StrangeSox

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 07:04 PM) Riiiiiiiiiight. Remember, we're talking ILLEGAL immy-gants. no, I asked genius about people with visas and greencards.

Texans linebacker gets flagged for roughing the passer by tackling farve as he's throwing the ball. Seriously, just give them flags.

why not people here on visas and greencards?

Should they be able to cross state lines if a plan in IN doesn't meet IL standards?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) Bill A... who? Jeremiah who? Rashid who? All that doesn't matter, it's in the past. Exactly. None of those people were national stories for weeks on end.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) Interesting. I looked over my plan again, and it still flies without the out and out requirement for insurance. And I've seen states require health coverage for minors in some fashion, so I think that can still fly, in some way. States can mandate it, but its questionable whether the federal government can.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) Car insurance is required. Is that constitutionally legal? Health care, like driving, is a legal privilege, not a legal right. It's done on a state-by-state level, not a federal mandate.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) You can call it a flaw if you like. I call it the freedom of choice. Not all freedoms result in ideal situations. Where's my choice in whether my job gets shipped to India? Where's my choice if all companies decide to drop health care because it costs too much?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) Because it will be cheaper for them, result in higher stock prices and bigger profits. Its the same reason companies dump superior American workers and send jobs out of the country. So this would tend to indicate a deeper flaw within that economic structure, no?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:22 PM) Great, so mark down another against governmental health care! I don't expect the government option to be fantastically better. I also have no ideological opposition to its existence.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) I don't see one. ...so, when the public option comes out, and it sucks, why, exactly, will all employers dump their coverage without fear of talent leaving for places that don't dump coverage?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) Whatever the case may be, the companies got themselves off the hook, and without increasing pay, put the onus on the employee to save for themselves without being required to assist. As some companies match 401k to a certain %, they are not required to do so. And the ones that don't tend to get worse talent. And the companies that offer worse health benefits tend to get worse talent. Isn't this free market in all its glory? What's the problem?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) OHHHHHHHHHHH, that's what you meant. Yes... I would agree. Yeah, I was talking specifically about what's supposedly in his thesis. Women = kitchen!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Because these people won't be paying into a pool anyway. That's a farce. But they will have the same plan that I will be paying into as non-citizens of this country. Of course, by the end of the year, they'll be "legal" anyway, and all this doesn't matter, right? Then how will they be getting covered?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Only "right wingers" have "embarassing" points of view. Other points of view are totally rational and well thought out, and therefore, must be right. Misogynistic views about women are pretty embarrassing.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) That's all I have been saying all along and you know it - and you want to just keep this going, so it IS a semantics game. You got the point that you know I've been making. That's enough. I said that pages ago. You kept saying things like "guaranteed" or "they will be covered," implying guaranteed coverage. They won't be.

Those views are pretty embarrassing.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) No, there's no difference. You keep playing this semantics bulls*** game. They are eligible for the same s*** that I, a citizen, is eligible for, and that's wrong. Eligible, guaranteed, f***ity f***, what the hell ever word you want to use. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE TO WHAT AN ILLEGAL WILL GET UNDER THIS PLAN THEN WHAT I WILL GET. That is the bottom line. Why the hell is that so goddamn hard to understand? This semantics circle jerk is getting stupid. Kap, those are two distinctly different words with very different meanings. I'm not playing a semantics game. I'm making sure the correct words are actually used. Words mean specific things. Yes, they'll have the same options as you. I've never said otherwise. They won't be receiving free or guaranteed coverage any more than you will.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) Healthcare is currently used as an incentive for people at jobs, they're often willing to accept less pay for good insurance, however, people wouldn't be willing to do that anymore if they know they can just fall back onto a public plan (which is touted to be just as good, with the same quality care as the private alternatives.) Even if it's not the same quality, people will take $ over stock options, just like they will take $ over insurance if they know there is something else out there for them. It's the same reason why most contractors who do not have company sponsored insurance don't bother getting insurance, despite making 80+$ an hour. The entire time I worked as a contractor, I was the only person out of 6 of us that bothered getting insurance and we all made, at minimum, 43$ an hour. The public plan isn't a free social safety net like welfare.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) There is absolutely no mechanism to deny coverage to illegal aliens in the bill. By proxy, they're then covered. I posted a congressional review report that agrees with this, mr genuis posted another article, and yet, all I see is you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong. Holy s***, we gave you interpretations that say (CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW!!) illegals are covered in this bill. What the hell more do you want? Then you just outright dismiss it because "it's a talking point so it must be false". Kap, I don't know the phrase for it, but you're committing a logical fallacy here. They are not excluded from purchasing coverage. That does not mean they are covered. There is a distinct difference. No one is dismissing it because its a talking point. Its being dismissed because its wrong.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Wow. Just...wow. Now, go back and re-read what Kap said, and what I reiterated, and that you ignored multiple times. Then, maybe you'll see the only argument here self-refuting is your own non-argument, since you ignored why we said people would be forced onto the public plan in the first place. Please explain how they'll be forced. I've seen a bunch of circular nonsense but no actual mechanism.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) There you go. They're incentivized, more or less. Give that incentive back to the individual, and give them real choice. And employers would be glad to say "f*** off, get your own" when the government provides it. They're not on the hook then. And they'll probably lose their tax writeoffs when this comes down the pike as well. The government option isn't any more free than any other plan. If this ends up a net loss for employees, the good ones will leave to find a company that offers higher compensation or health care benefits. Oh, and you should probably stop arguing in "probablies".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) This is what StrangeSox was getting at. The GOP method of arguing against anything seems to have become obscuration by decimation - lay waste any and all fact or information produced by anyone, saying nothing can be trusted, therefore I'm right because I feel that way. It is the utter destruction of useful dialogue. Bingo. And its the foundation for my intense dislike of the American political right.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) Ok, the GOP is using it as a talking point, so it MUST NOT be true. End of story. The Dems haven't NOT proposed forced concentration camps, so that must be their nefarious plan! Kap, you're arguing for irrationality again.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) It won't be that good. Kap just showed you why. Why would a company choose to pay for private care for their employees when they can just say, nah...go on the public plan, we aren't doing it. THEN PEOPLE WON'T ALL SWITCH TO IT. Your argument is self-refuting. Also, employers now can say "f*** off, get your own." They don't do that because it allows them to retain better talent while paying less payroll taxes.