ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

LOL... privacy.. but who would bother reading anyone's email anyway. Who cares if Google and Kraft foods know whatever they want about you already? [sarcasm]

The threat to us is having private business, without any oversight, in full control of our communications.. even this one.

Private businesses do not have police powers. If you choose not to do business with them, then they cannot affect you. The government will affect you whether you choose to or not. Plus, the government is specifically outlawed from searching private conversations without a warrant...there is no such law against a private company doing it.

[BigBallinStalin]

LOL... privacy.. but who would bother reading anyone's email anyway. Who cares if Google and Kraft foods know whatever they want about you already? [sarcasm]

The threat to us is having private business, without any oversight, in full control of our communications.. even this one.

And if people don't care as much as you do about their own information, then so what? They own their own information, but it's amusing to see that you're hinting at wanting yourself (or some enlightened bureaucracy) to control their decision rights. That's really weird.

It's not like Kraft is bombing foreigners or running huge databases on people in order to entrap them and actually harass them (no, junk mail isn't harassment). You agree to the terms of these companies, and at any time you can step away from the exchange, yet you disparage this--while totally ignoring the lack of consent upon which government is founded and the significant more difficult transaction costs of 'walking away' or merely disagreeing with government. In order to provide any meaning to your positions (e.g. those re: possible threats), you need to compare the 'threats' to actual threats; otherwise, it's a meaningless position.

[jj3044]

These types of breaches happen all the time, BBS. They happened before the ACA, and they will continue after the ACA. The ACA was not the cause of the breach, human error was.

[stahrgazer]

Something tells me that the attack on socialism was Republican led.. not that Obama put up much of a protest, but the ORIGINAL proposals that included anything like socialism were eliminated very, very early.

Actually, strike that "republican led".. it was led by folks in both parties who cater to big business, aka basically everyone except the general public.

Accurate.

Obama's big plan was socialized (single payer) for those who couldn't afford "insurance" - sort of an expanded medicaid; but that was balked at too much by both parties so instead of single payer that would ensure docs and hospitals get at least some money when they treat "the indigent."

Instead of socialized healthcare for more, we the people are being forced to purchase insurance policies from big insurance companies (big because only big insurance companies will be able to survive the other things they threw into this muddle.)

And, since big insurance own many of the big banks, yes indeedy this plan - that even though it looks nothing like what Obama proposed it still has his name on it - was big-business-cronyism at its finest.

[jj3044]

And, since big insurance own many of the big banks

Can you elaborate on this? I'm curious...

[BigBallinStalin]

These types of breaches happen all the time, BBS. They happened before the ACA, and they will continue after the ACA. The ACA was not the cause of the breach, human error was.

Well, it's not "human error" in some blackbox, and it doesn't end with human error. Presumably, there's feedback and adaptation.

So, we've got:

(1) human error + feedback and adaptation within the political process

versus

(2) human error + feedback and adaptation within the market process.


Those are different, and blaming it on human error doesn't reveal the different processes within which errors occur.

[Night Strike]

Obamacare reality check:

http://storify.com/DLoesch/the-real-sto ... -obamacare

[Phatscotty]

Obama's big plan was socialized (single payer)....

So now is it okay to name the thread socialized healthcare? Back when it was being debated, a lot of lefties were complaining to mods (yes they asked me to change it) about that thread title and that it was trolling, since, ya know, Obamacare isn't even close to anything resembling socialism.....

Again, I was right and they were all wrong. I would like to be proven wrong for once, just to see what it feels like...

[Phatscotty]

LOL... privacy.. but who would bother reading anyone's email anyway. Who cares if Google and Kraft foods know whatever they want about you already? [sarcasm]

The threat to us is having private business, without any oversight, in full control of our communications.. even this one.

Player, do you really think that Kraft and Google is a valid comparison to the government when it comes to privacy? Can Kraft throw me in jail? Can Google lay claim to 40% of every penny I earn for the rest of my life out of my paycheck before I even open the envelope it's in? Can Subway come and take my house away? Can Pollos Hermanos take away my drivers license?
You've been doing this for years, and I would appreciate it if you could provide some details about your comparison and why it's valid.

[jj3044]

This thread is full of inaccuracies, misdirection, and pomp and circumstance.

Obama's big plan was socialized (single payer)....

So now is it okay to name the thread socialized healthcare? Back when it was being debated, a lot of lefties were complaining to mods (yes they asked me to change it) about that thread title and that it was trolling, since, ya know, Obamacare isn't even close to anything resembling socialism.....

Again, I was right and they were all wrong. I would like to be proven wrong for once, just to see what it feels like...

Dude, you cut her quote to mis-represent her point. C'mon, I for one am trying to have a constructive conversation here.

Obamacare reality check:

http://storify.com/DLoesch/the-real-sto ... -obamacare

There is a lot of bull-nanny in this, actually made me LOL. FOr example, my personal physician likes the law, and there are many others that like it as well. Just because you are ONLY presenting one side of the argument does not mean the majority (physicians in this case) feel the same way. Not having kids because of the ACA? Really? Plans now have annual maximums that you can spend on healthcare, so in at least SOME cases (if not most cases), more of the delivery care would be covered.

These types of breaches happen all the time, BBS. They happened before the ACA, and they will continue after the ACA. The ACA was not the cause of the breach, human error was.

Well, it's not "human error" in some blackbox, and it doesn't end with human error. Presumably, there's feedback and adaptation.

So, we've got:

(1) human error + feedback and adaptation within the political process

versus

(2) human error + feedback and adaptation within the market process.


Those are different, and blaming it on human error doesn't reveal the different processes within which errors occur.

I'd love to engage you further in debate here, but you are only speaking in obtuse terms to try to make your point. Care to restate?

[BigBallinStalin]

These types of breaches happen all the time, BBS. They happened before the ACA, and they will continue after the ACA. The ACA was not the cause of the breach, human error was.

Well, it's not "human error" in some blackbox, and it doesn't end with human error. Presumably, there's feedback and adaptation.

So, we've got:

(1) human error + feedback and adaptation within the political process

versus

(2) human error + feedback and adaptation within the market process.


Those are different, and blaming it on human error doesn't reveal the different processes within which errors occur.

I'd love to engage you further in debate here, but you are only speaking in obtuse terms to try to make your point. Care to restate?

In short, the "human error" excuse overlooks something crucial: the difference between how people in government (and the voters) create and readjust policies, etc. versus how people in the market create and readjust their plans.

Bureaucracies don't go bankrupt for some mistake they made--and that mistake is usually not their problem, just the public's. If businesses act too negligently, carelessly, etc., they risk bankruptcy or some degree of lost profits. Governments don't have this problem. See how impervious bureaucracies and such can be? It's more than 'human error'; it's about how people readjust to mistakes they've made--given some environment (e.g. government, or market).

[jj3044]

Ok, so the point you are making is that the government isn't accountable for their actions generally... and to this point I generally agree with you.

Again I will restate my position here - the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it in fact. That said, this particular jab at the law has nothing to do with the policy. Any government reform of Healthcare (this version, or socialized healthcare) would have the same opportunities for breaches. Before the ACA, I'm sure there were breaches surrounding Medicare, or the federal healthcare program for fed workers. It simply isn't important to the discussion, imo.

[Night Strike]

Ok, so the point you are making is that the government isn't accountable for their actions generally... and to this point I generally agree with you.

Again I will restate my position here - the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it in fact. That said, this particular jab at the law has nothing to do with the policy. Any government reform of Healthcare (this version, or socialized healthcare) would have the same opportunities for breaches. Before the ACA, I'm sure there were breaches surrounding Medicare, or the federal healthcare program for fed workers. It simply isn't important to the discussion, imo.

Breaches of private information in a system that people are mandated to participate in isn't important to whether or not the system is good?

[Phatscotty]

[jj3044]

Ok, so the point you are making is that the government isn't accountable for their actions generally... and to this point I generally agree with you.

Again I will restate my position here - the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it in fact. That said, this particular jab at the law has nothing to do with the policy. Any government reform of Healthcare (this version, or socialized healthcare) would have the same opportunities for breaches. Before the ACA, I'm sure there were breaches surrounding Medicare, or the federal healthcare program for fed workers. It simply isn't important to the discussion, imo.

Breaches of private information in a system that people are mandated to participate in isn't important to whether or not the system is good?

No matter how good the "system" is, there will always be human error screwing something up.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, so the point you are making is that the government isn't accountable for their actions generally... and to this point I generally agree with you.

Again I will restate my position here - the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it in fact. That said, this particular jab at the law has nothing to do with the policy. Any government reform of Healthcare (this version, or socialized healthcare) would have the same opportunities for breaches. Before the ACA, I'm sure there were breaches surrounding Medicare, or the federal healthcare program for fed workers. It simply isn't important to the discussion, imo.

Sure, it's important because there are alternatives for helping others---other than government.

[oVo]

With or without the Affordable Care Act it is still Tax Dollars
that pay for treatment of the uninsured. Your tax dollars.

The biggest difference in Health Care Reform could be available
preventive medical treatment. Waiting until a person's condition
has progressed to requiring an Emergency Room for care has a
tendency to be the most expensive possible health care.

It is the US Tax Dollars that pay for treatment of the uninsured
and almost any Health Care Reform has the potential of saving
hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars over the way
it is done right now.

[BigBallinStalin]

We can't get worthy reform without first reforming the rules of the game between politicians and special interest groups.

[Phatscotty]

With or without the Affordable Care Act it is still Tax Dollars
that pay for treatment of the uninsured. Your tax dollars.

The biggest difference in Health Care Reform could be available
preventive medical treatment. Waiting until a person's condition
has progressed to requiring an Emergency Room for care has a
tendency to be the most expensive possible health care.

It is the US Tax Dollars that pay for treatment of the uninsured
and almost any Health Care Reform has the potential of saving
hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars over the way
it is done right now.

The potential saving of preventative treatment was discussed a long time ago, so I'll just rattle off a few basic points.

There can be savings, but I'm not sure that assumption accounts for the rest of the other people using the healthcare system more than they normally would, only to find out they are healthy and do not need preventative treatment. And even if it turned out in the end that preventative care did save billions, it also costs billions to expand the kind of care access we would need to be in that position. And we know Obamacare has a base cost of trillions (2.6 and rising).

I'm sure there will be savings, but there are so many other costs to wash it out. 18,000 new IRS agents who will be in charge of Obamacare costs millions too, billions no doubt as time goes on.

That's the sneaky truth about all this kind of redistribution of wealth. The more the taxpayers are responsible for, the more authority the government will have over taxpayers everyday lives.

We all know Obamacare is designed to fail, and when it does the blueprint for Universal healthcare/Socialism will already be in place and thus reveal itself as the true intention all along.

[Night Strike]

Ok, so the point you are making is that the government isn't accountable for their actions generally... and to this point I generally agree with you.

Again I will restate my position here - the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it in fact. That said, this particular jab at the law has nothing to do with the policy. Any government reform of Healthcare (this version, or socialized healthcare) would have the same opportunities for breaches. Before the ACA, I'm sure there were breaches surrounding Medicare, or the federal healthcare program for fed workers. It simply isn't important to the discussion, imo.

Breaches of private information in a system that people are mandated to participate in isn't important to whether or not the system is good?

No matter how good the "system" is, there will always be human error screwing something up.

Which is why people should have the option to move to a system that has the fewest errors with the most safeguards. Instead, we're all going to be in a monopoly system with no other option.

[jj3044]

Ok, so the point you are making is that the government isn't accountable for their actions generally... and to this point I generally agree with you.

Again I will restate my position here - the ACA isn't perfect. Far from it in fact. That said, this particular jab at the law has nothing to do with the policy. Any government reform of Healthcare (this version, or socialized healthcare) would have the same opportunities for breaches. Before the ACA, I'm sure there were breaches surrounding Medicare, or the federal healthcare program for fed workers. It simply isn't important to the discussion, imo.

Breaches of private information in a system that people are mandated to participate in isn't important to whether or not the system is good?

No matter how good the "system" is, there will always be human error screwing something up.

Which is why people should have the option to move to a system that has the fewest errors with the most safeguards. Instead, we're all going to be in a monopoly system with no other option.

lol, no kidding. Care to elaborate on how that might be accomplished? All I have seen in this thread is bashing of the ACA, without a serious proposal on how it could be better.

[isaiah40]

lol, no kidding. Care to elaborate on how that might be accomplished? All I have seen in this thread is bashing of the ACA, without a serious proposal on how it could be better.

You want a suggestion to make it better??

Okay here it is, since SCOTUS declared that this is a "TAX", and since this bill originated in the Senate, and since Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution clearly states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." So since this bill originated in the Senate and not the House of Representatives, every part of the bill that has a "TAX" attached to it is considered as null and void because it is "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" So since the majority of the bill has taxes in it, therefore the bill should be thrown out!! There is my suggestion, throw it out on the grounds of it being UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[PLAYER57832]

LOL... privacy.. but who would bother reading anyone's email anyway. Who cares if Google and Kraft foods know whatever they want about you already? [sarcasm]

The threat to us is having private business, without any oversight, in full control of our communications.. even this one.

Private businesses do not have police powers. If you choose not to do business with them, then they cannot affect you.

Absolutely wrong, today.... and impossible. Anyone here uses the internet. You can claim we are "willing consumers", and to a point, you are correct, EXCEPT, without the internet it is increasingly impossible.. not just difficult, but truly impossible to get information. The internet is no longer "just a business", it is the primary mode of information transmission. I used "Google" as an example, but the same is true for all the search engines and even the various platforms we have to use. The internet is no longer optional, no longer a truly open and free choice, it is necessary to fully participate in today's world.

Do you truly understand the implications and irony of, on the one hand blaming the government for spying and not keeping control of our data, while completely ignoring the fact that Google just pronounce that there were no privacy concerns with its search of email because "no one should have any expectation of privacy". It took no legislation, complaints were essentially ignored. Contrast that with the fact that anyone even trying to search your mail faces serious legal hurdles. Sure, we all pretty much know that the CIA could, if they wanted, see our mail... BUT to take action on it, to use it, either in a court of law, to publish it in most any manner would require at least a court order, and often is flat out shut down. Technology has, for a long time, allowed people to listen in on phone conversations. Yet.. to USE that information requires more than a simple court order in most cases, even if its law enforcement.

Do I LIKE the fact that our medical data is not fully secure? NO! BUT.. place the blame where it belongs. The blame is in a society that seems to believe the internet is basically secure and private, when it never has been. THAT is the error. The error is in assuming our most private information could be simply transmitted on a wide scale without a breach of security. We see the counter to that all over, but folks like you continue to claim "no problem, because its private enterprise and people 'choose' it". Seriously? Yes, I "choose" to bank, because I am not Amish and don't want to walk around with piles of cash in my purse (or my husband's wallet). I "choose to participate in the 21rst century, so yeah.. I bank. Because I bank, my information is available on the internet. According to the laws, the statements and permissions we all sign, any risk is basically ours because we have "chosen" to do this. REALLY?

Might not be as urgent as "choosing" to eat, but the whole reason so much of our infrastructure was originally placed in government hands was precisely because they are so needed that we cannot just depend on the vagaries of for profit entities to protect our interests.

Google, right now, has the best of all worlds for business or the worst for the rest of us..though, thankfully, they are not utilizing the worst possibilities (at least yet.. and let me be clear, it won't actually be Google that will take the nefarious step, but some other group using the basic model and distorting it). Competition doesn't really work to control them because there are no real, viable options. Any "options" already have to fit within a structure pretty much defined by Google. Things about the internet and search engines can change, but we have the internet and it will continue to operate on basic algorithms. The motive to "improve" searches by "tailoring" them to "specific desires and needs" is just too great to ignore. You and I can each can "google" (using that as a general verb, not necessarily Google specifically) a science or economic or political question and, first, BOTH of us will be faced with a series of "related ads" and for profit paid sites. Second, the order of answers won't be the same. they will be based only partially on what we actually ask, and partially on what we have asked before. In the case of Google specifically (and likely other sites as well, though the specifics of each varies a bit), BOTH of our queries will be influenced by the "most popular" prior searches overall. If I type "go", it will instantly be filled in with various endings, depending on what folks before me have searched. That can be fun, but it is also scary when you realize how easily influenced people are.

In science, this has very direct impacts. If you ask something about healthcare, for example, and all you get are conservative ideologues, then you intuitively are going to be biased to think those views are both more prominent AND more correct. YET.. that may not be the case at all. To know, requires an extensive search and time that most of us, particularly just for a basically casual chat just don't have.

I would suggest that this difference in search information is a very BIG reason why you and I, some others have different views.

The government will affect you whether you choose to or not. Plus, the government is specifically outlawed from searching private conversations without a warrant...there is no such law against a private company doing it.

Yes, exactly. You rail against the government but give private companies a complete pass... even though the government has no true individual vested interest, just the varied interests of a lot of politicians to be elected, and the private enterprise has all the interest to gain profit.

And... private enterprise WILL and DOES very much impact all of us, whether we are customers or now.

[PLAYER57832]

We all know Obamacare is designed to fail, and when it does the blueprint for Universal healthcare/Socialism will already be in place and thus reveal itself as the true intention all along.

Really?

So your answer is to support the Republican toddlers who will bully everyone to destroy the healthcare reform act before it even has a chance to work.

What ever happened to listening to the PEOPLE! The past election was supposed to be a "reforendum" on the act.. except, gee-- OBAMA WON!!! Funny how quiet the voices asking to listen to the people quieted on THAT point. No, they continue to claim that any criticism of the act means everyone in the country wants it destroyed. The real truth is that no matter what people dislike about the affordable healthcare act, the vast majority of people do NOT want it utterly destroyed! The truth is that these Tea Party Republicans are acting like kindergarten bullies and not adult congressional representatives. Representing people doesn't mean demanding everyone listen to just YOUR way, it means listening to ALL.

Above all, it means not pretending that any disagreement means you have carte blanche to destroy. It means FIXING leaks and sages in buildings and not claiming that bulldozers are the only option to minor building problems.

AND.. in regard to healthcare, it means accepting the baseline FACT that no act is going to completely reduce the cost of healthcare for one very basic reason. We currently GET so much more, and NEED so much more healthcare than we have in the past. Healthcare is collapsing because of its successes, not its failures.

[Symmetry]

I do still wonder about the US's worry about providing healthcare to its people. It's not like there's a shortage of models that could be pursued around the world.