We had to pass it to see what was in it: Reduced costs

[Tixx]

If that is true why did Obama, as an attorney, and have to sue citibank to force them to give sub prime mortgages to his clients?

So in your thinking, one lawsuit dictates that lending institutions were not increasing their risk, taking in massive amounts of cash and throwing the risk back onto the American taxpayer? Not sure I follow. Maybe you could start a new thread with your response as I don't want to mess with the OPs intentions any more.

[Tixx]

Look up "Final Solution" sometime. It may be enlightening. That aside why is the government addressing "healthcare in America" at all? What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to do so?

Oh, yes, the old "call the other guy a Nazi when you are disagreeing with him" Thanks, so beneficial to discussion. Government seems to do a bunch of things not in the constitution. Be the first to give up all your government derived benefits and maybe others will follow?

You are avoiding the question. Let me ask again. Do you REALLY want the government deciding who gets healthcare and who doesn't based upon their "risky behavior." "Risky behavior" as defined by the government?

My answer to that question is no.

So you claim that we have laws that are not enforced... and your solution is to pass more laws?

Funny, look back as I never proposed that as a solution and in fact said this to quitemike "Nobody is suggesting new laws so the point is moot. Point being, enforce existing laws."

It's called an analogy. Why should everyone be paying the same for healthcare, an idea that completely ignores the wants and needs of consumers and market realities?

What you have was actually an extremely inaccurate analogy. An analogy would use similarities, not differences. That is why they say apples to apples. You've heard that before I'm sure. So you believe then that insurance companies should pay for the same service at an extremely discounted rate compared to an individual going to the same doctor for the same procedure? Why the favoritism toward insurance companies over individuals?

I understand you to be saying that the government mandate the level of service of insurance and the cost of that insurance. You also suggest that the government should be able to decide who gets insurance and who does not. I believe that is a command economy. What do you call it?

Look back and I said neither. You may be confusing me with maybe another conversation you are having elsewhere.

Are you saying that these things will never recover? Notably I didn't say that freedom and capitalism are perfect... but they work and they are vastly superior to slavery and socialism / communism wouldn't you say?

I am saying that you seemed unaware that your defining of both freedom and capitalism have caused our current economic crisis. So it seems you want more of the same then in healthcare?

[akadave2]

Bingo! You got the Act correct. It was not a lending institutional sob story as they all knew they could increase their risk and put that cash in the bank while the taxpayers would flip the bill if anything went wrong. Yeah, we are a little off topic here. Let's move it back to healthcare related.

No you misunderstood the "encouraged" part. The CRA pressured lending institutions that knew it was dumb idea (plenty of anecdotal evidence if you look). Of course they were given assurances that they would mitigate some of the risk but still...the government is the blame, it started there and it will end there.

...and the same with healthcare...more dumb ideas poorly executed by borderline (and not so borderline) criminals.

The government is so large and convuluted, that when things they try do go wrong, there is no accountability. Look at how the rats scramble on the Bengazi issue. You cant pin them down and our collective memory is so short that by the time these idiots come back up for election voters dont recall the exact details of the reasons why they shouldnt vote for a particular person...because there are people out there,in politics, that will stare into the camera and without flinching tell you that what you heard, saw or both, never happened. And the saddest part of that it works on roughtly 50% of the country.

[Tixx]

No you misunderstood the "encouraged" part. The CRA pressured lending institutions that knew it was dumb idea (plenty of anecdotal evidence if you look). Of course they were given assurances that they would mitigate some of the risk but still...the government is the blame, it started there and it will end there.

...and the same with healthcare...more dumb ideas poorly executed by borderline (and not so borderline) criminals.

The government is so large and convuluted, that when things they try do go wrong, there is no accountability. Look at how the rats scramble on the Bengazi issue. You cant pin them down and our collective memory is so short that by the time these idiots come back up for election voters dont recall the exact details of the reasons why they shouldn vote for a particular person...because there are people out there,in polotics, that will stare into the camera and without flinching tell you that what you heard, saw or both, never happened. And the saddest part of that it works on roughtly 50% of the country.

I get your point. I do understand the involvement of the government, but it is still no sob story for the lenders. Once they saw that government would bail them out, all bets were off. Get lemons, make lemonade and that is exactly what they did, it was flowing like the Nile and Amazon. One thing to remember is that those in government are acting in their own self interests. Their friends, family, contributors and business associates make out well, even though their ideas don't necessarily work out well for Americans. For some reason they remain so successful and well to do in all times.

[akadave2]

I get your point. I do understand the involvement of the government, but it is still no sob story for the lenders. Once they saw that government would bail them out, all bets were off. Get lemons, make lemonade and that is exactly what they did, it was flowing like the Nile and Amazon. One thing to remember is that those in government are acting in their own self interests. Their friends, family, contributors and business associates make out well, even though their ideas don't necessarily work out well for Americans. For some reason they remain so successful and well to do in all times.

Right and we should not have bailed them out (my opinion) but what about those poor slobs with their money tied up in the lending institution? Cut off the leg to save the body?

[Triton]

Government seems to do a bunch of things not in the constitution.

So your excuse for circumventing the Constitution is that everyone else is doing it? That hardly seems like a compelling reason.

My answer to that question is no.

Okay, so you want the government to supply the same healthcare at the same price to everyone no matter what sort of behavior they are involved in?

Funny, look back as I never proposed that as a solution and in fact said this to quitemike "Nobody is suggesting new laws so the point is moot. Point being, enforce existing laws."

You certainly implied it when you suggested that something needed to be done to prevent collusion between insurance companies. However, I'm glad that you think no further laws are necessary.

What you have was actually an extremely inaccurate analogy.

I don't know I thought it was pretty apt. You want the government to force producers to sell a product to consumers at the same price no matter what it costs to supply that product. This would seem to apply to insurance or carrots.

So you believe then that insurance companies should pay for the same service at an extremely discounted rate compared to an individual going to the same doctor for the same procedure? Why the favoritism toward insurance companies over individuals?

I don't believe it actually works out that way but rather the reverse. Doctors typically bill insurance companies far in excess of what they do individuals. That aside, yes, I think that volume buyers should get discounts don't you? An insurance company may pay for thousands of those procedures a year, the individual will purchase only one. If I buy a ton of carrots from you I expect you to give me a better rate then if I buy a bag of carrots from you.

Look back and I said neither. You may be confusing me with maybe another conversation you are having elsewhere.

Hmmm...

Next turn the 320 million Americans into one single pool. Smokers should no longer be eligible to receive treatment for smoking related illnesses under their insurance (100% out of pocket) and their estates should be liquidated to meet the cost if they pass for such cause. Investigated should be the collusion between insurance companies prices. All people should pay the same for a service.

Who is putting the public in the "single pool?" Who is doing the investigating? Who is controlling the price to insure that all people pay the same for the service? Jehovah's witnesses?

I am saying that you seemed unaware that your defining of both freedom and capitalism have caused our current economic crisis. So it seems you want more of the same then in healthcare?

Again, it is freedom and capitalism that will also help us get out of our current economic crisis. The obama has already tried government control and socialism and it is failing miserably. So yes, I want the free market to supply the solution to any supposed health care problems as well. Why? Well, because nothing else has proven to work.

[Tixx]

So your excuse for circumventing the Constitution is that everyone else is doing it? That hardly seems like a compelling reason.

Actually I said "Oh, yes, the old "call the other guy a Nazi when you are disagreeing with him" Thanks, so beneficial to discussion. Government seems to do a bunch of things not in the constitution. Be the first to give up all your government derived benefits and maybe others will follow?"

Nothing here about circumventing the Constitution. Again, another misread on your part it seems.

Okay, so you want the government to supply the same healthcare at the same price to everyone no matter what sort of behavior they are involved in?

No, I never did mention government supplying healthcare. Another shot in the dark I guess.

You certainly implied it when you suggested that something needed to be done to prevent collusion between insurance companies. However, I'm glad that you think no further laws are necessary.

No, that was your misinterpretation again (Preventing collusion is not equal to more laws). Glad we finally cleared that after 4 posts. Whew. I'll be dead by the time we get through clarifying the misinterpretations and reading what is not there.

Got this far...time for dinner!

[akadave2]

I must have missed the "Nazi" comment or is someone taking a mile from an inch?

[quietmike]

So in your thinking, one lawsuit dictates that lending institutions were not increasing their risk, taking in massive amounts of cash and throwing the risk back onto the American taxpayer? Not sure I follow. Maybe you could start a new thread with your response as I don't want to mess with the OPs intentions any more.

If banks really saw sub-prime mortgages as the golden goose they would have willingly gave them out instead of having to be sued to do so. Notably, Obama's suit happened in 1995. How many sub-prime loans happened before then? Once case law is established, banks attorneys will advise the banks to toe the line or face heavy penalties.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/wi...can-americans/

[Trent Rock]

If you are going to "mention smoking and healthcare.", why did you avoid mentioning drinking... or smoking pot... or taking drugs... or other "risky" behaviors that can increase susceptibility to body damage which affect healthcare costs like... skiing, motorcycling, eating fatty foods... sky diving, bungee jumping, hiking, driving a car or even sharpening a knife, which can cause one to cut themselves and require a trip to the ER for stitches?

Why would you point out smoking but not the other risky behaviors?

I was wondering the same thing......

[Codger_64]

I was wondering the same thing......

He stated his reason quite plainly. Trolling for reactions.

[somber]

True, annual healthcare costs attributed to alcohol abuse alone is $22.5 billion dollars, not sure what it is with other alcohol and other drugs combined.

[Triton]

You said this:

Government seems to do a bunch of things not in the constitution.

Clearly you were implying that the government should be allowed to do this or that with healthcare because it is doing a bunch of things that isn't in the Constitution.

No, I never did mention government supplying healthcare. Another shot in the dark I guess.

Again, that was clearly your implication, or were you just wistfully saying that you wish all Americans were paying the same prices for medical procedures?

No, that was your misinterpretation again (Preventing collusion is not equal to more laws). Glad we finally cleared that after 4 posts. Whew. I'll be dead by the time we get through clarifying the misinterpretations and reading what is not there.

If you find that you spend all your time clarifying your positions you might want to consider stating them more clearly.

Let's try this...

1) Do you want the government to control the price of healthcare?
2) Do you believe that the government should determine who gets healthcare and who does not?

[Tixx]

You said this:



Clearly you were implying that the government should be allowed to do this or that with healthcare because it is doing a bunch of things that isn't in the Constitution.



Again, that was clearly your implication, or were you just wistfully saying that you wish all Americans were paying the same prices for medical procedures?






If you find that you spend all your time clarifying your positions you might want to consider stating them more clearly.

Let's try this...

1) Do you want the government to control the price of healthcare?
2) Do you believe that the government should determine who gets healthcare and who does not?

That was my day in the political section. Just to round it out by answering your last questions:

1) No
2) No

[akadave2]

That was my day in the political section. Just to round it out by answering your last questions:

1) No
2) No

Straight answers? Well you sir will never be a politician!

[Triton]

That was my day in the political section. Just to round it out by answering your last questions:

1) No
2) No

<Scratching head> Okay, well then I guess we don't have much of anything to argue about. If you think that you can find a free market solution that will insure that everyone pays the same price for like services more power to you.