability to maintain flexibility while staying focused, and he seems to take pride in his inability to do just that.

Now. Healthcare does need fixing, it's a mess, but there were better ways of handling this. Monday morning quarterbacking? Maybe, but I don't really care. Oversimplified? You bet, but I believe that it's a much better direction.

1. Require insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions, and specify top-end rates, ensuring that they stay affordable.
2. Create a panel, comprised of government and private experts, that sets rates for specific procedures, medications, and treatments, levying real penalties against those who overcharge.
3. Expand Medicare to cover individuals below the poverty line, especially children and those with special needs.
4. Pay for that expanded service by charging an insurance tax on those in the higher income brackets, this would be a "progressive" tax that scales upwards based on income (the insured individual doesn't pay this directly, it's paid by the insurer and is rolled into the cost of the policy).
5. If you don't have a private policy, and make too much to qualify for free Medicare coverage, you'll automatically be enrolled in Medicare and the appropriate amount will be added to your Medicare withholding by their employer. Don't like that? Get a private policy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's because you're not capable of making this decision for you and your family. Thank goodness the Federal Government is available to step in and save you from yourself.

No doubt. I guess $2M worth of coverage just isn't enough.

[OAW]

@Shaddim,

You mention expanding Medicare for the poor above. I presume you mean Medicaid since that is the program that handles that. That being said, the ACA does do just that. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS ruled that states can opt out of that and many red states did just that even though it had a negligible impact on their state budgets since the federal government is footing the bill.

OAW

[Shaddim]

No, I meant Medicare, and expanding it, with that system the states won't opt out. If they do then they lose benefits for young and old, alike.

As for the Feds "footing the bill", no, it would be the wealthy, since they'd be the ones paying the tax on their premiums. However, under my system, a part of that would be deductible, depending on tax bracket, the more you make the less you can deduct. Also, I'm thinking a tax levied on pharmaceutical companies would help too, but only on first-run, non-generic drugs (at least partially defrayed by new development costs and faster release of generic equivalents).

[Shaddim]

"I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it."

Priceless.

[Snow-i]

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Looks like we've managed to do that before the law is even in full effect.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, I meant Medicare, and expanding it, with that system the states won't opt out. If they do then they lose benefits for young and old, alike.

As for the Feds "footing the bill", no, it would be the wealthy, since they'd be the ones paying the tax on their premiums. However, under my system, a part of that would be deductible, depending on tax bracket, the more you make the less you can deduct. Also, I'm thinking a tax levied on pharmaceutical companies would help too, but only on first-run, non-generic drugs (at least partially defrayed by new development costs and faster release of generic equivalents).

Fair enough. But now it sounds like you are advocating a single-payer "Medicare-for-all" approach?

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Have you signed up yet?

?

I haven't tried the website for a while, but I never claimed that it was working for me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No doubt. I guess $2M worth of coverage just isn't enough.

Oh wait, you're rich? Why didn't you say so before?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

?
I haven't tried the website for a while, but I never claimed that it was working for me.

I know it comes off snarky, but you said that once you were able to get in, you'd see what it looked like and make a decision. At some point you're going to get in if you want to. I'm genuinely curious what you find. The details are none of my business so I'm really just wondering when/if you actually sign up.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it."

Priceless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I know it comes off snarky, but you said that once you were able to get in, you'd see what it looked like and make a decision. At some point you're going to get in if you want to. I'm genuinely curious what you find. The details are none of my business so I'm really just wondering when/if you actually sign up.

I'll keep you posted with news either way.

I think a lot of people were underestimating the amount of time that will be needed to make this transition and make everything work, including addressing this issue that has come to fruition with plans being dropped because they don't meet the AHA standards and the AHA replacements costing more. I think all of these issues will be sorted out in time, it's just a matter of how much time, and how patient people (and politicians) will be willing to be.

All of this is to say that I can see things going either way as far as my ultimate decision goes. It all depends on the details of the plan that is offered to me, I'm not going to be ideological about this if it sucks for me, I have an existing plan I can keep.

This is all apparently deja vu to those who were around in the 60s for the Medicare roll-out in Canada.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a poignant issue for Republicans to pounce upon, and one that should gain them traction if there are enough of these cases and no solution except for these people to suck up and pay more.

That being said, I hope most Republicans in support of the shutdown are kicking themselves for shutting down the government at this point. Their case would be more compelling without the taint of the shutdown on people's memories.

Then again, people have short memories, if stories like this persist, the shutdown will soon be history. Still, I maintain that it was a very poorly played hand.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is a poignant issue for Republicans to pounce upon, and one that should gain them traction if there are enough of these cases and no solution except for these people to suck up and pay more.

That being said, I hope most Republicans in support of the shutdown are kicking themselves for shutting down the government at this point. Their case would be more compelling without the taint of the shutdown on people's memories.

Then again, people have short memories, if stories like this persist, the shutdown will soon be history. Still, I maintain that it was a very poorly played hand.

I'm glad you liked it. Me and the internet made that.

Agreed in that if something you don't appreciate is coming apart at the seams, shut up and get outta the way. But IMO if the shutdown hasn't already become a distant memory by now, Republicans are vindicated with each passing day. On the flip-side, I hope Democrats are kicking themselves for shutting down the government over a delay they'll soon need for logistical reasons. Folks can say what they want, but the portal for making the ACA work was not ready for an October 1st rollout and at least a few noteworthy Democrats allowed their ilk to walk the plank on this one.

Now the trick going into next year will be how to divorce one's self from their only major legislative achievement in 6 years.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Fair enough. But now it sounds like you are advocating a single-payer "Medicare-for-all" approach?

OAW

Just for those who are in need or are too lazy to get insurance (I'd make sure it's a little more than a private, to give people an incentive to shop for their insurance).

[BadKosh]

The Web glitches are only the first act. The Deductibles high cost and the fact doctors want that UP FRONT means less work for doctors. Sticker shock is REAL MONEY, and that gets voters out.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What I'm saying is that they're the same people, playing both sides against the middle.

I dunno man, I'd need to see some proof of that. It's a little too illuminati for my tastes.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

the most significant thing hampering the middle and lower income brackets is their addiction to fast and easy credit

I don't entirely disagree. I don't think it's coincidence that we were throwing money at banks to loosen the reins after the collapse because credit was hard to come by thereby hampering the recovery. Reducing credit is the solution, but how in god's name do you talk people into it or do it through regulation?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Pretty big loophole in Obamacare:

The Obamacare Penalty: Yes, It Can Be Avoided - Yahoo Finance

Another thing, if people lower their tax withholding, to avoid getting their refunds pinched, then that could really hurt the government, since they kind of rely on those interest-free loans from middle income Americans to keep the keep the whole ship afloat. Yikes.

That's been known forever, I thought. But as far as I'm concerned people shouldn't be giving the govt. these interest free loans to begin with, but too many like the idea of getting a "bonus" at tax time.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Looks like we've managed to do that before the law is even in full effect.

How is buying private insurance "socialism"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@Shaddim,

You mention expanding Medicare for the poor above. I presume you mean Medicaid since that is the program that handles that. That being said, the ACA does do just that. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS ruled that states can opt out of that and many red states did just that even though it had a negligible impact on their state budgets since the federal government is footing the bill.

OAW

Don't forget that opting out also hurts some of their citizens. Hell, many think by opting out their citizens don't even qualify for federal subsidies on insurance. It's so political is sickening.

[BadKosh]

ObamaCare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts:

1. ObamaCare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream -- redistribution of wealth.
Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote for Democrats).
Think about it. If you’re rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your own health care costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people’s costs too (through massive tax increases).
So you’re stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.

2. ObamaCare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them dependent on government.
Think about it. Even Obama’s IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living? People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can’t possibly hope to spend $20K on health insurance without becoming homeless.
Bingo. That’s how you make middle class people dependent on government. That’s how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.

3. As a bonus, ObamaCare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs.
Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance, thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.

4. ObamaCare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve donations to the GOP.
Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them. Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by ObamaCare.
Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative causes? Small Business.
Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can’t write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the “mother’s milk” of politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo.
That’s the point of ObamaCare. Obama is bankrupting his political opposition and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.

5. ObamaCare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful.
It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing 15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of ObamaCare to snoop into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you, to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Obama and his socialist cabal have access to your deepest medical secrets.
By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in the hands of Obama and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining your campaign.
Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of Obama and conservative groups?
Now Obama hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives. Brilliant.

6. ObamaCare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers.
That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund Democratic candidates and socialist causes -- thereby guaranteeing Obama’s friends never lose another election, and Obama’s policies keep ruining capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he’s out of office.
Message to the GOP: This isn’t a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism.
This isn’t a trainwreck. It's purposeful suicide.

It's not failing, it's working exactly according to plan. Obama knows what he’s doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting.
Oh and one more thing…Conservatives aren’t “terrorists.” We are patriots and saviors. We represent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. We are the heroes and good guys. Unless you get all this through your thick skulls, America is lost…forever.


Why ObamaCare is a fantastic success | Fox News

[The Final Shortcut]

The best part about that post is that you felt it was worth sharing

[besson3c]

What is it with Republicans like Badkosh and their insistence on overstating their cases?

The second I start seeing words like "marxist" and "socialist" I generally tune out, and I would bet that most others who are not already on the right do the same, because we've been hearing these dramatic rants/ravings/essays/whatevers for years now, even before Obama's first election.

I've also been saying for years, if you want people to take your viewpoints seriously, at least ease into things before jumping into all of this overblown rhetoric. Keep your change together and speak calmly without the emotional stuff, it will go a long way.

There is plenty we can all rip Obama apart for without all of this extra stuff.

[The Final Dakar]

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Exactly. All in all Obama has been ineffective, but to make him out as some sort of marxist tyrant trying to destroy America is just dumb when you can just point to his well-intended failures.

That being said, the jury might be out on the NSA spying trash as far as Obama's intentions there.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How is buying private insurance "socialism"?

When you are forced under federal law to buy government approved plans, it doesn't really qualify as "private." At least not for your argument.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is it with Republicans like Badkosh and their insistence on overstating their cases?

Which one of ObamaCare's "benefits" wasn't vastly overstated or an outright lie?

I'd rather be a bit hyperbolic than straight up wrong.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Neither is acceptable from our leadership. The bottom line is it doesn't matter which it is. It's time to reject the promises of career-politicians and start backing those who prove their suitability for the job.

It starts with us.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Okay, I'm not beating you up here, you aren't one of the forum's drive-by DNC trolls. But here's the pointy end of this:

For years people on the Right side of the aisle have said, "he's an incompetent asshole", to wit the Democrats have replied, "no he isn't, those issues aren't his fault". Now when numerous things have exploded in his face of late, and old matters have resurfaced, the contention on the Left is, "he doesn't know what's going on, he was unaware". It can't be both ways, here.

And no, I'm not saying any of this was "with malice", I'm not in that camp, but I do believe these are mechanisms that are being placed to extend federal control and oversight, because he feels they are needed. Some of it is Game Theory and some is a belief that a more pervasive government will help save people from themselves, a father to hold a toddler's hand. I see what he's doing, I know why, but I can't abide it.

[BadKosh]

Oh, GOODY! Nanci Pelosi says no budget deal without raising taxes. This is just what Harry Reid said. I guess finding ways to stop gov't corruption, incompetence, waste and fraud when its Democrats doing it is out of the question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Oh, GOODY! Nanci Pelosi says no budget deal without raising taxes. This is just what Harry Reid said. I guess finding ways to stop gov't corruption, incompetence, waste and fraud when its Demovrats doing it is out of the question.

It should be patently apparent to anyone paying attention that Democrats want to goad another shutdown. They want something in the news cycle other than the abysmal failure that has been their single, noteworthy legislative accomplishment in 6 years. Now that the tables have turned back on Democrats with Obama's approval ratings dropping 5 points in the last couple of weeks and conflict among the ranks of his ilk on a delay of the individual mandate, I hope Republicans can manage to just shut up and get outta the way this time.

[BadKosh]

The sticker shock is just now hitting the public too. Very high deductibles and lousy coverage is what the new democrat designed insurance is. All the new terms for "LIAR" are a scream.

[BadKosh]

What do they have planned to do to the general populace? What are they afraid of?

� Riot Control: DHS Spends $500,000 on Fully Automatic Pepper Spray Launchers Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay, I'm not beating you up here, you aren't one of the forum's drive-by DNC trolls. But here's the pointy end of this:

For years people on the Right side of the aisle have said, "he's an incompetent asshole", to wit the Democrats have replied, "no he isn't, those issues aren't his fault". Now when numerous things have exploded in his face of late, and old matters have resurfaced, the contention on the Left is, "he doesn't know what's going on, he was unaware". It can't be both ways, here.

And no, I'm not saying any of this was "with malice", I'm not in that camp, but I do believe these are mechanisms that are being placed to extend federal control and oversight, because he feels they are needed. Some of it is Game Theory and some is a belief that a more pervasive government will help save people from themselves, a father to hold a toddler's hand. I see what he's doing, I know why, but I can't abide it.

I thought he was referring to BadKosh, not Obama.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

When you are forced under federal law to buy government approved plans, it doesn't really qualify as "private."

So are car insurance plans also socialism?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

At least not for your argument.

Is this a cryptic way of stating "because I say so"?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay, I'm not beating you up here, you aren't one of the forum's drive-by DNC trolls.

I was responding to this general idea:

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

He knew and he's ruining the US on purpose.

Hyperbole aside, this caricature of Obama twirling his mustache and taking glee that his plan to ruin the US because, well I don't know why, is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I thought he was referring to BadKosh, not Obama.

You'd be incorrect.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It should be patently apparent to anyone paying attention that Democrats want to goad another shutdown.

'Tis true. The Rs put the gun to their heads with glee last month; I'm not surprised the Ds are goading them to do it again. God knows what else might happen.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They want something in the news cycle other than the abysmal failure that has been their single, noteworthy legislative accomplishment in 6 years.

That's not the concern. The shutdown killed the GOP national numbers. Another shutdown would give them more ammo for the 2014 elections.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I hope Republicans can manage to just shut up and get outta the way this time.

The Republican strength has always been in their ability to act as one; The shutdown demonstrated how fractured the Republicans currently are and Obama and the Democrats did their best impression of unity. It worked. But if history has taught us anything, Democrats are excellent at snatching defeat from the jaws victory. Which is to say, yeah, if the Republicans get out of the way they'll be golden.


Edit: Again, a nonfunctioning website is an "abysmal failure"?

[subego]

To me, the failure is riding rough-shod over the opposition. How am I supposed to put my life in its hands knowing it's going to get whomped on over and over?

This needed some form of consensus.

I go back to "rule, not lead". Forcing it works if he's a monarch, and can use his position to keep it afloat. Well, he can't.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This needed some form of consensus.

I like consensus a lot, but is there any on health care? The only alternative plan I saw released couldn't even give in on the parts of ACA Americans like. I'll take this shit over the status quo. At least we're talking about trying to improve health care in this country now.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So are car insurance plans also socialism?

Don't want car insurance? Don't buy a car. That works, right?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I like consensus a lot, but is there any on health care? The only alternative plan I saw released couldn't even give in on the parts of ACA Americans like. I'll take this shit over the status quo. At least we're talking about trying to improve health care in this country now.

That's where I'm at as well. The health care system very clearly needs to change. A revolutionary change and complete top-down reconfiguration would be too much of an upset in the system at once. Guaranteeing coverage for those that can't afford it or for those with preexisting conditions is a good first step. I fully expect that there will be bumps along the way, and I don't expect that costs for everyone will decrease.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's where I'm at as well. The health care system very clearly needs to change. A revolutionary change and complete top-down reconfiguration would be too much of an upset in the system at once. Guaranteeing coverage for those that can't afford it or for those with preexisting conditions is a good first step. I fully expect that there will be bumps along the way, and I don't expect that costs for everyone will decrease.

I wonder how smoothly RomneyCare was implemented.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I like consensus a lot, but is there any on health care? The only alternative plan I saw released couldn't even give in on the parts of ACA Americans like. I'll take this shit over the status quo. At least we're talking about trying to improve health care in this country now.

I'd say the fundamental issue is paying for it, especially coming off of two wars and and the economy tanking.

If there was more money floating around, you'd have less opposition.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say the fundamental issue is paying for it, especially coming off of two wars and and the economy tanking.

If there was more money floating around, you'd have less opposition.

To which I reply: Bullshit (Hi Shaddim!). Republican concern with fiscal solvency only applies to thing they don't like. Otherwise the Bush tax cuts would never have been passed, and if they had, they'd have been repealed to fund the wars.

Again, the only Republican plan I've seen doesn't even endorse removing pre-existing restrictions and keeping kids on parents insurance longer, and those don't even impact government's spending.

Edit: Do we like Medicare Part D? It's a fun story: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...edicare-reform

Medicare Part D was not paid for. When it was passed in December 2003, the new Medicare drug benefit was forecast by the Bush administration to cost $395 billion over its first decade. To pay for the program, President Bush and his GOP allies did—wait for it—nothing.

The Bush White House lied to Congress about the cost. Within two months of signing the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) into law, President Bush quietly informed Congress that the true cost of the program would be $550 billion, not $395 billion, over the next decade. When Medicare actuary Richard Foster sought to present the true price tag to Congress in late 2003, then agency chief Thomas Scully threatened to fire him. By the time the program was launched in 2006, the estimated 10 year price tag for the Medicare prescription plan had increased to $720 billion.

It was passed in December 2003, after the Bush tax cuts, after the tech bubble burst, after 9/11, after we invaded Afghanistan, and after the Iraq War had started. I know Republicans didn't love it, but they still passed the damn thing, price tag and deficit be damned. It ain't about the money.

Edit 2: Lest I be accused of being partisan: Did Dems support it? Nay. I doubt it was because of a new found concern for the deficit more than who proposed the bill.

[subego]

Cutting taxes is generally good for the economy, which ultimately aids fiscal solvency.

Look. I'm not trying to say the Republicans aren't douchebags. What I'm saying is douchebags need to be placated, or they're going to wreck your policy. That's how the game is played.

You give your opponents stuff they want. You buy their silence.

What have you done for me lately is the eternal political question.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Cutting taxes is generally good for the economy, which ultimately aids fiscal solvency.

It only works if you raise taxes later. The economy recovered during Bush's term (before taking a shit again) but they never made a move to restore the cuts, even in the face of far worse deficits than they could have imagined.

Edit: You don't cut spending during a downturn, either, as it keeps money in the economy.

Originally Posted by subego 

Look. I'm not trying to say the Republicans aren't douchebags. What I'm saying is douchebags need to be placated, or they're going to wreck your policy. That's how the game is played.

You give your opponents stuff they want. You buy their silence.

What have you done for me lately is the eternal political question.

Single payer died for their sins.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I wonder how smoothly RomneyCare was implemented.

Pretty smoothly, both technically and publicly, AFAIR. It still seems to be working pretty well, but there are coverage gaps.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Pretty smoothly, both technically and publicly, AFAIR. It still seems to be working pretty well, but there are coverage gaps.

So, no shitstorms the first year or months (he said, sounding almost disappointed)?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So are car insurance plans also socialism?

I certainly wouldn't classify it as capitalism, would you? Just because they both have the name "insurance" in them does not make them comparable.

Besides, mandatory liability car insurance is a terrible analog for healthcare. Also, it is state level regulation, not federal. Even states don't force you to buy insurance for your own car, just insurance in case you crash into another person's property. You aren't forced to buy it - only if you want to operate a car. You still have a choice not to do so. Healthcare?

The closest analogy of auto insurance healthcare would be the government forcing you to buy liability insurance incase you injure or somehow damage the health of another person, and that's only if you are doing a regulated activity that requires a license from the government to do, and that has a real potential of inflicting damage to another person or their property. In other words, the analogy does not work at all on any level aside from including "insurance" in the name.

If you were to apply the current implementation of the ACA to auto insurance, we'd all be forced to buy extended warranties from the government (or proxies thereof, like healthcare works now) as well as coverage for preventative maintenance at the shop. We'd all be forced to buy from government approved plans and would receive subsidies based on income. People that have newer, more efficient, safer cars would be forced to pay more to keep all the old junkers on the road and everyone would be forced to have that insurance, whether they want it or not.

A better analogy to auto insurance would be a gun-owner forced to buy liability insurance in case he injures or damages the property of another while using his firearm.

Is this a cryptic way of stating "because I say so"?

No, it's an explicit way of saying that technically it is private because you buy it from a "private" company, but the government is setting all the rules including what's covered, who it can be sold to, etc. Effectively, it is closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. It is erroneous to refer to it as true private insurance so long as the individual mandate is in effect and the government is dictating what insurance you can and cannot buy (and even that you must purchase it).

[The Final Dakar]

Sorry, mega-breakdown, but I wanted to respond to as many points as possible.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I certainly wouldn't classify it as capitalism, would you?

That's not answering the question. Are car insurance plans socialism?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Just because they both have the name "insurance" in them does not make them comparable.

The fact that both are mandatory is what makes them comparable.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Also, it is state level regulation, not federal.

I don't subscribe to the if a state does it its ok, if the fed does it socialism!

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Even states don't force you to buy insurance for your own car, just insurance in case you crash into another person's property.

I'm confused. When I buy a car I have to insure it. When I had two cars, I had to insure both.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You aren't forced to buy it - only if you want to operate a car. You still have a choice not to do so. Healthcare?

Live somewhere without public transportation and tell me how much of a choice owning a car is.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If you were to apply the current implementation of the ACA to auto insurance, we'd all be forced to buy extended warranties from the government (or proxies thereof, like healthcare works now)

I have no idea what car insurance is an extended warranty.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

as well as coverage for preventative maintenance at the shop.

That's what health insurance is! Preventative maintenance. If you have no insurance, your only option is the emergency room.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We'd all be forced to buy from government approved plans and would receive subsidies based on income.

Government sets the guidelines on the minimums for car insurance. In effect, they "approve" the plans.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

People that have newer, more efficient, safer cars would be forced to pay more to keep all the old junkers on the road

I pay more insurance on my new car compared to my old civic, so thats a match there.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

everyone would be forced to have that insurance, whether they want it or not.

Everyone car owner is forced to have car insurance if they want it or not.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

A closer example would be a gun-owner forced to buy liability insurance in case he injures or damages the property of another while using his firearm.

Considering the amount of idiots who die to gun accidents every week, its not a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, it's an explicit way of saying that technically it is private because you buy it from a "private" company, but the government is setting all the rules including what's covered, who it can be sold to, etc.

I believe that's called "regulation."

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Effectively, it is closer to socialism than it is to capitalism.

Is regulation socialism?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It is erroneous to refer to it as true private insurance so long as the individual mandate is in effect and the government is dictating what insurance you can and cannot buy (and even that you must purchase it.

It's erroneous to refer to it as socialism when true socialism, the public option got ditched for this. No one is competing with the government.

The government also dictates what kind of car insurance you can buy (i.e. minimums).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sorry, mega-breakdown, but I wanted to respond to as many points as possible.

I was correcting typos when a work call came in, so apologies for editing the original after you posted this.

That's not answering the question. Are car insurance plans socialism?

No. There is no mandate that you must buy auto insurance of any kind. It is a requirement of registering a vehicle. Vast difference.

The fact that both are mandatory is what makes them comparable.

They are not both mandatory. Only the ACA is mandatory. Liability insurance for auto's is a requirement of obtaining a valid registration which differs immensely from simply "being alive".

Let's name some other things that are mandatory under US law.

....Wait, the ACA is just about it.

I don't subscribe to the if a state does it its ok, if the fed does it socialism!

Local governments are far better equipped to regulate local populations then the federal government. Voters have more of a say for what happens in their back yard. Federal regulations mean that to effect change in your neighborhood, you must gain the majority support of representatives hundreds and thousands of miles away that face their own set of challenges, conditions, requirements, etc.

Do you think Florida's healthcare system should be affected by voters in Alaska?

Some amount of regulation is necessary in every state. Why do you think it's a good idea to regulate Alaskans the same way you regulate Floridians? When was the last time a floridian suffered hypothermia or had to deal with a moose attack? Do you think Alaskans face the same threat of skin cancer then those from Florida?

I'm confused. When I buy a car I have to insure it. When I had two cars, I had to insure both.

Allow me to rectify your ignorance on the subject. In no state, anywhere in the US, are you required to purchase insurance for your own car. Most states have a mandate requiring you to purchase liability insurance. Liability insurance only covers damage you do to others while operating your vehicle.

Live somewhere without public transportation and tell me how much of a choice owning a car is.

So don't you think these places should be regulated differently then places with public transportation?

I have no idea what car insurance is an extended warranty.

Exactly, its not. Nor is it required.

That's what health insurance is! Preventative maintenance.

Exactly why it doesn't work as an analogy to auto insurance. In what state are you required to be insured for preventative maintenance on your car? (i.e., an extended warranty).

If you have no insurance, your only option is the emergency room.

Where in the world did you get this idea? I haven't had a health plan for about 2 years now, only catastrophic insurance that I don't even provide to the doctors when I go it. I've been to the doctor 4 times in 2013, and paid out of pocket each time for a grand total of $600 including two prescriptions and a shot of cortisone.

Government sets the guidelines on the minimums for car insurance. In effect, they "approve" the plans.

Right.

I pay more insurance on my new car compared to my old civic, so thats a match there.

Only because older cars can be totaled and written off for much less than it would take to repair them. Are you suggesting we do this with people to keep our analogy working?

Everyone car owner is forced to have car insurance if they want it or not.

Liability insurance (damage they cause to others). [b]You are not required to buy insurance that covers your own car, only a minimum liability payout). The mandatory insurance requirement does not ever, in any circumstance, pay for damages to your car. Only another person's car if you are at fault in an accident.

What I want to know is, if having a car is pretty much a requirement according to you, how do you know absolutely nothing about car insurance?

Considering the amount of idiots who die to gun accidents every week, its not a bad idea.

I don't disagree. But this model is still incompatible as an analogy to healthcare.

I believe that's called "regulation."

Are regulation and socialism mutually exclusive?

Is regulation socialism?

Can be. Not necessarily.

It's erroneous to refer to it as socialism when true socialism, the public option got ditched for this. No one is competing with the government.

The government also dictates what kind of car insurance you can buy (i.e. minimums).[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how "no one is competing with the government" can translate to anything but socialism or communism. Competiton is what makes something not socialism. Maybe I misunderstand, could you clarify?

Again, the government DOES NOT MANDATE THAT YOU BUY AUTO INSURANCE COVERAGE ON YOUR OWN CAR. ONLY LIABILITY INSURANCE TO OPERATE THAT VEHICLE. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Originally Posted by ehow

The Insurance Information Institute (III) defines liability insurance as the legal obligation a policyholder is to pay in case of a car accident. Liability insurance protects the policyholder and pays, up to the policy limit amount, monetary compensation to the driver/passenger(s) injured in the other vehicle or for other property damaged (including autos directly and indirectly involved in a car accident).

Emphasis mine.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. There is no mandate that you must buy auto insurance of any kind. It is a requirement of registering a vehicle. Vast difference.

Same accomplishment. Most people don't buy cars for them to not be driven. Unfortunately there is no sort of equivalent I can think of for health insurance, other than existence. If you are against the individual mandate, fine, but then Dakar's question about your acceptance of auto insurance is a fair one.

[ebuddy]

More proof that the folks most annoyed by those decrying socialism either don't know what it is or they appreciate the idea and feel its negative baggage is unfortunate.