Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has been dubbed "partisan" solely for political reasons.
"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar."
- Mitt Romney, Op-ed on USA Today, July 2009
I dare him to repeat those words today.
Yes, yes, the other side is the partisan one.....never your side....oh...and they are all racists too.
Dude, I just wrote your new status line. You are welcome.
Any particular reason why the New Yorker intentionally omitted the fact that the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was optional, and not forced? It allowed people to opt out, without penalty, for any number of reasons.
That's quite different from Obamacare's pay up or be penalized.
Questioning...
Mircea
Well I have 2 thoughts on that:
1) Opting out is IMO only feasible if you can refuse people service. If people want to opt out and then be left to bleed out if they cut themselves badly with a kitchen knife then that's their choice but it's not reality.
2) The ugly little fact that is also generally hidden is that the bill is forcing millions to purchase for profit insurance from the very huge corporations (like aetna). I had one poster here complaining about exec pay and I mentioned ex Aetna CEO Ron Williams of notorious huge pay scandal fame. They stopped responding to my posts in the thread after I pointed out he is a member of Obama's executive advisor pannels along with Immelt and others.
With that said, we have an ugly little frankenstein bill....I reserve final opinion until I see how it grows up....or doesnt.
Any particular reason why the New Yorker intentionally omitted the fact that the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was optional, and not forced? It allowed people to opt out, without penalty, for any number of reasons.
That's quite different from Obamacare's pay up or be penalized.
Questioning...
Mircea
I don't think this is true.
I just looked up the entire act from 1993 and this is Subsection F - Universal Coverage:
[quote]
Quote:
Effective January 1, 2005, each individual who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident
of the United States shall be covered under
(1) a qualified health plan, or
(2) an equivalent health care program (as defined in section 1601(7)).
EXCEPTION Subsection (a) shall not apply inthe case of an individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including an individual whodeclines health plan coverage due to a reliance on healingusing spiritual means through prayer alone
The only exception is highlighted above You can find the whole document here (S. 1770)
Last edited by residinghere2007; 06-20-2012 at 10:15 AM..
Reason: Wonky format after post
This article examines why you have people, such as here on CD, who 1) identify themselves with a group (conservative, liberal, libertarian, what have you) and then 2) spend a seemingly inordinate amount of time surfing the internet looking for articles, blogs, etc to 'support' their groups position; and finally 3) refuse to even consider a contrary view, even in the face of mounting evidence. It is called 'motivated reasoning'.
One of the most telling paragraphs:
"One of those mechanisms is figuring out how to believe what the group believes. Haidt sees the role that reason plays as akin to the job of the White House press secretary. He writes, “No matter how bad the policy, the secretary will find some way to praise or defend it. Sometimes you’ll hear an awkward pause as the secretary searches for the right words, but what you’ll never hear is: ‘Hey, that’s a great point! Maybe we should rethink this policy.’ Press secretaries can’t say that because they have no power to make or revise policy. They’re told what the policy is, and their job is to find evidence and arguments that will justify the policy to the public.” For that reason, Haidt told me, “once group loyalties are engaged, you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments. Thinking is mostly just rationalization, mostly just a search for supporting evidence.”"
It has become rare, on this board, to find anyone willing to engage in true debate. It is even rarer to see anyone accept some contrary fact and admit "Ok, perhaps I need to rethink my position".
Ii find it somewhat interesting that those who most enjoy calling other posters 'sheeple' engage in the exact behavior the article discusses. Such people have, emotionally, attached themselves to a 'group', and will defend any and all policies said group adopts.
Again from the article:
"According to the political-science literature, one of the key roles that political parties play is helping us navigate these decisions. In theory, we join parties because they share our values and our goals—values and goals that may have been passed on to us by the most important groups in our lives, such as our families and our communities—and so we trust that their policy judgments will match the ones we would come up with if we had unlimited time to study the issues. But parties, though based on a set of principles, aren’t disinterested teachers in search of truth. They’re organized groups looking to increase their power. Or, as the psychologists would put it, their reasoning may be motivated by something other than accuracy. And you can see the results among voters who pay the closest attention to the issues."
The last sentence refers to those who truly examine issues from all sides and make a reasoned judgement based upon their own values and beliefs. Their decision may coincide with a group they identify with, or may not. I believe they could be called the 'independents'.
Anyway, the article is food for thought.
Great article. I think it is fairly true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
