Let's stay on point. You said "Letting others into the group for free is where I get upset" where others = "The 30 or so million people who did not have healthcare". This is just blatantly wrong, regardless of whether Obamacare has some subsidies for the working poor which are paid for through taxes.

My uncle is uninsurable right now in the private insurance market (well he was before the high-risk pools, but I'm not sure if those have kicked in yet). He'll be more than happy to pay anything close to the market rates for reasonable health insurance that some people currently enjoy through their employer. He's not asking for a handout, just a pool like most people in this country belong to.

That's right they don't get it for free. If they got it for free or even on the cheap we would not have the massive bankruptcy problems that come from the costs of health care.

That's the sad thing about your myself and my family only attitude. At some point you may, or may not, fall into a medical emergency. It may be you or someone in your family. Maybe it's their fault because they smoke or because they're fat. Maybe it's just a genetic time bomb ticking away that no one will know about until its too late. Maybe a son or daughter will get leukemia and then you're gonna be screwed. You and the rest of your family will do everything they can to save that person whether it's their fault or not. Whether they have insurance or not. That's the true hell of our system. We have no choice but to sacrifice everything for the ones we love. You advocate for a volatile system that rewards companies for tightening the screws on us. A system that does not care that we are willing to go into bankruptcy to save a loved one. Hell, our system basically relies on that fact.

We can have a better system. We can cover everyone and end the cycle of health care cost related bankruptcy. Take care of every family, not just your own. Because that way we will all be better off.

It doesn't. In point of fact it will actually save the government money.

Everything I read including wikipedia and the original document say otherwise. I'd love to see where it saves the government money.

If everyone paid into it, I could potentially get behind it. I would still want limitations on types of things covered and penalties for abuse, criminal prosecution for fraud, and less restrictions on doctors and medical suppliers.

Could you link to one of these everythings?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...458609678.html

First one I found, but just reading wikipedia about the basic costs shows that it costs more money to implement. Of course, this does not even take into account that a government budget on an entitlement program meets its budget basically never.

http://www.speaker.gov/Blog/?postid=221309

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare

Despite trying hard, I could not even find a liberal site that claims it will reduce the deficit.

Well, there's the part of the wikipedia page titled Deficit Impact...

And lol @ linking to Boehner on this.

I haven't read the thread, and it's quite possible I'm rambling here, but tell me if my position is reasonable or not. I believe people that are willing to work for a living, and don't do anything overly destructive to their bodies, should get healthcare. I don't think smokers, drug users, or heavy drinkers should get free health care if it's to treat a condition caused by their abusing cigarettes, drugs, or alcohol. Obese people that ignore their doctors advice to lose weight should not get free treatment for things related to their weight, if it has been shown over time that they have not lost any weight. I realize the 'willing to work for a living' thing opens a whole new can of worms. Someone who is able-bodied but has been on welfare for 10 years does not deserve free healthcare. Someone that is actively trying to find a job but can't does. I don't claim I am able to differentiate between someone that is exploiting the welfare/unemployment system and someone that is really trying to get a job. I do not drink, smoke, or do drugs. I eat healthy and exercise moderately. I can say with some amount of confidence that any health problems I've had over the years were not due to me neglecting my own health. I don't see what is so hard about taking care of oneself physically. If you take care of yourself but you get breast cancer or something, I don't mind paying a small amount extra in taxes so that you don't go bankrupt. If you drank and smoked heavily for 50 years and now your liver and lungs are failing because of it, I don't want to pay a dime to help get a transplant. You did that to yourself.

You do know addiction is a disease correct? Or you still living in the 1800s?

This is an op ed piece. Not a source.

lol. Well played.

Welcome to the complex world we live in. Sometimes, increased spending in one area can decrease costs in another. For example finding out that a person has a heart problem and giving him an annual prescription could be much cheaper than treating his emergency heart attack, surgery, and recovery time.


What? It's literally in the link you posted (and from the non-partisan CBO):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare

Did you read the words under deficit impact?

When the CBO estimates 14 billion a year over 10 years followed by 120 billion over the next 10, you can assume that these will never be met. A CBO budget has almost never been met in the history of the US government. Secondly, almost no one agrees with their estimates, especially since they double count, exclude, and make assumptions that benefit them.

I would love to see sources that show otherwise.

Also, all articles about a proposed budget are opinion pieces. No one knows the future.

You make a good point, and I could probably get behind health care paying for things like AA, (not sure if AA is volunteer or not, and if there are any costs) or paying for whatever the science currently says is the best way to quit smoking. For some people, seeing a shrink might be what they need. Plenty of people have been very addicted to these vices, and have successfully quit. We can help people out to some degree, but in the end, it's on the individual to quit. If someone has been shown the path to quitting but hasn't walked down that path, then society has done what it can for them and the repercussions of their actions on themselves.

Yes, all of them. Did you?

And guess what? Now you need to cite the CBO budgets not being met claim, too.

Nice edit, krmont. Now you want to assert something you admit you can't cite, but expect others to cite evidence that your assertions are wrong.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi...-40Kliesen.pdf

Summary: CBO does worse than random walk and is historically inaccurate normally projecting surplus and having deficit.

47 Million a year spent on something that historically does worse than a 1 second computer calculation.

The CBO could just as easily be underestimating. In fact that's even mentioned in the article.

They're non-partisan and have no goal but be as accurate as possible. Do you get that? Also, please link to somone disagreeing with them that isn't a Republican partisan. Notice how your links mentioned the Democrats agree with the estimate (I mean, of course they would - it benefits them).

Lol, no. Some articles are based off of studies, facts, and reasonable projections. Others aren't. You should probably try to learn the difference.

Ok, provide your sources in opposition.

The study done by the federal reserve shows the CBO has never been right in predicting a surplus.

Also hysterical is how the CBO when proving that it's forecasts are okay refuses to compare to actual results, but just compares to other forecasters, showing that they forecast about the same as everyone else.

Oh, this is so rich it just has to be fattening!

How exactly does health insurance work, in your mind?

AA is actually non-professional and self supporting (and is great organization) it even gets similar outcomes to professional therapists when it comes to alcohol abuse.

I agree with the sentiment of your post in general, although I do think we need to do more as a society to prevent people from getting addicted to stuff like cigarettes in the first place. People say stuff like "People should make their own decision", but something like 90% of smokers started before age 20 and I can assure you no teenager can really grasp the eventual ramifications of starting to smoke casually with friends at parties.

Why don't you actually ever make a point or argument instead of being a mod and constantly just having one liners and lolz for people? You are supposed to set the example for following the rules, yet I never see anything of substance from you.

look i wouldnt support single payer paying for any addiction treatments. the only exception would be if you got addicted to pain meds that were prescribed due to a procedure.

nobody forced people to drink smoke or do drugs. they started voluntarily. its their problem.

also anybody who thinks single payer would not be a massive tax increase is very much mistaken. and i really doubt that you wont pay more in taxes than you would if you just bought a high deductible policy matched with a hsa.

Why not? People with illegal addictions that aren't treated will invariably end up in the prison system to a high degree, which costs tax payers 20-50k a year per inmate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarce...ed_States#Cost
If we could save money by treating addiction and lowering crime, seems like money well spent.
What is the logic for drawing the line here?

Even if that is true, which it really isn't*, if there is a better more cost effective and less destructive way of dealing with it, who cares?

* It isn't really true because I'm pretty sure there is good science indicating that upbringing/parents or lack of them/quality of education/genetics, ect (i.e. things out of peoples control). All play a non insignificant role in whether someone has addiction problems. I would agree with you more if we all started off with a good family/role models/education/neighborhood/genetics - then you could say it was entirely meritocratic whether someone has an addiction problem, but that is far from the way it is.
If as a society we end up spending less overall on healthcare with equal or better outcomes, again, why should it matter a great deal whether we are spending the money via government or via spirally out of control costs for extremely profitable private insurance industry in bed with the government.

Fedor, do you have any more in depth information with regards to your statement "People with illegal addictions that aren't treated will invariably end up in the prison system to a high degree"? I'm not disagreeing with it, I'd just like to see if these people were in prison because they were just doing drugs, or if their drug use led to other acts of crime. If it's the former, perhaps the drug laws are to blame.

Well i agree that the drug laws largely are to blame, and I couldn't be more for reforming them. But even if you take alcohol as an example, thankfully no longer part of the drug war industry/racket, there still is plenty of people with alcohol addiction that end up doing destructive things before they attempt/receive treatment. But since alcohol isn't criminalized you aren't as likely to end up in prison simply for drinking and have more treatment options early on to avoid prison and ruining your life altoghether, the same way you very well could with an illegal drug addiction and getting caught using early on.

I'm not directly disagreeing with you that there are no benefits....I am just pointing out that rich Canadians have the best of both worlds, while the rich American doesn't have the option to get it done for free.

I dont think anyone is disagreeing with you that the rich have it great in the US...but for the rest of the population not so much.