Government Behavior Modification
Poll
 | 2 votes (7.4%) | ||
| | 10 votes (37.03%) | ||
| | 15 votes (55.55%) |
27 members have voted
Quote: VCUSkyhawkDon't make laws that tell me how to live (assuming I am not hurting anybody but myself).
But the decision to smoke does hurt other people. This is essentially the same argument that has been raised in relation to government bans on public smoking. Yet everywhere they enact public smoking bans, they see a drop in heart attacks, even among non smokers. So the decision to smoke has negative impacts on people who are not the smoker. Furthermore, the increased costs to the health care system causes harm to others.
In my mind, increasing taxes is a great way to accomplish an important public health issue. It isn't as restrictive as an outright ban or criminalization, but it prevents younger people from beginning in the first place. As tax rates have gone up, the percentage adults who smoke has gone down.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkHow do you like the government trying to modify your behavior?
I vote.
I just looked at 2012 poll that said Alabama is the most conservative state. Possibly like minded people there are more out of the government's thumb than elsewhere. At least for local laws. You can probably spit tobacco in the middle of the sidewalk without getting someone upset.
Quote: BuzzardMore than 914,000 in Alabama on food stamps. 20+% of the population. Damn lazy conservatives !
Even a conservative state is going to have their share of the 47%.
Would that be the 47% that Mitt Romney got in the 2012 election?Quote: AZDuffmanEven a conservative state is going to have their share of the 47%.
It's the fear you have of the punishments and fines involved in law vs choice area.
Then again I tend to support the government.
Most cannot.
You can either be a Ward of the State, or you can be wealthy.
There will, ultimately, be no middle ground.
1. Pay the fine instead of buying the insurance.
2. Then, when you get sick, buy the insurance. You can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition.
Quote: s2dbakerWould that be the 47% that Mitt Romney got in the 2012 election?
I think we both know you know exactly what "the 47%" means.
Quote: mickeycrimmHOW TO SCAM OBAMACARE:
1. Pay the fine instead of buying the insurance.
2. Then, when you get sick, buy the insurance. You can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition.
The problem with that is after the initial six-month open enrollment window there will only be a period of about two months at the end of each year when anyone can enroll (to enroll at other times of the year you need special circumstances like you lost your coverage from another source). That means you might be waiting almost a year before you can get covered, even though you'll eventually be able to get insurance regardless.
P.S. It's because the Supreme Court saw the Obamacare penalty as a ("sin") tax is why it was upheld. As Roberts indicated in his comments, if the law had a criminal penalty (i.e. jail time and/or a criminal record) for not having health insurance that would indeed be unconstitutional.
Quote: KellynbnfThe problem with that is after the initial six-month open enrollment window there will only be a period of about two months at the end of each year when anyone can enroll (to enroll at other times of the year you need special circumstances like you lost your coverage from another source). That means you might be waiting almost a year before you can get covered, even though you'll eventually be able to get insurance regardless.
P.S. It's because the Supreme Court saw the Obamacare penalty as a tax that it was upheld. As Roberts indicated in his comments, if the law had a criminal penalty (e.g. jail time and/or a criminal record) for not having health insurance that would indeed be unconstitutional.
So, for ten months of the year, you are banned from buying something the government mandates that you guy? That is really whacky.
Quote: bbbbccccBut the decision to smoke does hurt other people. This is essentially the same argument that has been raised in relation to government bans on public smoking. Yet everywhere they enact public smoking bans, they see a drop in heart attacks, even among non smokers. So the decision to smoke has negative impacts on people who are not the smoker. Furthermore, the increased costs to the health care system causes harm to others..
Please provide reference.
Quote: mickeycrimmSo, for ten months of the year, you are banned from buying something the government mandates that you guy? That is really whacky.
That is done for the reason in the post I quoted - so people don't wait until the instant they need healthcare to get covered. The usual situations that would suddenly leave you without coverage in the middle of the year when you had it before - losing your job or other financial hardship, giving birth to or adopting a child (for covering the child), moving into the country/state (since insurance plans may not carry across state lines), turning 26 and no longer eligible to be on your parent's plan, becoming divorced/widowed and no longer eligible to be on your spouse's plan, the insurance company you had going out of business, etc. like I said would make you eligible for a special enrollment regardless of the time of year.
Quote: bbbbccccBut the decision to smoke does hurt other people.
How come liberals think this only applies to tobacco smoke and not marijuana smoke?
Quote: mickeycrimmHOW TO SCAM OBAMACARE: Then, when you get sick, buy the insurance. You can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition.
I don't know about that, but with Medicare if you delay applying after age 65 you'll have to pay more, to discourage people from waiting until they really need it. I would imagine there is a similar disincentive in ObamaCare.
Quote: WizardI don't know about that, but with Medicare if you delay applying after age 65 you'll have to pay more, to discourage people from waiting until they really need it. I would imagine there is a similar disincentive in ObamaCare.
No, with the Obamacare plans they won't cost more if you wait to get one. Here they made the incentive to get enrolled "the penalty" that so many people don't like.
If the ACA never had a penalty-payable-to-the-IRS but instead had a penalty like you described - that insurance would simply cost more if you delayed buying it without a financial or other reason like with Medicare - then there would've never been standing to challenge the penalty in the courts and there wouldn't be a need for religious exemptions (although if you converted later in life out of a no-insurance religion it could then cost you dearly).
Quote: WizardI don't know about that, but with Medicare if you delay applying after age 65 you'll have to pay more, to discourage people from waiting until they really need it. I would imagine there is a similar disincentive in ObamaCare.
It seems to be the same "open enrollment" period most places have. At any place I have ever worked you can "open enroll" in plans once a year and/or make changes to what you have. It is usually, but not always, done in the fall months. Only way to change coverages in any other period is a change in "family status" which can mean marriage, divorce, child birth, or a spouse getting/losing coverage. Otherwise the only people brought on or dropped off are new hires/terminated employees respectively.
Medicare and Obamacare will clearly be a little different, but with the same period. Medicare is kind of a one-way ticket unless you marry someone with good private coverage, which will be rare. Obamacare purchasers could also have good reason to drop off or come on same as working people.
Quote: Sabretom2Please provide reference.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/29/163889012/after-smoking-is-banned-heart-attacks-drop
Quote: AZDuffman
Medicare and Obamacare will clearly be a little different, but with the same period. Medicare is kind of a one-way ticket unless you marry someone with good private coverage, which will be rare. Obamacare purchasers could also have good reason to drop off or come on same as working people.
Are you saying that Obamacare purchasers won't be working people?
Quote: AxelWolfI know people are going to hate me for saying this......I think taxes on Cigarettes and alcohol should be MUCH, MUCH higher. 50 BUCKS A PACK for starters
You must be against health care for children? The government takes far more money than the tobacco companies.
NYC put a tax on smokes so high when I heard of the bill I thought it should have been named "The Mafia Full-Employment Act."
My issue with smoking is the behavior of the smokers more than the cigarettes. Mostly that they will just throw butts anywhere.
TWICE AS MUCH AND TWICE WORSE, AND I don't qualify for a subsidy.
This thing is a train wreck of epic proportions.
Quote: beerseasonObamacare is a scam. I am 26 yo and I live in central (rural) Illinois. My premium is going up from 165 to 325. The 325$ plan is the one Health Alliance will be switching me over automatically, because they will not cover my plan any more. You know what the real kicker is. My plan gets absolutely worse. I go from 1000$ deductible (80% insurance coverage 20% my portion), 3500$ max out of pocket, to 2500 deductible (70% insurance coverage, 30% my coverage), 6500$ max out of pocket.
TWICE AS MUCH AND TWICE WORSE, AND I don't qualify for a subsidy.
This thing is a train wreck of epic proportions.
Just curious, but did you vote for Obama? (You don't have to answer, of course, but I'm just curious since you're in the age group who loves the guy and thinks he can do no wrong)
I find a lot of the argument are really based on 'what are public goods', with the Republicans clearly feeling that healthcare is a private good, and Democrats that it is a public good. I believe some feel that aspects of healthcare (transmitable disease control, for example), are public goods, while the rest (say, cancer treatment) are private goods.
The tragedy of the commons can be avoided in many ways too... and some folks will say certain things are -not- susceptible to that effect.
Problem with Obamacare, it's not being worked as a public good and socializing medicine, nor is it being acted on as a private good and allowing markets and human response to dictate the needs. It's some messed up conflation of the two.
I personally feel that basic healthcare (where basic is quite extensive) is a public good, as it raises the well being of all in society, and makes everyone, even those not receiving directly, better off. But I understand the argument the right will make against that view. Shrug... the logic of it runs true, but I don't agree with the start point. But Obamacare doesn't start from either of those points, but messes them all together.
Quote: Beethoven9thJust curious, but did you vote for Obama? (You don't have to answer, of course, but I'm just curious since you're in the age group who loves the guy and thinks he can do no wrong)
No I did not. I am a registered Republican and have voted in every election (General, Primary, Consolidated, Local, etc) since I was 18. I wasn't excited about Romney (I did vote for him), but they didn't really give us anyone to be excited about. But, I think that was planned from the RNC, why waste good talent against someone who will probably win anyway.
You know, I actually agree with your overall analysis about Obamacare. It sucks all the way around.Quote: thecesspitIn response to the original question...
[snip]
...But Obamacare doesn't start from either of those points, but messes them all together.
Hehehehe... ;)Quote: Beethoven9thFor Beethoven's sake (cos he hates it when I'm not clear with my meanings)
Quote: beerseasonNo I did not. I am a registered Republican and have voted in every election (General, Primary, Consolidated, Local, etc) since I was 18. I wasn't excited about Romney (I did vote for him), but they didn't really give us anyone to be excited about. But, I think that was planned from the RNC, why waste good talent against someone who will probably win anyway.
Gotcha. Then you have every right to complain. What I can't stand are the O-bots who voted for him (and STILL support him!), yet they b*tch & moan about Obamacare. Anyway, let's hope the country wakes up.
Quote: Beethoven9thJust curious, but did you vote for Obama? (You don't have to answer, of course, but I'm just curious since you're in the age group who loves the guy and thinks he can do no wrong)
You should have known his answer when he described where he was from. Illinois is ridiculously red outside of Chicagoland, which is the polar opposite. But Chicagoland is also about 2/3rds of the entire state's population, which ends up making the state democratic in most elections. Illinois hasn't voted Rep. since H.W. Bush in '88.
And as for Obamacare, it's definitely the biggest thing I disagree with that he's done. I may end up paying the fine next year. Not sure. Finding a job with insurance better than the gov't offers would be nice too, but not counting on that either.
Quote: Beethoven9thGotcha. Then you have every right to complain. What I can't stand are the O-bots who voted for him (and STILL support him!), yet they b*tch & moan about Obamacare. Anyway, let's hope the country wakes up.
Yes I wholeheartedly agree. It also grinds my gears, that the democrats want to increase the budget for next year. WE HAVE NO MONEY, THEREFORE WE CANNOT SPEND MORE. And everyone wants to blame the Republicans for the government shutdown over Obamacare.
Here in Illinois they raised taxes by 66% to cut down on the deficit. What do the idiot democrats do? They raise spending/budget! It boggles my mind people vote for these morons. We still have 11 billion in unpaid bills, 100 billion dollar pension shortfall, and 66% higher taxes. I don't mind the higher taxes if they were to pay down debt and/or lower our pension shortfall with "new" revenue. But to raise spending in the budget because we have more revenue, that is totally asinine.
Quote: beerseason
Here in Illinois they raised taxes by 66% to cut down on the deficit. What do the idiot democrats do? They raise spending/budget! It boggles my mind people vote for these morons. We still have 11 billion in unpaid bills, 100 billion dollar pension shortfall, and 66% higher taxes. I don't mind the higher taxes if they were to pay down debt and/or lower our pension shortfall with "new" revenue. But to raise spending in the budget because we have more revenue, that is totally asinine.
It is machine politics. Control Chicago and you control IL. Control the machine and you control Chicago. Control the unions and scare the right groups and you control the machine. As NYC proved, things have to be on the border of unbearable and unlivable for people to go against the machine.
Quote: tringlomaneYou should have known his answer when he described where he was from. Illinois is ridiculously red outside of Chicagoland, which is the polar opposite. But Chicagoland is also about 2/3rds of the entire state's population, which ends up making the state democratic in most elections. Illinois hasn't voted Rep. since H.W. Bush in '88.
And as for Obamacare, it's definitely the biggest thing I disagree with that he's done. I may end up paying the fine next year. Not sure. Finding a job with insurance better than the gov't offers would be nice too, but not counting on that either.
You're right, I was unsure though after seeing his age. There's a good number of 18-26 year olds who vote Dem, even in rural areas. Totally agree with you about the fine. I know several people who plan on doing the same thing since it's only $95 the first year.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is machine politics. Control Chicago and you control IL. Control the machine and you control Chicago. Control the unions and scare the right groups and you control the machine. As NYC proved, things have to be on the border of unbearable and unlivable for people to go against the machine.
...and when it fails, just blame the Republicans!
That's what idiots like Ed Schultz & Melissa Harris-Perry did regarding Detroit's bankruptcy. I couldn't freakin believe it! And the really sad part is that the sheep out there actually believe this crap.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is machine politics. Control Chicago and you control IL. Control the machine and you control Chicago. Control the unions and scare the right groups and you control the machine. As NYC proved, things have to be on the border of unbearable and unlivable for people to go against the machine.
I would say this is somewhat, but not necessarily true. A lot of Chicago Democrats do not like Quinn, because he is kind of a bumbling idiot that managed to gain power with the ouster of Blago. Kind of like Biden is to Obama. A big powerhouse of the Democrat party and one of the most powerful people like it or not in Illinois is Michael Madigan, Speaker of the House.
When the people elected Brady, a downstate senator from Bloomington, to run against Quinn he all but sealed his fate. A few things you have to do in Illinois statewide races is to
-Win roughly 32% of the vote of Cook County. (Brady didn't do)
-Pull Independent and right leaning/fiscal liberals (Brady didn't do)
-Win Collar Counties (Brady did do, but not by enough of a margin)
-Dominate Downstate (Brady did do)
Many people viewed Brady very right on the political spectrum. Which doesn't necessarily resonate with Cook/Collar Counties. He didn't court Jim Edgar's help, who is an extremely popular ex-governor and would be a shoe-in if he decided to run again, very popular among independents/right-leaning and fiscal liberals. Would have probably swung the election the other way.
That is why U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk-R won and State Sen. Bill Brady-R lost.
State Sen. Kirk Dillard R-Elmhurst (DuPage County, a collar county) lost to Brady by 193 votes in the primary. Dillard was Edgar's Chief of Staff, would have had a huge presence from Edgar, would have done much better in collar and Cook counties and still carried downstate by a good enough margin. He was a moderate Republican. His downfall in the primary was his supposed support of Obama for presidency.
That is a crash course in Illinois politics.
I have no Idea how you concluded that from my statement. I believe Every one should have have access to cheap or free heath care. It is all great and fine when young or healthy people say, Its my choice if i want to die and not pay for heath insurance. Then they get sick and change their tune.Quote: AZDuffmanYou must be against health care for children? .
Quote: beerseasonHe didn't court Jim Edgar's help, who is an extremely popular ex-governor and would be a shoe-in if he decided to run again, very popular among independents/right-leaning and fiscal liberals. Would have probably swung the election the other way.
I'm still upset at Jim Edgar & Mike Ditka for not running against Obama back in 2004. They were both courted but declined to run. Ditka even said recently that he regrets his decision. Although it would have been close, I don't think Obama could have beaten either one.
Therein, the woman has 15 kids and wonders who will pay for them - of course, the answer she wants to hear, and will , will be "the government" i.e. Mr & Mrs disappearing middle class
the future is the "have it alls" versus the "have nothings"
Quote: AxelWolfI have no Idea how you concluded that from my statement. I believe Every one should have have access to cheap or free heath care. It is all great and fine when young or healthy people say, Its my choice if i want to die and not pay for heath insurance. Then they get sick and change their tune.
Because most of these CHIP programs are funded by taxes on smokes. If we raised the tax to $50 per pack they would be de-funded. So how can the kids get "free" health care if smokers don't pay for it?
Quote: AxelWolfI have no Idea how you concluded that from my statement. I believe Every one should have have access to cheap or free heath care. It is all great and fine when young or healthy people say, Its my choice if i want to die and not pay for heath insurance. Then they get sick and change their tune.
Wait, how is Obamacare cheap or free?
Quote: beerseasonWait, how is Obamacare cheap or free?
Free for his base
Quote: Beethoven9thI'm still upset at Jim Edgar & Mike Ditka for not running against Obama back in 2004. They were both courted but declined to run. Ditka even said recently that he regrets his decision. Although it would have been close, I don't think Obama could have beaten either one.
My how things would be different today!
Quote: beerseasonWait, how is Obamacare cheap or free?
I think he was speaking from an ideal perspective. Everyone should ideally want cheap and free healthcare, but it isn't a practical reality. And Obamacare is neither cheap or free, of course.
Quote: beerseasonQuote: Beethoven9thI'm still upset at Jim Edgar & Mike Ditka for not running against Obama back in 2004. They were both courted but declined to run. Ditka even said recently that he regrets his decision. Although it would have been close, I don't think Obama could have beaten either one.
My how things would be different today!
Yeah, we'd have the president I voted for in the primary, Hilary!!!
Quote: beerseasonWait, how is Obamacare cheap or free?
If you refuse to work it is cheap or free to you.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you refuse to work it is cheap or free to you.
Exactly.
Which party was he in again?
Quote: rxwineRomneycare of fines or health insurance has been going on for 7 years already.
Which party was he in again?
Huh? If your point is that there should be no opposition to Obamacare just because of Mitt Romney, then I can easily point to a bunch of Democrats who oppose Obamacare too. Big deal, lame point.
