Affordable Care Act in the United States

[Ocram's Razr 964]

America would not have needed to "save the day" in WWII had they (and the British) stayed out of WWI. The treaty of Versailles setup the conditions that made it possible for the Nazis to take over.

I really don't want to see anyone exempt from having to pay for ObamaCare (including government workers) or to see it delayed any longer. If enough people don't have to worry about it, no one will really care. However, I think that certain parts of ObamaCare should be allowed to get exemptions (like forcing companies to pay for insurance for Abortions).

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Yet another hole in the doughnut.  Pay for abortions?  Only if they are legal in the state of the insured.  Because of the number of conflicting rules (laws) in the states, this plan should be administered solely by each state in a single-payer format. 

 

Remove the middle man (insurance companies) and work out equalization payments as needed.

[Fatherted 129]

You really believe that it will be fairly and equally implemented? This is the USA, not Britain. It's bad enough in ol' Blighty, and over in the land of the free (trade), it will be MUCH worse.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And yet, the Yanks saved the world at that time.  After the isolationists got a kick in the pants by the Japanese, that is.  If there had been no sneak attack on Pearl Harbour, the Americans were willing to let Europe rot.

Doubtful. There is plenty of evidence that suggests America was already building up for war way before they actually officially declared that they were going to get involved. Things like increasing the readiness of the army, remobilizing troops, etc. 

 

Besides, the Americans already provided massive loans and material support to the British. And with the Soviets at some point clearly becoming the winning side its even more likely the US would get involved at some point. 

[hym 358]

This is a thread for the discussion of the Affordable Care Act.  Let's return to that topic.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Now that the ACA is in full force, let us wait to see what falls out.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Yet another hole in the doughnut. Pay for abortions? Only if they are legal in the state of the insured. Because of the number of conflicting rules (laws) in the states, this plan should be administered solely by each state in a single-payer format.

Remove the middle man (insurance companies) and work out equalization payments as needed.

As much as I am pro choice, I do not believe abortions should be state funded. It is the responsibility of the couple to use adequate contraception (although exceptions to this should be made for cases of rape, incest etc.)

[Duke87 1,070]

As far as I am aware there is no requirement in ObamaCare that abortions be covered by insurance. Even the highly liberal congress of 2009-2011 wasn't going to touch that one with a 39½ foot pole.

What's causing controversy is the requirement that contraceptives (pills, IUDs, etc) be covered by insurance, which some religious institutions object to because they believe such things are immoral and encourage promiscuity.

 

It's a tough issue because our constitution does protect freedom of religion and it has often been the case that individuals and groups may be given exemption from certain laws if following them conflicts with their religious beliefs (e.g. Amish are not required to send their children to high school). On the other hand, if insurance providers decline to cover contraceptives they do not do so in a vacuum - they put the policyholders of the insurance who may not agree with their stance on the matter at a distinct disadvantage by depriving them of something important. Bear in mind that we're not just talking about insurance for priests and nuns when we discuss religious institutions - we're also talking about all the staff at religiously-affiliated universities and charities or even a private company whose owner says "that's against my religious beliefs". And the problem is compounded by the fact that contraceptives are most needed by people who can least afford to pay out of pocket for them. The poorer you are, the less you can afford to raise unplanned children and sorely need to be able to prevent from having them. And don't say "just abstain", that's ideological dogma, not a practical solution - it isn't reasonable to expect of couples and couples who do attempt to do so may see their relationship destroyed by it, which also isn't helpful to anyone. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Contraception is a private matter and no church has any more business in the bedroom than the government.  One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church is their stand on contraception.  Another was the celibate priesthood, which I consider to be against nature and therefore against God.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On the whole, allowing people to have an abortion when they need one is a good thing. Its safer, it causes crime to decrease and its a cornerstone in any fight against poverty. Generally, you should assume that a women knows whether she can raise a child or not and you can also assume that if she has an abortion, she does it for a good reason. 

 

Of course, contraception is great and should also definitely be state funded, but it doesn't work 100% of the time or there are simply situations where you don't have it while you need it. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well while I think all priests should be celibate whether Roman Catholic or Flying Spaghetti Monsterist, that is because I am against nature in most regards. Also how is abortion any more natural than celibacy?

 

However keeping on topic I would argue that any government healthcare should only cover emergency procedures, not optional things. As to what defines 'optional', I would say that if you aren't going to A and E you should be paying money.

[Fatherted 129]

Celibacy is natural if the person who is celibate feels no need to have any kind of sexual relationship. If they feel the need however, they should of course be able to abandon this in an instant.

Contraception covered by government? If you must, but I feel that's a private issue.

Abortions? No. I will not pay for Jeremy Kyle Show white trash to kill their baby. I will, however pay for Social Services to remove it from them.

I would make a special case for:

-Rape (For Mother)

-Incest (For Baby), if there is a sentence

-Underage (For Mother/Father), as it's likely that these circumstances came about either from undereducation or the failure of contraception. I would issue a warning, and a second offence would be correctional facility for a year each.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Celibacy is natural if the person who is celibate feels no need to have any kind of sexual relationship. If they feel the need however, they should of course be able to abandon this in an instant.

Contraception covered by government? If you must, but I feel that's a private issue.

Abortions? No. I will not pay for Jeremy Kyle Show white trash to kill their baby. I will, however pay for Social Services to remove it from them.

I would make a special case for:

-Rape (For Mother)

-Incest (For Baby), if there is a sentence

-Underage (For Mother/Father), as it's likely that these circumstances came about either from undereducation or the failure of contraception. I would issue a warning, and a second offence would be correctional facility for a year each.

You do realize that by paying for an abortion, you get as a result lower crime rates. And I think that paying for an abortion is infinitely cheaper then paying for an inmate in prison  

 

And indeed, some people are asexual, meaning they are not sexually attracted to anyone and others make the distinct choice not to have sex. Whether that is natural is in both cases irrelevant. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Abortions when necessary must be preformed by a trained physician, not some back-street old hag with a selection of knitting needles.  The chances of sepsis, even in a proper clinic, are relatively high.  The back-street types are very dangerous to the mother.

 

A by-choice abortion's costs should be for the account of the couple causing the problem.  An abortion because of a crime is one that should always be covered by the medical insurance system.

 

That little roll in the hay with honey should be costly if the rollers are careless.   General promiscuity often leads to the spread of STDs.

[Duke87 1,070]

You do realize that by paying for an abortion, you get as a result lower crime rates. And I think that paying for an abortion is infinitely cheaper then paying for an inmate in prison

 

It is. But a lot of people have moral qualms with abortions because it involves in some sense taking a human life. Sending criminals to prison, meanwhile, is not really objectionable to anyone as a general concept. The only controversy is over whether a particular crime deserves jail time and how much.

 

I will also point out that paying for an execution is also a lot cheaper than paying for an inmate in prison, and yet executions tend to be unpopular and in many places illegal. It isn't just a value proposition we're talking about here.

 

 

As for government funding of abortions, I can't help but feel like it's treating a symptom rather than a disease. Yeah, you can terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and that solves the problem of what to do with that child you don't want or can't afford... but it doesn't solve the problem of why you got pregnant in the first place when you didn't want to. Contraception if used properly and responsibly is incredibly effective at preventing pregnancy. The real "disease" here is that some people are not using contraception properly and responsibly. In many cases affordability is an issue, which is why insurance covering contraceptives is important.

But even then, you run up against the old problem about leading a horse to water. Some people get funny about using condoms because they think it lessens the experience. Some people are too embarrassed to purchase contraceptives. And some people just don't give a damn enough to go through the small effort of obtaining and using them. To solve these issues, we need to be more vigilant about encouraging safe sex and removing shame from around it. There is a lot more to public health than just healthcare.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

You do realize that by paying for an abortion, you get as a result lower crime rates. And I think that paying for an abortion is infinitely cheaper then paying for an inmate in prison

 

It is. But a lot of people have moral qualms with abortions because it involves in some sense taking a human life. Sending criminals to prison, meanwhile, is not really objectionable to anyone as a general concept. The only controversy is over whether a particular crime deserves jail time and how much.

 

I will also point out that paying for an execution is also a lot cheaper than paying for an inmate in prison, and yet executions tend to be unpopular and in many places illegal. It isn't just a value proposition we're talking about here.

 

 

As for government funding of abortions, I can't help but feel like it's treating a symptom rather than a disease. Yeah, you can terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and that solves the problem of what to do with that child you don't want or can't afford... but it doesn't solve the problem of why you got pregnant in the first place when you didn't want to. Contraception if used properly and responsibly is incredibly effective at preventing pregnancy. The real "disease" here is that some people are not using contraception properly and responsibly. In many cases affordability is an issue, which is why insurance covering contraceptives is important.

But even then, you run up against the old problem about leading a horse to water. Some people get funny about using condoms because they think it lessens the experience. Some people are too embarrassed to purchase contraceptives. And some people just don't give a damn enough to go through the small effort of obtaining and using them. To solve these issues, we need to be more vigilant about encouraging safe sex and removing shame from around it. There is a lot more to public health than just healthcare.

 

Actually executions are more expensive than jail time. You know, you have to pay for those 7 appeals and all the administration that comes with it, along with the DA and judges who need to be paid for their time. And the appeals which can take up to a decade if not longer in which the prisoner also has to make use of the prison system. An abortion requires non of that. Also, the people that are against abortions are generally also the people that are completely fine with the death penalty. Not to mention that they are also the same people who are actively seeking the mothers who would want an abortion with any care or support after the baby is born. Hence, these people essentially force a baby to be born, in a life of poverty with no help from the state, and when these babies turn to crime (which statistically speaking they have a very high chance of doing) those same people that wanted them to be born are the ones that want him executed. 

 

But you are right, abortions are a symptom. And the sickness? America's idiotic attitudes towards sex and poverty. It starts in sex ed which in a lot of states has become politicized and as a result doesn't teach anyone $%&^!. Or they teach horny teenagers not to have sex. And as a result states that teach teenagers abstinence have higher STD rates and higher teen pregnancy rates. And states that actually teach kids how to have sex in a safe manner end up with lower STD rates and lower teen pregnancies. Furthermore, there is the problem of poverty. Poor people generally live unhealthier and we can assume that they also have unhealthier sex (ie they don't use contraception) and as a result end up pregnant more often. And since they are poor they simply cannot afford a baby so they generally need an abortion. Even if they were to be educated about the benefits of contraception, it remains to be seen if that is a solution. If you live at subsistence level I wonder if you can afford to spend all that money on contraceptives. I kinda doubt it. 

[Fatherted 129]

Well...over here 16 is coming (no pun intended) of age for most alcohols and the legality of "making love". What I found most surprising is the school doesn't judge after 16 .

I do think educating horny teenagers like myself as opposed to telling them it's bad is the way to go. Making it the forbidden fruit is the best way to end up with a bunch of pregnant 14 year-olds. And that is not good.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, Mass Media has a large effect on culture and the TV is full of promiscuity. Education, a change in culture, an improvement in the economy, and basic preventative health care for everyone would be far more effective than free abortions for the masses.

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

A change in culture. Right, that is only next to impossible. You can't change culture, especially not in a free society. Culture evolves naturally and it is impossible to steer it or control it in some way. 

 

And improvements in the economy are useless if the only people really benefiting from it are the CEO's of corporations. You need a massive redistribution of wealth in order to help all those Americans too poor to pay their taxes and get them on a decent middle class income level. 

 

And even then there are still people that need them. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

One of the things is that the fourth F should be erased.  It should really read Found, Felt, F...ed, and Child support.  It is the responsibility of parents and the school system to emphasize that by-blows are people too and the father (if you can call him that) has to provide.  If necessary, by civil or criminal order.

[Wiimeiser 452]

A change in culture. Right, that is only next to impossible. You can't change culture, especially not in a free society. Culture evolves naturally and it is impossible to steer it or control it in some way.

Then should we rewrite the dictionary definitions of Pig and Beaver to exclude the animals and treat them exclusively as profanity?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Then should we rewrite the dictionary definitions of Pig and Beaver to exclude the animals and treat them exclusively as profanity?

 

Why? Their meaning depends on context. And plenty of words have more than one meaning. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Getting a little far afield again, are we not?  How about some more commentary on the ACA?

[Fatherted 129]

Republicans are now conceding a financial plan, but only if it results in the absolute defundation of Obamacare. The president has three choices:

-Pass the bill and wind down Obamacare, effectively conceding that helping the poor is not a priority

-Refuse the bill and default on debts, resulting in a public outcry and global destruction of the economy

-Enact Martial Law to deny the bill and raise the debt ceiling, effectively conceding he is a Tyrant and possibly raising riots

Not an easy discussion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

You missed one.  Martial law is not necessary for the President to invoke the provisions of the Constitution.  Somewhere in there, there is a clause that says the fiscal position of the United States may not be compromised.

 

If might take a lot of guts, but Obama isn't eligible for re-election so he should do what is necessary.  The GOP cannot blackmail the people of the United States nor the markets of the world.

[Fatherted 129]

Does it default at GMT 0 or EST 0? If EST, less than 12 hours left everyone! If GMT, you better hurry up states!

[Ocram's Razr 964]

You missed one.  Martial law is not necessary for the President to invoke the provisions of the Constitution.  Somewhere in there, there is a clause that says the fiscal position of the United States may not be compromised.

 

If might take a lot of guts, but Obama isn't eligible for re-election so he should do what is necessary.  The GOP cannot blackmail the people of the United States nor the markets of the world.

The constitution does not say that exactly but the 14th Amendment said that the debt cannot be questioned, which is open for interpretation.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Yes, I knew it was in there somewhere but not the exact slot nor wording.  I think the interpretation will have to be that the Executive has the power to do what it damn pleases when it comes to any "mythical debt ceiling".  That nonsense should be repealed because it allows congress to hold the nation to ransom.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

It's over.

Bills are being passed and a compromise has been reached.

[AcmeSigns 97]

And improvements in the economy are useless if the only people really benefiting from it are the CEO's of corporations. You need a massive redistribution of wealth in order to help all those Americans too poor to pay their taxes and get them on a decent middle class income level. 

That's nothing more than a massive welfare state. When you give people money that they haven't earned they'll just expect more. And I seriously doubt that any of those beneficiaries will be using their new-found wealth (which would probably be tax-free anyway) to pay taxes or do anything to better themselves so they could move up the financial ladder on their own. Where would be their incentive to do so?

 

Although this does sound like something the left-leaners would be in favor of. That way people would be even more dependent on the government. That would be oh-so-swell.