The unofficial Obamacare thread...

[gourimoko]

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

Why does this keep getting quoted? I talked about this exact quote a few pages back. It's not Benjamin Franklin, it's a rebuttal to the very concept of democracy by a Scottish Lord during the American Revolutionary period, and it's a bastardization of the original quote at that. The intent was to demonstrate that the Framers were wrong to advocate any form of suffrage as this would lead to such a self-serving government that would collapse under it's own weight.

To post this on it's own merit suggests that you think democracy itself invariably leads to a failed state and what is tantamount to slavery.

Again, I'm not saying this to defend Obamacare (as you well know I'm opposed to it), but people really should research these quotes and their origins and what they actually mean.

 

[gourimoko]

Perhaps, this broad should have fucking did some research before mindlessly supporting all things Obama.

Fixed

Who's freeloading?

 

[Maximus]

Why does this keep getting quoted? I talked about this exact quote a few pages back.

I look at how voters are voting today and i think some of that quote fits. As each year passes I'm seeing more and more complacency, apathy and dependence. I hope bondage isn't next, but if the system collapses, it's going to crash hard...anything is possible then.

It's not Benjamin Franklin, it's a rebuttal to the very concept of democracy by a Scottish Lord during the American Revolutionary period, and it's a bastardization of the original quote at that. The intent was to demonstrate that the Framers were wrong to advocate any form of suffrage as this would lead to such a self-serving government that would collapse under it's own weight.

Again, I'm not saying this to defend Obamacare (as you well know I'm opposed to it), but people really should research these quotes and their origins and what they actually mean.

I never said it was Ben Franklin, i also don't think it's ever been proven 100% to be Tytler...it's been misattributed to a half dozen people. I don't really care who said it. I'm just afraid whoever said it may be onto something.

 

[gourimoko]

I look at how voters are voting today and i think some of that quote fits. As each year passes I'm seeing more and more complacency, apathy and dependence. I hope bondage isn't next, but if the system collapses, it's going to crash hard...anything is possible then.

Just so we're clear, you are really arguing for less democracy?

 

[Maximus]

Just so we're clear, you are really arguing for less democracy?

Just so i'm clear, i wasn't arguing for anything...except for maybe smarter voters.

As Richard Milhous Nixon once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

 

[gourimoko]

Just so i'm clear, i wasn't arguing for anything...except for maybe smarter voters.

I don't get the post then, I mean why post the quote and then back it up with rhetoric suggesting a fall of civilization may be imminent? It seems your trying to play both sides, and I genuinely question if you really value democracy. You want "smarter" voters, but what does that really mean?

For instance, I think you're a smart man, because we've had this back and forth going on 6 years now; but are you a smart voter, or even an issues voter? Think about it. I just think that 9 out 10 pollsters would classify you as a traditional red voter (i.e., unreachable), just as there are millions of traditional blue voters. On both sides there are people who will, due to nothing more than intransigence and ideology, fight ideas and that might challenge their preconceived worldview.

I think, given your choices of literature, daily reading habits, your predictable positions which tend to always follow the traditional conservative party line (not necessarily the neoconservative globalist line), and your manner of debate (meaning, you'd rather agree to disagree than to change your mind) that you are seemingly a traditional conservative voter. And that's not an attack, I mean, we could say the same for quite a few liberal posters here too. A lot could be said about me, especially around election time.. :chuckles:

But does that make for a "smart" voter??

Smart to me means someone who can use problem solving, intellectual discourse, logic, and critical reasoning to find solutions to the issues of the day; rather than reverting to ideology. I'm not deriding persons who have ethical principles here, just to be clear, but people who use arguments born entirely out of a concept or an ideal rather than practical and logical solutions.

Both party platforms are largely based on nothing more than ideological principles rather than smart, common sense, and reasonable compromises that the public at large could accept.

But lets talk about the Republican platform for a second. Their positions on marriage equality, equal pay for equal work, voter rights, discriminatory practices, abortion, foreign policy, military spending, taxation, the value of the USD, the role of the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, globalization, climate change, and the banking system in general -- all of these positions, literally all, the Republicans do not have even close to a majority view among the population. The platform is contentious even among the registered party members. Most Republicans want banking reforms, they want a strong dollar, they want to bolster Medicare and Social Security, they want a progressive tax system (although not to the same extent as Democrats), they want cuts to defense spending, and they (more so than Democrats) advocate a far more isolationist foreign policy than Republican leadership.

Now obviously most Republicans are pro-life, anti-gay, pro-Voter ID, and hate the planet; but most Republicans are also religious, heterosexual, White, and are generally misinformed. (partially kidding). So I'll leave those issues where they are.

The point being is that I don't think someone can call themselves a "smart" voter and still vote for a party that doesn't really represent their interests. Now, if the Republicans represent your interests, then you are a smart voter, but I think if we had more smart voters - voters who voted based on their personal beliefs, perceptions, and their understanding of the issues, without any party identification; I think you'd see the end to American conservatism.

As Richard Milhous Nixon once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

ha.ha. ..I see what you did there..

 

[gourimoko]

Signing up for Obamacare today.. Just got off the phone with my state exchange. A foreign woman told me she was on her way to lunch, and she seemed totally clueless. She then told me that "the procedure" was to have everyone apply for Medicaid even if they clearly stated they make too much. I told her I wasn't interested in signing up for Medicaid, and she went on to lightweight yell at me saying "But it's the procedure, you can get free insurance!" I'm like "No I can't, I make too much and I'm not looking to signup to any welfare programs." She's like, so you're not interested in the subsidy? I tell her, "Aren't I already getting a subsidized rate?? My individual rate, for just myself, is only $135/mo how is that not subsidized?" She's like "that's unsubsidized." I say "well, whatever, I don't mind paying that, it's a fair price." She's like "Okay, well, I'm going to lunch, someone will call you back. Is that okay, sir?"

Unreal.. So I'm waiting for a call-back..

As far as the website is concerned, as a Hawaii resident, I'm using the local exchange's website. At first everything was cool, seemed super fast, and there's surprisingly no questions about income - but there's also no questions about my household. So.. obviously since I want to cover my wife, I need to add her to my household. But... there's no option to do so on the site. Seriously, there's no option to cover anyone other than yourself..... Like, wtf??

So, hence the call-in.. and again, I'm waiting for the call back..

All I can say is this, the rates are fucking great, and way cheaper than my previous employer insurance. Also the ability to pick what insurance I want, and easily compare all of these plans, and have all these options is unreal. Really really digging this... But the customer service, omfg, it's terrible..

 

[Maximus]

39 DEMOCRATS BREAK WITH OBAMA TO PASS UPTON 'FIX'

On Friday, the House of Representatives approved legislation sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) that would allow insurers to continue to offer policies on the individual market. The vote was 261-157. Thirty-nine Democrats voted for the Upton Amendment, which is an indication the Democrat united front on Obamacare is cracking.

ObamaCare largely eliminates the individual market and forces those policy holders into the health exchanges. On Thursday, Obama proposed extending the individual market for one year. The Upton bill would not only let existing policies continue, but insurers could sell individual policies to new customers. The White House has vowed to veto Upton's bill if it reaches the President's desk.
Since the launch of the ObamaCare website, millions of Americans have received notices that their policies were being cancelled. ObamaCare passed largely on the reassurances that "if you like your policy, you can keep it." The policy cancellations show that claim to be false.
In reality, ObamaCare wouldn't work if that claim were true. Because of the increase in benefits and the requirement to underwrite insurance for sick people, the exchanges need millions of relatively healthy workers to subsidize these higher costs. Forcing Americans with individual policies into the exchanges is the only way for ObamaCare to be viable.
The Upton bill now goes to the Senate. Sen. Mary Landrieu is sponsoring legislation that is similar to Rep. Upton's, except that it would require insurance companies to continue offering the individual plans. Upton's bill would allow them to offer the plans, but not require them to do so.

 

[Cratylus]

Yes I am glad you asked.

How about the context being 18th century post-Revolutionary War Britain?
Or better yet, how about actually quoting the person accurately? Ben Franklin never said what you stated, not once, and I challenge you to find any citation that he did.

Of course I do, I am rather well-versed on the American revolutionary era and have referenced it countless times in these political threads.

But to answer your question, the context would be the debate over how much power should extend to the population at large. If a democracy, in itself, were even sustainable, and if the people's right for self-determination was a danger to private property rights. Obviously, today, most Americans would argue for greater rights of self-determination, and a reduction in the use of republicanism.

To that end, the quote you are referencing, which is often inaccurately attributed to Benjamin Franklin, is actually a paraphrased and gross bastardization of quote first written in a letter penned by Alexander Tytler, a Scottish aristocrat and Lord; he was preparing a formal argument regarding the dangers of democracy.

His views were just wild suppositions, especially considering the context in which they were made, there was no reference point or historical validation for his claims as there had been no large functioning democratic state in Europe at this time. He was making the statement that democracy itself is only a temporary state as it is an unsustainable period in which society will destroy itself.

Why does this keep getting quoted? I talked about this exact quote a few pages back. It's not Benjamin Franklin, it's a rebuttal to the very concept of democracy by a Scottish Lord during the American Revolutionary period, and it's a bastardization of the original quote at that. The intent was to demonstrate that the Framers were wrong to advocate any form of suffrage as this would lead to such a self-serving government that would collapse under it's own weight.

In the interest of accuracy, Gourimoko is correct that the "A democracy cannot exist..." quotation was not said or penned by Benjamin Franklin. However, Gourimoko is incorrect in that it's not even an approximate bastardization of an Alexander Tytler quotation.

Tytler was cynical of both the Athenian and Roman incarnations of democracy, stating that while they began with virtuous intentions they inevitably declined as a result of unavoidable corruption. It is this belief of Tytler, no doubt, that caused the initial attribution error that the quotation was from Tytler. That attribution error is found in a Dec. 9, 1951 op ed piece by Elmer T. Peterson in the Daily Oklahoman entitled "This is the Hard Core of Freedom". In that piece, Peterson incorrectly attributes the "quotation" to Tytler. The problem is this is the first time this "quotation" appeared in print by anyone. It does not appear in any of Tytler's written works or speeches or the written works or speeches by ANYONE. It was a fabrication by Peterson.

The second portion of the "quotation" (i.e., the sequence from bondage through various steps ultimately back to bondage) comes from a 1943 speech entitled "Industrial Management in a Republic" given by H.W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Co., before a meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers.

All that notwithstanding, I do think the "quotation" has merit in that if one examines the history of the world's democracies the progression from bondage to freedom and so forth back to bondage seems to be the rule. That is not to say that current democracies will meet with the same fate as those of the past; however, it does serve as a warning to those who currently enjoy the freedom and prosperity that come with a democratic form of government to be vigilant and to guard against complacency, apathy, entitlement, and dependence.

 

[Cratylus]

The point being is that I don't think someone can call themselves a "smart" voter and still vote for a party that doesn't really represent their interests.

I might argue that no political party truly and completely represents the interests of anyone. Unless one is a mindless sycophant and myrmidon, there will always be positions that a party takes that will be contrary to one's own personal convictions. I personally have yet to find a political party that legitimately and unswervingly represents my personal interests and political opinions. If a "smart voter" is one who votes for a party that represents his own interests, then the only "smart voter" is one who either doesn't vote at all or who votes "none of the above".

 

[gourimoko]

In the interest of accuracy, Gourimoko is correct that the "A democracy cannot exist..." quotation was not said or penned by Benjamin Franklin. However, Gourimoko is incorrect in that it's not even an approximate bastardization of an Alexander Tytler quotation.

I think the term 'bastardization' implies that there is no accurate source, and that the quote is attributed, most likely in error, to a person who never actually said these specific words. I think I stated this several times. Rather than saying "Gourimoko is incorrect" which, I don't particularly care for, why not say, to add to Gourimoko's point...?

:chuckles:

Tytler was cynical of both the Athenian and Roman incarnations of democracy, stating that while they began with virtuous intentions they inevitably declined as a result of unavoidable corruption. It is this belief of Tytler, no doubt, that caused the initial attribution error that the quotation was from Tytler. That attribution error is found in a Dec. 9, 1951 op ed piece by Elmer T. Peterson in the Daily Oklahoman entitled "This is the Hard Core of Freedom". In that piece, Peterson incorrectly attributes the "quotation" to Tytler. The problem is this is the first time this "quotation" appeared in print by anyone. It does not appear in any of Tytler's written works or speeches or the written works or speeches by ANYONE. It was a fabrication by Peterson.

The second portion of the "quotation" (i.e., the sequence from bondage through various steps ultimately back to bondage) comes from a 1943 speech entitled "Industrial Management in a Republic" given by H.W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Co., before a meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers.

Indeed.. this is quite well known, so much so in fact that it is actually on Alexander Tytler's wikipedia page:

There is no reliable record of Alexander Tytler's having made the statement.[12] In fact, this passage actually comprises two quotations, which didn't begin to appear together until the 1970s. The first portion (italicized above) first appeared on December 9, 1951,[13] as part of what appears to be an op-ed piece in The Daily Oklahoman under the byline Elmer T. Peterson.[14] The original version from

Peterson's op-ed is as follows:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

The list beginning "From bondage to spiritual faith" is commonly known as the "Tytler Cycle" or the "Fatal Sequence". Its first known appearance is in a 1943 speech "Industrial Management in a Republic"[15] by H. W. Prentis, president of the Armstrong Cork Company and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and appears to be original to him.

All that notwithstanding, I do think the "quotation" has merit in that if one examines the history of the world's democracies the progression from bondage to freedom and so forth back to bondage seems to be the rule.

I wouldn't agree with this. The Western democracies of the modern era have been the most stable governments of the last millennium.

That is not to say that current democracies will meet with the same fate as those of the past; however, it does serve as a warning to those who currently enjoy the freedom and prosperity that come with a democratic form of government to be vigilant and to guard against complacency, apathy, entitlement, and dependence.

Agreed, but if we also agree that democracy is a product of suffrage, a natural right of man for self-determination, then arguing the virtues of democracy becomes pointless as there are no equally ethical alternatives. Therefore, to me, the quote has no merit as it isn't applicable to modern times, and argues against democracy on the basis of supposition.

 

[KI4MVP]

Just so i'm clear, i wasn't arguing for anything...except for maybe smarter voters.

As Richard Milhous Nixon once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

I sure hope you named the wrong president on purpose and really didn't confused Nixon with JFK.

 

[KI4MVP]

Signing up for Obamacare today.. Just got off the phone with my state exchange. A foreign woman told me she was on her way to lunch, and she seemed totally clueless. She then told me that "the procedure" was to have everyone apply for Medicaid even if they clearly stated they make too much. I told her I wasn't interested in signing up for Medicaid, and she went on to lightweight yell at me saying "But it's the procedure, you can get free insurance!" I'm like "No I can't, I make too much and I'm not looking to signup to any welfare programs." She's like, so you're not interested in the subsidy? I tell her, "Aren't I already getting a subsidized rate?? My individual rate, for just myself, is only $135/mo how is that not subsidized?" She's like "that's unsubsidized." I say "well, whatever, I don't mind paying that, it's a fair price." She's like "Okay, well, I'm going to lunch, someone will call you back. Is that okay, sir?"

Unreal.. So I'm waiting for a call-back..

As far as the website is concerned, as a Hawaii resident, I'm using the local exchange's website. At first everything was cool, seemed super fast, and there's surprisingly no questions about income - but there's also no questions about my household. So.. obviously since I want to cover my wife, I need to add her to my household. But... there's no option to do so on the site. Seriously, there's no option to cover anyone other than yourself..... Like, wtf??

So, hence the call-in.. and again, I'm waiting for the call back..

All I can say is this, the rates are fucking great, and way cheaper than my previous employer insurance. Also the ability to pick what insurance I want, and easily compare all of these plans, and have all these options is unreal. Really really digging this... But the customer service, omfg, it's terrible..

I've been trying to get that far since Oct 1st on healthcare.gov in ohio. I have been stuck at "verifying" identity since Oct 7th. The only thing that has improved in all of that time is I can log in right away now. I have contacted the online help multiple times, I get a person fairly quickly, they haven't been able to answer a single question. I've had someone call me twice, they provided no information at all too. I hear 100k people have signed up, I have no idea how.

 

[gourimoko]

I've been trying to get that far since Oct 1st on healthcare.gov in ohio. I have been stuck at "verifying" identity since Oct 7th. The only thing that has improved in all of that time is I can log in right away now. I have contacted the online help multiple times, I get a person fairly quickly, they haven't been able to answer a single question. I've had someone call me twice, they provided no information at all too. I hear 100k people have signed up, I have no idea how.

I dunno.. Healthcare.gov won't take my application, it immediately (as soon as I enter my state) sends me to Hawaii's ConnectHealth page, which works kinda okay.. Applying was fast, and I instantly got insurance.. I paid for my policy last night with HMSA for health, dental and vision. Total cost to get a plan for me and my wife, and some really good dental (100% basic, 80% major): $340.00/mo... Can't beat it, no fucking way, no fucking how.

But.. I will say that customer service was AWFUL... Like terrible.. They did eventually call back and add my wife to my application, but it took 3 people, and finally they got a local Hawaiian girl on the phone who I could understand and then and only then could we get the issue resolved. After that, buying insurance was totally painless..

Really, the big thing for me was even being able to GET insurance as a small business owner. Before Obamacare, I would've paid double what I'm paying, easily.

 

[gourimoko]

KI, I also noticed you said your "identity" was still being verified.. I find that really weird. The local site has multiple verification steps that you can check, but almost all of them passed literally instantly, and only one said "Skipped."

My name, SSN, and "identity" where all instantly verified. Even my address, oddly, and I've lived at this address for less than a year.

There isn't a state exchange website in Ohio I take it?