Sea World to Cut Hours for Part Time Employees

I guess neither is an interstate highway system.

In my opinion, someone has to pay for healthcare. I'm not sure who is paying for uninsured emergency room visits now, but I think it would be better to take care of that problem collectively.

janfrederick said:

I'm not sure who is paying for uninsured emergency room visits now, but I think it would be better to take care of that problem collectively.

By not allowing uninsured emergency room visits.

Why is access to health care any different than access to food? It's up to you to provide it for yourself (in whatever quality and quantity you deem necessary) on your own. If you can't do that there are welfare programs in place to help you get by to some degree. There's also a vast network of volunteers and do-gooders in general available to assist you.

Seems like food is even more important to survival in general than health care and no one is saying the government should feed us all and that food is a right.

Just an 'out there' thought from my general vicinity.

I suppose we all put the slider in a different shade of grey somewhere between the anarchy of no government and the totalitarian state of an all powerful government.

Lord Gonchar said:
and no one is saying the government should feed us all and that food is a right.

Give it time.

janfrederick said:

but I think it would be better to take care of that problem collectively.

I agree with this part. It is too bad the collective will of the people is totally ignored with every step of the ACA.

And this...

If you can't do that there are welfare programs in place to help you get by to some degree. There's also a vast network of volunteers and do-gooders in general available to assist you.

Minor changes might have been called for... But what did we get...?

Vater said:

Health care is not a right.

A right is not something someone gives you- it's something that no one can take away.

Two notes: One, that link goes to "FreedomWorks." Nice name...

Second, if "rights" cannot be taken away, how are the voting purges legal?

I don't really care if Obamacare is a right, a privilege, an entitlement, a nanny state or whatever.

This country's health care system is broken, and has been for years. The U.S. spends so much money on healthcare; other countries that spend far less have much healthier citizens. We have a system riddled with inefficiencies, a system that has far too little competition, a system where the consumer has little say in purchase decisions.

Is Obamacare perfect? No. Is it close to perfect? No. Is it the law of the land? Yes; passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court: with all its imperfections it's what we have now. There are many things I'd change but at least something's being tried.

Lord Gonchar said:
By not allowing uninsured emergency room visits.

I'm sure you'd be first in line to apply for a security job at the hospital the next time you are looking for work. Unless of course you don't get sick or injured before you get the job. ;)

In any case, I'd like to see how this works. If my premiums come down, I'll be happy even if it means paying more for big macs or tickets to Sea World.

janfrederick said:
I'm sure you'd be first in line to apply for a security job at the hospital the next time you are looking for work. Unless of course you don't get sick or injured before you get the job. ;)

:)

1. My family has taken the necessary steps to insure ourselves so getting treated when sick or injured isn't a problem.

2. I wouldn't be in line for a security job at a hospital regardless of the scenario.

In any case, I'd like to see how this works. If my premiums come down, I'll be happy even if it means paying more for big macs or tickets to Sea World.

But what if premiums go up?

And what if Big Macs and tickets to Sea World do too?

At what point is the cost not worth the benefit?

And when the hell did insurance get equated with health care? That's the biggest thing that's broken with our system. All this does is push everyone into that broken arrangement.

slithernoggin said:

Is Obamacare perfect? No. Is it close to perfect? No. Is it the law of the land? Yes; passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court: with all its imperfections it's what we have now. There are many things I'd change but at least something's being tried.

Doing the wrong thing isn't better than doing nothing.

But you would be so good at it, especially with that scary biker beard and radioactive (sorry, biohazard, better yet!) glasses. I'd definitely rather bleed out on the sidewalk instead of trying to get past that! :)

Doing the less-right thing is better than doing nothing.

Unless you think that doing nothing is still better than doing the less-right thing.

janfrederick said:

I'd definitely rather bleed out on the sidewalk instead of trying to get past that! :)

Let It Bleed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4CrCTndkKc

Happy Friday everybody!

rollergator said:

Let It Bleed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4CrCTndkKc

Happy Friday everybody!

Sweet! Now I know what he was actually singing. I'll have to play Goodfellas this evening.

I would disagree that doing nothing is the answer to fix America's health care system. We've been trying that. It hasn't worked.

But what if premiums go up?

States, like California and New York, that are accepting Obamacare and setting up exchanges are going to see premiums go down, according to various experts.

States that aren't, like Texas, are going to see premiums go up.

Competition is a good thing.

slithernoggin said:

Doing the less-right thing is better than doing nothing.

You changed my words on me. I didn't say "less right" - I said "Wrong"

Doing the wrong thing isn't better than doing nothing.

Competition is a good thing.

There's already competition in the insurance market. Not sure how forcing everyone to buy in suddenly changes that. If anything it gives insurers a captive market - you HAVE to buy something.

And still none of this addresses the fact that we equate insurance coverage with health care - which I see as the fundamental problem with our current system. Shoehorning everyone into the broken system doesn't magically fix it.

slithernoggin said:

But what if premiums go up?

States, like California and New York, that are accepting Obamacare and setting up exchanges are going to see premiums go down, according to various experts.

States that aren't, like Texas, are going to see premiums go up.

Competition is a good thing.

If you consider a 64%-146% increase the same as go down. But New York may indeed be an outlier. Here is why.

I disagree that Obamacare is the wrong thing. It's not the right thing. But it's not the wrong thing; but it's a step in the right direction.

When we have states with one or two insurance companies dominating that market, that's not competition. "Forcing" everyone to buy insurance doesn't create competition. Making insurance companies actually compete against six or eight or ten other insurance companies creates competition.

I don't understand "the fact that we equate insurance coverage with health care." Can you explain what you mean to me?

That you currently need insured to receive care. Why do we need a middleman handling the financials between me and my doctors?

That's what's busted about the system. Health insurance isn't insurance in the traditional sense (a protection against emergency or unforeseen situations) - it's your entry into the system at this point. You need it to get health care.

That, to me, is the problem.

Obamacare isn't guaranteeing everyone health care as much as it's putting everyone into insurance coverage.

There's a difference there.

Amen.