Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Qzukk's Journal: Serious proposals to replace obamacare begin 49

Journal by Qzukk

The WSJ has floated an opinion piece offering what it calls a conservative alternative to Obamacare, that I think is the first time I've seen any conservative alternative except "Nuh-Uh!" Google news popped it up with a link to http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-381425/ which seems to be some sort of glorified rss feed with an HTML skin, so I have no idea if the link will be good for anyone else in the future.

It is, in my opinion, a beginning. In the past, I've called obamacare the wrong answer to the wrong question. This article suggests extending the current employer tax writeoff so that everyone, not just the employers, can buy insurance with tax-free money. Then it goes a step further by means-testing a tax credit for the poor so they can buy privately operated insurance with their tax credit instead of getting Medicaid. I think this is a good start to answering the question of how to make it possible for everyone to get at least minimal health insurance (if they want it. This is the conservative version, remember).

It is still the wrong question, though.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Serious proposals to replace obamacare begin

Comments Filter:
  • Any hack conservative can write a letter to a conservative newspaper to ridicule a piece of legislation that they don't like. That doesn't make it a serious proposal if it isn't actually going towards consideration in congress; really at this point it is as much as alternative to the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 as is universal single payer healthcare an alternative to the same terrible law.

    Although as you pointed out it is still aiming to answer the wrong question. This market based
    • Could it also be that a reformed insurance system is the overall least-worst approach? Sane Englishmen [amazon.com] prophesy woe for us if we continue to follow the genius that brought us Healthcare.gov.
      • Could it also be that a reformed insurance system is the overall least-worst approach?

        Have you paid any attention at all to what Washington has done in the past 3 years?

        They just tried to reform the insurance system. The whole fucking law is based on giving more shit to the insurance industry for free.

        • That was not a reform. That was a wrecking ball. There is a difference.
          • That was not a reform. That was a wrecking ball. There is a difference.

            It may have been a wrecking ball for the consumers, who are now obligate customers of the insurance industry. But to the industry itself it was a giant golden goose that will lay giant golden eggs for them and them alone for a long time to come. Hell the healthcare.gov website errors only benefit the insurance industry more, as it will drive more customers to pick plans with incomplete information out of fear of the fee rather than concern for what they actually get for their money or what plan is the be

            • Or we could, you know, set about reforming the whole hot, bi-partisan mess.
              • Or we could, you know, set about reforming the whole hot, bi-partisan mess.

                A couple comments ago you insisted there were no functional parties and that they are all on the same side. What is there then to reform? And how would it have any ability to change health care?

                • The basic plan is what you've seen: elect more of the Paul/Lee/Cruz/(Rubio) variety, and drive out the sellouts.
                  Wash, rinse, repeat.
                  • The basic plan is what you've seen: elect more of the Paul/Lee/Cruz/(Rubio) variety, and drive out the sellouts.

                    That doesn't really answer my earlier question about your assertion of there no longer being two parties. Those guys all run as republicans; are you saying they are the only "true" republicans, or are they not actually republicans at all, just using that label until they can establish a new party?

                    Wash, rinse, repeat.

                    This also doesn't answer my second question; how will they reform health care? I haven't seen a proposal from any of them that goes beyond repealing the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010. If they r

                    • Look at the evidence: just as the Founders revolted against Parliament, so the Tea Party insurgency is revolting against the Progressive elite.
                      My thought is that some of the details may be escaping you.
                      I'll start another JE on the topic.
                    • just as the Founders revolted against Parliament, so the Tea Party insurgency is revolting against the Progressive elite.

                      No. There is no strong comparison between the two. The founders revolted against rule that was handed down by people who they did not elect, who were imposing their will on them without giving them any ability to act against it. The Tea Party is revolting in spite of having representation in Washington. You have the right to vote, and now that your vote is not bringing you the results you want, you are seeking to change the weight of a vote so that you can impose your will on the people regardless of w

                    • You have projected falsehood upon me. I forgive you.
                    • You have projected falsehood upon me. I forgive you.

                      I am interested in what part of what I said you feel to be a falsehood, and why. You didn't give me anything to go with here.

                    • Pretty much every assertion beginning with "You" that you offered was incorrect. But that's OK. Still love ya.
                    • Pretty much every assertion beginning with "You" that you offered was incorrect

                      Hmm. Let's take a look [slashdot.org]

                      You have the right to vote,

                      I'm reasonably sure you still have the right to vote, unless you had it revoked for some reason.

                      and now that your vote is not bringing you the results you want

                      You have repeatedly expressed a hatred for the president and all things followed by (D). It would seem that indeed you are not satisfied with the outcome of most of the recent election.

                      you are seeking to change the weight of a vote so that you can impose your will on the people regardless of what they want

                      You have repeatedly stated that you think the people should lose the ability to elect senators directly. Being as you hate democrats, who currently have a slight advantage in the senate, this seems to r

                    • Your revolution is the opposite of the birth of our country

                      I stand by this statement.

                      I support and defend your right to be jacked up through through the roof. You're just wrong.

                    • Your revolution is the opposite of the birth of our country

                      I support and defend your right to be jacked up through through the roof. You're just wrong.

                      It appears that you, and many others from the Tea Party, want to project the Tea Party as being 100% in line with the wishes of the Founding Fathers. I pointed out several places where I see this as being - at best - false advertising. If you really want people to see your revolution to be morally equivalent to the one that birthed our country, please give some reasons why they would see that to be true.

                    • All the reasons boil down to the founding principles of the country: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. You've rejected those, and the messengers. You're going to have to move on to rejecting HTTP and Unicode, in your nihilism, as far as I can tell.
                    • All the reasons boil down to the founding principles of the country: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness

                      Surely you jest when you claim that those are central pillars of the Tea Party, right?

                      life

                      The Tea Party is, quite simply, a party of death. Or, at best, a party of life for sale. The Tea Party endorses health care that is directly tied to one's ability to pay for it; if you can only afford aspirin when you need chemotherapy, aspirin it is. That is hardly a way to embrace life. Couple that to the fact that the Tea Party wants to outlaw all forms of birth control - including situations where the life of the

                    • Couple that to the fact that the Tea Party wants to outlaw all forms of birth control - including situations where the life of the mother is at risk - and make a miscarriage a criminal offense, and you see that indeed the Tea Party is interested in anything but defending life of more than the chosen few.

                      Hey, you may need to make sure that the concentration on your vitriol doesn't mentally destabilize you. There are some concerns about distributing condoms in grade schools, but that's really more about trying to roll back the hedonistic Closing of the American Mind. You may have meant abortions, I suppose. Yes, the scourge of abortion is arguably of greater magnitude than that of slavery, but the most reasonable argument I can offer is that I don't want my tax dollars paying for a single pagan offering to M

                    • Yes, the scourge of abortion is arguably of greater magnitude than that of slavery

                      No, it is not. Especially when you insist on making such an argument without any meaningful data to support it. You could just as well argue for fluoridated water being on par with the Bataan Death March.

                      Do you mean the way Unions buy favors from this Administration

                      Can you show me a favor that the unions bought from the Lawnchair Administration? Anywhere? The health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 sure as hell didn't do shit to help the unions.

                      It's an inevitable consequence of concentrating power.

                      You don't honestly believe that the Tea Party proposals would do anything but concentrate power, do you?

                      I'm arguing for equality of opportunity, not equality of condition

                      No, you

                    • I'm just going to have to:
                      (a) keep forgiving you,
                      (b) continue to support reform,
                      (c) remain patient when you're systematically refuted, but continue to whinge on in the face of actual recovery.
                    • keep forgiving you,

                      For what? I don't ask you for forgiveness, I ask you to understand reality.

                      continue to support reform

                      I recently came to realize that by this you literally mean re-form. You want to bring our country back to the form it had near its conception, when only the wealthy had a say in the government and the rest were told to STFU and go back to work in the mines. Funny thing about that notion though is that the majority of the country would rather not do that. You can go try for it somewhere else but it is unlikely you can find a pla

                    • I can't tell whether you get the joke that the 1% have truly benefitted [berkeley.edu] from this administration, or whether you just overlook the thuggery like the codpiece media, or whether missed the joke that Socialism was merely a vehicle for aristocracy to crush the Enlightenment.
                    • I can't tell whether you get the joke that the 1% have truly benefitted from this administration

                      Of course the top 1% have done well. That is the natural outcome of a conservative presidency.

                      missed the joke that Socialism was merely a vehicle for aristocracy to crush the Enlightenment.

                      If we ever had socialism - or enlightenment - in this country we could evaluate that.

                    • I guess I'm beginning to understand why you are rejecting Obama as a Leftist, even if I simultaneously reject your erroneous notion of "conservative".
                    • I guess I'm beginning to understand why you are rejecting Obama as a Leftist

                      It has taken you this long to realize that President Lawnchair is, from a functional standpoint, not even vaguely close to resembling a general notion of being remotely in the same ballpark of being the slightest bit near being the ultra-far-mega-uber leftist that you keep claiming him to be. I hope some day to welcome you to reality, friend.

                      I simultaneously reject your erroneous notion of "conservative".

                      No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income. You have finally noticed tha

                    • No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income.

                      Jane, you ignorant. . . It. Is. Not. The. President's. Job. To. Aid. People. Directly. Show me, ANYWHERE, in Article 2 [usconstitution.net] where you can even kind of arrive at this conclusion. This seems at the root of the seemingly decadent, misguided notions that you appear to bring to the table.
                      Now, we can be non-partisan, and say that one party was handing out candy, and the other party refusing to pay for it, and thus they're all to blame. I'm comfortable with that.
                      What cannot occur is more of same.

                    • No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income.

                      Jane, you ignorant. . . It. Is. Not. The. President's. Job. To. Aid. People. Directly.

                      I never said the president aids people directly or should. However every president we have had in decades has lowered the taxes on the wealthiest Americans, taking what was once a marginally flat taxation code and making it the most regressive in the world today (amongst countries that can be said to have income taxes, anyways). Neither I, nor most people from the democratic party, seek direct aid from the government. All I seek from the government is actually equal opportunities for people.

                      Now, we can be non-partisan, and say that one party was handing out candy, and the other party refusing to pay for it, and thus they're all to blame. I'm comfortable with that.

                      Indeed the

                    • No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people below the 90th percentile of income.

                      Jane, you ignorant. . . It. Is. Not. The. President's. Job. To. Aid. People. Directly.

                      I never said the president aids people directly or should.

                      Oh. I'm sorry. Must be my lying effing eyes, but "No conservative president in the US has ever done anything economically that directly aided people" looks exactly like what you said. Is the President the Candy Man, or is the President not the Candy Man?

                      However every president we have had in decades has lowered the taxes on the wealthiest Americans, taking what was once a marginally flat taxation code and making it the most regressive in the world today (amongst countries that can be said to have income taxes, anyways). Neither I, nor most people from the democratic party, seek direct aid from the government. All I seek from the government is actually equal opportunities for people.

                      Hey, look, if you're trying to maneuver me into being an apologist for this Byzantine trainwreck of a tax code, this beast that is so jacked up through the roof as to make ObamaCare look a good idea, you're really off base. I'm for blowing away the 16th

    • This market based bullshit only reinforces the terrible system that we have had for decades

      You are truly ignorant and naive if you think we had a market based system prior to ObamaCare.

      • This market based bullshit only reinforces the terrible system that we have had for decades

        You are truly ignorant and naive if you think we had a market based system prior to ObamaCare.

        Any deviation of that system from being market based is the direct result of the industry players colluding with each other. It could never become any less - or more - market-based in this country. They have it dialed it to exactly where they want it, and they have all the power they need to ensure that never changes.

        • Any deviation of that system from being market based is the direct result of the industry players colluding with each other.

          The same ignorance and naivete, and unsurprisingly, the same as Occupy Wall Street. They correctly identified Wall Street corruption but incorrectly laid all the blame on Wall Street and expected the government to rescue them, as if they were two distinct players.

          Anybody who thinks Wall Street and Washington are distinct is willfully blind. You write as if industry players is Wall St alone. Look at all the cabinet secretaries, all the major appointed politicians, the Fed bankers -- Wall Street insiders,

          • To arbitrarily lay the blame on the name on one side of the badges while ignoring the other side is pathetic.

            To read only one short comment of mine and arbitrarily assume that you know the full depth of my opinion is pathetic. Go back and read some of my other comments and you'll find that I dish out plenty of blame to the politicians as well. I am no fan of the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 (that some call "obamacre") which is feeding the very machine you describe earlier.

            The insurance industry has owned Washington for some time. They got a huge payout on their investment in 2010.

            • Why read other comments when I'm responding to this one? Why do you try to change the subject by misdirection, then revert to the same argument I've already responded to?

              You say the insurance industry has owned Washington, the third time you've said there's a distinction between the two. I respond again that there is no difference, that they are the same players. Google for "regulatory capture". Look at the list of high level government officials since the Constitution was adopted. As I said before, pr

              • Why read other comments when I'm responding to this one? Why do you try to change the subject by misdirection, then revert to the same argument I've already responded to?

                I'm not changing the subject. I'm just pointing out that you are making yourself look foolish by making grand assumptions about me based on woefully incomplete information.

                You say the insurance industry has owned Washington, the third time you've said there's a distinction between the two. I respond again that there is no difference, that they are the same players. Google for "regulatory capture". Look at the list of high level government officials since the Constitution was adopted. As I said before, pretending they are different players is willful ignorance.

                Perhaps you should try to google "distinction without a difference".

                I've provided plenty of ways for you to refute me. You have provided none to buttress your claim, or to refute mine.

                I'm challenging you to think before you speak. You insist on acting otherwise.

                Someone is stalling here, dodging the questions with repeated assertions without backing.

                I'm not stalling anything. You are really good at pulling shit out of thin air and getting yourself whipped up into a frenzy over it though. Are you actually trying to make an argument o

                • I'm not changing the subject. I'm just pointing out that you are making yourself look foolish by making grand assumptions about me based on woefully incomplete information.

                  You haven't done anything on this thread except (a) refuse to back up your bare assertions, (b) change the subject to your comment history when cornered, and (c) repeat the same bare assertions without backup.

                  Perhaps you should try to google "distinction without a difference".

                  Exactly what I have been saying about Washington and Wall St. Why you insist on singling out the insurance industry and claim they are distinct from Washington is a puzzle.

                  I'm challenging you to think before you speak. You insist on acting otherwise.

                  You're doing nothing of the sort. You're expecting me to blindly agree with you instead of thinking or requiring any proof, a typ

                  • You haven't done anything on this thread except (a) refuse to back up your bare assertions

                    Where did I do such a thing? You are claiming it to have happened but I have seen myself to do no such thing in this thread.

                    (b) change the subject to your comment history when cornered

                    Cornered? Hardly. I was pointing out that you are making assumptions that you cannot back up with facts yourself. You are declaring your assumptions about me - which are easily proven to be counter to factual reality - to be god's own truth. I am simply directing you to where you can easily find your statements to be wrong. I'm not even accusing you of lying, just simply statin

                    • You say this thread is about the insurance industry, but only in 2010, apparently. You also say I should read all your other comments to see what kind of a person you are. You also say many other things, but you also say you say only one thing. You say I don't back up my arguments, but I did, and you don't answer those. But you want me to go read other comments you have made which have nothing to do with this.

                      Why don't you settle down to one single argument? Why do you insist I narrow my discussion dow

                    • You say this thread is about the insurance industry, but only in 2010, apparently

                      For something to be a "serious proposals to replace obamace" - you know, as in what the title of this JE says, it needs to have been proposed since the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010 was passed.

                      You also say I should read all your other comments to see what kind of a person you are

                      No, I did not. I merely said you could look back at some of my earlier comments to see what I have said on this, and you would then know that you are utterly and embarrassingly wrong on the accusations that you have laid against me.

                      You say I don't back up my arguments, but I did, and you don't answer those

                      First of all, you didn't back up your arguments. More critically i

                    • Your only limit on a conversation is refusal to take part. If you bring up corruption in a half-assed manner and I call you out and show how the problem is far wider than you are willing to admit, you don't get to call a foul on me for expanding the conversation. That's 3 year old behavior.

                      You especially don't get to try to limit the conversation to your original post on the one hand, and then widen it on the other hand by telling me to go read other comments of yours. That's admission that you wish to

                    • I call you out and show how the problem is far wider than you are willing to admit, you don't get to call a foul on me for expanding the conversation

                      You did nothing to expand the conversation by throwing out nonsensical accusations at me.

                      You especially don't get to try to limit the conversation to your original post on the one hand, and then widen it on the other hand by telling me to go read other comments of yours.

                      That is not limiting the conversation; I was trying to actually stay with the topic at hand. My pointing out that your assumptions were baseless was not an attempt to widen the discussion either; I was simply pointing out that your statements about me were not accurate.

                      That's admission that you wish to withdraw your original comment because it wasn't reflective of your rhoughts.

                      Wrong. It is demonstration of you taking a short sound bite and trying to extrapolate that to be some great observation on me, which of course was i

                    • 1. That's the first time anyone has ever tried a reverse ad hominem attack on me. Yay!

                      2. A one-sided conversation is not a conversation. Once commenced, a conversation is not under control of any single party to it. This is not a panel discussion and you are not the moderator of one. if you don't like the path the conversation taken -- if you now wish you had not made that first post -- too bad. Drop out if you want.

                      You have argued nothing except that you are butt hurt over being called out on your a

                    • Even by slashdot standards - where all sorts of stupid somehow magically counts as a "response" - your writings are pitiful. It is amusing seeing you try to declare victory for yourself here when you started by making yourself look foolish, and then just ran with it in the same direction. I can't stop you from making yourself look like an idiot any more than I can force you to read the comments that plainly show your continued assumptions to be baseless. Now you're just throwing tired out memes at me as
  • . . .because they haven't fit the preferred narrative of the codpiece media.
    • by Qzukk (229616)

      I'm not huge on trolling, but I am interested in hearing these ideas now that we've gone from the frying pan into the fire on obamacare. As long as the ideas aren't "gee, the frying pan was kind of cozy when you think about it, I kind of miss that place".

  • by qeveren (318805) on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:41PM (#45419395)

    You know, the whole government-run UHC thing that works literally everywhere else? The ones that provide universal coverage at massively lower costs and all that? I know it's a crazy idea but...

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      You mean like sane nations like Canada and the European and UK country have? This is America, that's crazy talk!

      We LIKE our lowered life expectancy, high infant mortality, and (YAY 'MERICA) the HIGHEST COST! If it ain't expensive it ain't shit, right? Screw them damned liberals! Oh, and Obama suxxorz. YEE HAW!!!

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel

Working...