Obamacare

[devilsadvocate]

I disagree, the expense makes it unaccessible to far too many.

You disagree?

Expense has nothing whatsoever to do with access to healthcare; you are referring to the insurance, and your failure to maintain even cursory intellectual honesty about that particular item cements the fact that you have absorbed naught but what you've been told, sheep-breath.

I'm referring to anyone who lacks ability to pay for whatever reason. Keep your narrow one dimension vision to yourself, don't project it onto others and don't presume to tell me what I am referring to.

I could do the same to you and suggest that you are confusing accessibility with availability

There are plenty of Lamborghinis in the dealership down the road, I can't afford to buy one. They are available, but I don't have access.

[j2k4]

You disagree?

Expense has nothing whatsoever to do with access to healthcare; you are referring to the insurance, and your failure to maintain even cursory intellectual honesty about that particular item cements the fact that you have absorbed naught but what you've been told, sheep-breath.

I'm referring to anyone who lacks ability to pay for whatever reason. Keep your narrow one dimension vision to yourself, don't project it onto others and don't presume to tell me what I am referring to.

I could do the same to you and suggest that you are confusing accessibility with availability

There are plenty of Lamborghinis in the dealership down the road, I can't afford to buy one. They are available, but I don't have access.

No, you do have access, you just don't have the money.

What you refer to as "your narrow one dimension vision" is actually a dictionary, wherein can be found the means to relieve your ignorance of the meanings of the words in question.

While you may come up a bit short in the quest for a Lambo, you might find a dictionary downright affordable, and it's benefit to you undeniable.

[devilsadvocate]

Okay I'll dumb it down even more so you might understand.

John wants to go watch a movie. The only way he can do this is to go to the theater. The entrance fee is $10 but unfortunately the content of john's wallet matches your IQ so he only has $1. The movie is available for all who have $10 but John doesn't have that so his access to the movie is rather limited. The best he can do is look at the poster and imagine.

If you think there is no accessibility problem in the US because of cost you really haven't got a clue.

[clocker]

... look at H.R. 3200 (which I believe does "exist"), the relevant facts I read about here:

http://www.nfib.com/tabid/60/tabid/7...msid=49542&v=1

Seems to me that you would be at the head of the line, clamoring for lower cost health plans then.

Instead, you want to perpetuate the existing system which leaves you at the mercy of the corporate, for-profit health care providers and insurers.

Tell me, does your company currently offer any health care plan for the employees?
If not, why?
If so, what is the corporate contribution- if any- to the cost and what would you consider to be equitable/fair?

[j2k4]

Okay I'll dumb it down even more so you might understand.

John wants to go watch a movie. The only way he can do this is to go to the theater. The entrance fee is $10 but unfortunately the content of john's wallet matches your IQ so he only has $1. The movie is available for all who have $10 but John doesn't have that so his access to the movie is rather limited. The best he can do is look at the poster and imagine.

If you think there is no accessibility problem in the US because of cost you really haven't got a clue.

There you go again.

Affordability and accessibility are not the same thing, and you haven't the semantic creativity to make movies analogous to health-care.

Put down your shovel and admit defeat.

... look at H.R. 3200 (which I believe does "exist"), the relevant facts I read about here:

http://www.nfib.com/tabid/60/tabid/7...msid=49542&v=1

Seems to me that you would be at the head of the line, clamoring for lower cost health plans then.

Instead, you want to perpetuate the existing system which leaves you at the mercy of the corporate, for-profit health care providers and insurers.

Tell me, does your company currently offer any health care plan for the employees?
If not, why?
If so, what is the corporate contribution- if any- to the cost and what would you consider to be equitable/fair?

How did you leap to the conclusion that I am not "for" lower health-care costs?

I want no part of perpetuating the current situation, and I am fully cognizant of the need to fix it.

A good start would be the elimination of health insurance of any type (any/all third payer) and an immediate end to the lucrative nature of that end of the business...sort of bring the health profession back toward reality.

Tell me this:

If medical care could be had at real-world prices, what would be the difference if I paid a premium for the employee, or paid the employee the money so he could pay it himself?

Why the onus on the employer to handle it when that impulse (third-party payer) is the root of the problem?

[clocker]

So do you or do you not offer a health care plan for the employees?

[j2k4]

So do you or do you not offer a health care plan for the employees?

I do not.

What's your point.

[clocker]

That going from paying zero percent of employee health insurance cost to anything percent might seem excessive to you.

[j2k4]

That going from paying zero percent of employee health insurance cost to anything percent might seem excessive to you.

Yet another leap...I went from looking for an affordable plan for my employees to on-the-hook-for-most-of-it-unto-it-putting-me-out-of-business, and you're rooting for the latter.

As I've already said:

C'est la guerre.

[clocker]

You're leaping as well...I never said I was rooting for you to be put out of business.
I asked what percentage of the health plan you thought was fair for you to pay.