November 6th, 2012: Campaigning, Early Voting, Election Day, And The Results! II

[Holiday]

If you're not a fan of big gov, neither of the two big parties are the answer for you. Michigan's Republican led Emergency Manager law is one of the biggest big gov things to have come out of the last decade. The patriot act, started by a Rep, continued by a Dem. Telling gay ppl they can't get married, and women can't decide what to do with their bodies (abortion and controception) are big gov things. Just as Democrats ideas on social nets are big gov. Both sides do it, Democrats just own it, and don't try to hide that they want gov getting more involved. Republicans are every bit as guilty of big gov, they just pretend not to be.

I didn't mean to suggest a Republican led country brings us more freedom than a Democratic one. I'm no fan of their party. They don't practice what they preach. They're not serious about cutting any spending. I dislike their party as much as I dislike the other. I won't even choose a lesser of two evils between the two. They're not any different in the areas that concern me.

Democrats absolutely get carried away sometimes, but having healthcare, Pell Grants, and welfare don't make us an unfree society. That's just a ridiculous claim through and through.

If you're not allowed to keep your private healthcare coverage, or are fined for not having healthcare, how is that freedom? Simple question.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Because a minor financial obligation doesn't dictate the way you live your life. You still get to live your life the way you choose to. You just have a financial obligation.

 

[wiegeabo]

Because a minor financial obligation doesn't dictate the way you live your life. You still get to live your life the way you choose to. You just have a financial obligation.

That's...completely wrong.

 

[Holiday]

Because a minor financial obligation doesn't dictate the way you live your life. You still get to live your life the way you choose to. You just have a financial obligation.

Someone else forcing me to spend my money in a way that they choose is not me living my life the way I choose. That absolutely spits in the face of freedom.

 

[Reek]

did anyone watch South Park last night? Apparently, the election was all about saving Star Wars

 

[stillanerd]

I am not sure if Politco's totals are correct. I can't say/confirm 1 way or another if California is 69% returned(like the Fox and MSNBC sites claim) but I know for a fact Florida is at 97% and they have Florida listed at 100%

ETA: All I can tell you is comparing results from 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Is they had 13M votes in California in 2008 and currently we are at 9M in 2012, while I can see a decrease in 2012 voting I don't see that much

However, Politico (and the Huffington Post) is showing more vote totals for some of those states than Fox and MSNBC is reporting. It lists California, for example as having 5,583,170 for Obama and 3,646,935 for Romney, compared to Fox and MSNBC's totals of 5,581,991 votes for Obama and 3,645,262 votes for Romney. Although, it's not much of a difference in terms of an increase and it still reflecting that, overall, there were far less people voting in this election than in 2008.

 

[Anita18]

Someone else forcing me to spend my money in a way that they choose is not me living my life the way I choose. That absolutely spits in the face of freedom.

Freedom is not all or nothing. You're allowed to not have healthcare - you'll just have to pay a fine. It's not like they're gonna throw you in jail. THAT would actually be imposing on your freedom.

 

[Paradoxium]

Exactly, why pay for insurance until you need it? No preconditions. You can pay the fine, it is cheaper.

 

[wiegeabo]

Freedom is not all or nothing. You're allowed to not have healthcare - you'll just have to pay a fine. It's not like they're gonna throw you in jail. THAT would actually be imposing on your freedom.

The fact that you have to pay a fine means they are forcing it on you.

To put it another way, you're being punished for making a certain choice. That's not freedom.

It makes no sense to have to pay for something you're not buying in the first place. If it was a real choice, you wouldn't pay anything. You also wouldn't be able to get anything out of the system, but that's the opportunity cost.

 

[Anita18]

The fact that you have to pay a fine means they are forcing it on you.

To put it another way, you're being punished for making a certain choice. That's not freedom.

It makes no sense to have to pay for something you're not buying in the first place. If it was a real choice, you wouldn't pay anything. You also wouldn't be able to get anything out of the system, but that's the opportunity cost.

Not really. You still pay either way. It's just a choice of what you want to spend your money - on insurance or on the fine.

If people didn't have to pay a fine, nobody would ever get insurance. Not much of an actual choice there either.

Again, freedom is not all or nothing. We are not free to do whatever we want, because we want to live in a lawful society. We elect representatives to make the laws for us. I think that's as free as one could get without it being a complete free-for-all-why-should-I-even-follow-traffic-laws kind of anarchy.

Also, I have a more lenient view of "freedom" that some of you here. Unlawful incarceration is obviously against your freedom. Only being allowed in certain public places because your gender/race/religion is another example. Having to pay a fine (for not having insurance, for parking illegally, whatever) is not a war on your freedom, it's the price for living in a lawful society.

 

[Paradoxium]

Not much of an actual choice there either.

So what is the difference between this... and a cheap fine and insurance that can't discriminate on preconditions?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Everything that Anita said. 100%.

We are forced to buy auto insurance. Why is that not an "attack on our freedom". We all pay taxes - Even those that Republicans claim pay no taxes still pay sales tax. These things all go to fund fire departments, police departments, roads, schools, etc... These are not attacks on our freedoms.

If we're gonna go the whole "I can't choose to not have health care, so I'm not a free person anymore" route, then I don't want my tax dollars going to police departments that are going to protect you. I don't want the fire departments putting out fires at your home. Cuz it's my money going to it, I shouldn't have to pay for your police protection, right? I don't want to pay for your roads...

You see how silly this is getting?

The idea that because you have to buy health insurance you are no longer free is completely ridiculous. You have an obligation, that as Anita explained, is part of living in a lawful society. That's not taking away your freedom.

 

[Kelly]

Everything that Anita said. 100%.

We are forced to buy auto insurance. Why is that not an "attack on our freedom". We all pay taxes - Even those that Republicans claim pay no taxes still pay sales tax. These things all go to fund fire departments, police departments, roads, schools, etc... These are not attacks on our freedoms.

If we're gonna go the whole "I can't choose to not have health care, so I'm not a free person anymore" route, then I don't want my tax dollars going to police departments that are going to protect you. I don't want the fire departments putting out fires at your home. Cuz it's my money going to it, I shouldn't have to pay for your police protection, right? I don't want to pay for your roads...

You see how silly this is getting?

The idea that because you have to buy health insurance you are no longer free is completely ridiculous. You have an obligation, that as Anita explained, is part of living in a lawful society. That's not taking away your freedom.

You are forced to buy car insurance, if you CHOOSE to drive a car.

Now, do I think the idea of being forced to buy insurance makes you less free? No...but my fear is that my district, and many others will choose the cheaper route, and IMO, with what the government usually puts out..."LESS QUALITY" insurance, since they pay a portion of my insurance. I am very happy with my insurance, and I'm happy with my doctors....if it comes about that that does not change. Then you will hear nothing from me, but knowing my district and most districts today, they need to cut costs, and this will be the perfect way for them to do it.

 

[Fenrir]

You are forced to buy car insurance, if you CHOOSE to drive a car.

Likewise, you are forced to buy health insurance if you CHOOSE to live in a country like the U.S, where high-priced healthcare and exorbitant medical bills can easily drive perfectly solvent states and individuals to the brink of bankruptcy thereby incurring heavy social and economic costs.

 

[Kelly]

Likewise, you are forced to buy health insurance if you CHOOSE to live in a country like the U.S, where high-priced healthcare and exorbitant medical bills can easily drive perfectly solvent states and individuals to the brink of bankruptcy thereby incurring heavy social and economic costs.

And this health care reform is going to fix that? If it does, FANTASTIC....but thus far, no one has really explained exactly how, because I'm doubtful anyone except the writers of the bill know what the hell it is even talking about....

See, here is the thing, I am one that definitely believes that we were in need of solid health care reform....I have no problem with that, and honestly have no problem YET, with Obamacare, except that we are only getting bits and pieces of it explained as we go along. Parts of it, I really like, parts of it I don't....but to have voted for something that was shoved through, done in backroom deals etc....just doesn't foster a major amount of positivity from me at the moment...I am not one that thinks we are less free, etc. I only got through the first about 300 pages, and gave up. Lawyer friends of mine said it was the biggest bunch of BS lawyer talk, no one will ever know what it entails, which tells me, it will change to suit those in office....LONG BEFORE IT HELPS. But, I will be happy, and as I have said before, to say I was wrong if it works out.

 

[Anita18]

Likewise, you are forced to buy health insurance if you CHOOSE to live in a country like the U.S, where high-priced healthcare and exorbitant medical bills can easily drive perfectly solvent states and individuals to the brink of bankruptcy thereby incurring heavy social and economic costs.

Exactly. My fiance didn't like the idea of people being fined for not having health insurance, but he came around after I explained that it was the price for doing away with pre-existing conditions, which he obviously thought was a good thing. The only way to pay for people with "pre-existing conditions" (whatever they may be) is to get everyone to pay into the system. Such people WANT health insurance, but can't get it because no insurer will sign them. We are helping to pay for their freedom. That's just being realistic, not just imposing on your freedom because they feel like it. I think it's IMO a better reason than having everybody buy auto insurance. I guess we're supposed to be paying for the crappy drivers out there.

 

[Paradoxium]

And most of you don't seem to understand what insurance is. It is about pooling risk against an unlikely and catastrophic event that someone cannot save against. It's a negative sum game. The amount of people insured must exceed the sum of costs.

What part of the math do some of you not understand.

Companies are now slashing employees hours or their jobs to avoid paying coverage - usually marginal jobs. This is a reaction to the healthcare policy. It tends to be the youth demographic getting screwed. To top it off, youth employment is ridiculously low, aka the healthiest demographic counted on to supply the sum in the insurance.

And again the ******ation of both making the "fine/tax" cheaper than insurance, and not allowing discrimination of pre-existing conditions... demonstrates how mathematically challenged the policy is.

 

[Paradoxium]

If you get Cancer, you DO NOT IMMEDIATELY BUY INSURANCE to pay for the treatments. You would be missing the entire god damn point of insurance. It is again, a negative sum game. Of course this healthcare reform tries to do that, which is why it is mathematically stupid.

So don't any of you try ********ting me. You can give it another name for all I care.

 

[Fenrir]

And this health care reform is going to fix that? If it does, FANTASTIC....but thus far, no one has really explained exactly how, because I'm doubtful anyone except the writers of the bill know what the hell it is even talking about....

See, here is the thing, I am one that definitely believes that we were in need of solid health care reform....I have no problem with that, and honestly have no problem YET, with Obamacare, except that we are only getting bits and pieces of it explained as we go along. Parts of it, I really like, parts of it I don't....but to have voted for something that was shoved through, done in backroom deals etc....just doesn't foster a major amount of positivity from me at the moment...I am not one that thinks we are less free, etc. I only got through the first about 300 pages, and gave up. Lawyer friends of mine said it was the biggest bunch of BS lawyer talk, no one will ever know what it entails, which tells me, it will change to suit those in office....LONG BEFORE IT HELPS. But, I will be happy, and as I have said before, to say I was wrong if it works out.

I am not aware of the nitty-gritty details of the U.S healthcare reform, but if you pick up any advanced microeconomics textbook and read chapters on insurance, adverse selection and information asymmetry, you'll start to get an idea of why the U.S healthcare insurance is so overpriced and in the pits right now. And yes, one of the solutions to the problem of high-risk individuals (such as those with pre-existing conditions) entering the market and further blowing up premiums for everyone else thereby driving away low-risk individuals who, if not for the exorbitant premiums, would have gotten insurance - is to mandate insurance for everyone.

That is why almost all countries that have better healthcare than the U.S (mortality rates, physicians and nurses per 1000 people etc) have 65-85% of the healthcare paid-for by the government yet that expenditure accounts for about 8-11% of GDP whereas in the U.S it is 16% of GDP with the government paying only 45% of healthcare costs.

My interpretation of the statistics may be debatable, but the cited theory itself is sound and can easily be verified.

 

[stillanerd]

Let's put it this way--if you purchase something, then you are obligated to pay a tax in addition to the cost of what you purchased. But, the way the Supreme Court ruled on the Health Care Mandate, they interpreted the fine for not buying insurance to be the same thing as a tax. Which means, according the law as it stands, you can now be "taxed" for not purchasing a something. It other words, thanks to the HHS mandate, we now have a sales tax and a "non-sales tax." Which also potentially opens the door for the government to "tax" you for not buying something.

 

[Fenrir]

If you get Cancer, you DO NOT IMMEDIATELY BUY INSURANCE to pay for the treatments. You would be missing the entire god damn point of insurance. It is again, a negative sum game. Of course this healthcare reform tries to do that, which is why it is mathematically stupid.

So don't any of you try ********ting me. You can give it another name for all I care.

It's not a short-term solution, that much is certain. Because of the transitional and lagged nature of the impact of a mandatory healthcare policy, it's not going to have a positive immediate impact. What it will do in the long term is drastically reduce the number and ratio of uninsured individuals in the years to come and cultivate a perception of insurance as something essential rather than optional irrespective of your current health conditions. Of course, this means that employers, insurers and the government all have to swallow the biter pill and endure the pain until the medication kicks in, but then again, that is what you get for not treating the problem before it had reached such a critical stage.

 

[Anita18]

If you get Cancer, you DO NOT IMMEDIATELY BUY INSURANCE to pay for the treatments. You would be missing the entire god damn point of insurance. It is again, a negative sum game. Of course this healthcare reform tries to do that, which is why it is mathematically stupid.

So don't any of you try ********ting me. You can give it another name for all I care.

And young people always think they're invincible, which doesn't help. I bet most of the people electing to pay the fine rather than have insurance (after they b**** about it) will be people under 40.

I have a 30-year-old friend fighting stage 4 pancreatic cancer. No family history, didn't have diabetes, he's not overweight (quite the opposite, actually), not a smoker or drinker and was otherwise fit as an ox until he suddenly getting serious abdominal pains. S*** can just happen. A lot of young folks don't want to think about it but it CAN.

Luckily he's a citizen of uber-socialist France, so he's never had to worry about the quality of his care or how he's going to pay for it. He had insurance while working here, but having to fight insurance bureaucracy every step of his diagnosis was terrible.

 

[Paradoxium]

What long term are you talking about?

Young people on the margins will opt to pay the fine. They suffer no consequences for not having insurance. They will get it only AFTER the fact, because the law says you can't discriminate on preconditions.

Not everyone works at some large organization. The only people who will do it are rich, in rich subsidized companies, or the sickly clientele.

Our population is getting older and more sick. And the youth is more brokeass than ever. This entire scheme is stupid and defeats the entire purpose of a negative sum game.

We deserve the hell we have coming.

 

[Paradoxium]

And young people always think they're invincible, which doesn't help. I bet most of the people electing to pay the fine rather than have insurance (after they b**** about it) will be people under 40.

I have a 30-year-old friend fighting stage 4 pancreatic cancer. No family history, didn't have diabetes, he's not overweight (quite the opposite, actually), not a smoker or drinker and was otherwise fit as an ox until he suddenly getting serious abdominal pains. S*** can just happen. A lot of young folks don't want to think about it but it CAN.

Luckily he's a citizen of uber-socialist France, so he's never had to worry about the quality of his care or how he's going to pay for it. He had insurance while working here, but having to fight insurance bureaucracy every step of his diagnosis was terrible.

So? How does this disapprove of my point?

You're using rhetoric. I can too. I have a family member who died much younger than 30 years old, and the family went nearly broke paying for his health. He was insured too. He was clean cut and very spartan in his lifestyle. Unless he was shot full of morphine, he was in constant pain until the day he died.

This doesn't change the fact, you can't legislate math away from a zero sum game.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Personally? I need some kind of insurance. I cannot afford to get it myself and I make too much to qualify for what little bit of help my state offers. I have had a leg injury for over a year that causes me more pain than I can fully put into words. I have walked with a limp for over a year and am in need of a surgery to restore my leg to how it should be. I could not get my leg fixed now due to a pre-existing condition. I'd be ****ed. I personally have high hopes for Obamacare. Even if it's not the reform we need, it sure beats none at all.