IRS chief says he'd rather not switch to ObamaCare plan

And out of context, the spinners have fun. But what does his statement mean? It means he plans to stick with the employer provided plan he already has. As will most people, as is, in fact, the intention. Nobody has to change their plan, but there are more options now for those who do.

Many Companies will dump those plans and people who wanted to keep them will have no choice but to be subjected to the exchanges.

Powerful people being uncomfortable and/or afraid gets me hard.

Where's the downside?

The whole health care debate is pathetic. A by-product of our for-profit commercial insurance industry whose sole concern is making money, not making sure their members receive ALL the medical care they need to have a decent quality of life.

Until we as society move beyond the idea that an individual's right to life, and the medical care needed to preserve that life, is a function of their economic status, we will continue to be a second rate civilization. The homeless guy sleeping on a park bench deserves the same quality of health care the CEO of a fortune 500 company gets.

Dave Camp's bill is ludicrous, as is the regular whining that Congress is "exempt" from the exchanges. It's a little like demanding that Congress and all federal employees accept food stamps. But the logic-impaired seem to think that if you favor there being an option for people who have no other way to get health insurance, you yourself should have to choose that exact option.

Personally, I'm looking forward to being able to buy health insurance on the state exchanges. But if I were still on an employer-sponsored plan, I'd probably prefer to stay on that, because why go to the bother of switching if there's no need to?

Is there any country that does that, where rich people don't pay for better insurance and healthcare than what the public option provides?

Probably not, but I'm talking a radical shift in worldview.

It's always been kinda strange to me that most folks here bitch and scream hysterically at the mention of "socialism," yet we all came from a Star Trek bulletin board and most of us are Trek fans. Is there any vision of the future more "socialistic" than Trek, including "socialized" medicine?

Exactly.

It's fantasy. Escapism. You actually think 'racism is bad, we've evolved, we don't do it anymore' is real? For a while there was no such thing as money, till that was revealed to be so obviously as farfetched as many other premises were (cruising at warp 9 is destroying fabric of space) and thus just written away as if never uttered.

Nice to dream about how the world ought to be, but don't make RL decisions based on pigtails and moonpies.

Strange? Really?
You need to get more cynical about your fellow man.

Most of them are pig-ignorant, greedy, selfish, dumb creatures, and very easy to brainwash.

Some of this some of this , and they're owned.

Shit, even Trek was kinda cynical about it sometimes, look at all those doomed alternate Earths they ran into.

The guy has super sweet government employee health insurance, of course he doesn't want to give it up. This isn't much of a condemnation.

No, not really. A program that's there in case someone needs it to keep from starving to death isn't the same as a tax for being alive. And yes, that's what ACA was upheld as in the Supreme Court. A lot of people are going to be forced off of their current plans, or people like me are going to have to pay for an expense we had elected to do without, one way or another.

Then fuck off with that pie-in-the-sky shit.

I'm not up on all the details of Obamacare, so let me know if I got this right:

• ObamaCare allows people to choose between various plans.
• There is a Republican proposal on the table to remove that choice.
• The IRS head has said he would prefer to keep the choice, as Obamacare intends to.

So when Fox' headline says

"IRS chief says he'd rather not switch to ObamaCare plan"

what they actually are trying to say is

"IRS chief says he'd rather not switch from ObamaCare to a different plan"

... that can't be right, can it?

Obamacare is well intended. Yet the battle between idealism and practicality is the real issue. And this soundbite -

Shouldn't be disregarded.

No it isn't, and Obamacare is far from idealistic, being a compromise on a compromise on a compromise.

Here's the thing, universal healthcare is a great concept. Something most everybody would agree with, yet the problem lies in introducing said ideal into the real world.

I love the idea of free healthcare for everyone but as yet we can't even provide a free lunch.

except the "real world" has been making UHC work at least as well if not better than the system the US has for the last 60+years.

You act like I'm against the idea. I am not. I like the idea of free healthcare. My issue is the real world application of the concept. If you have a solution please share it. As of now Obamacare just isn't a goodness. Not a donkey punch, it just isn't a worthwhile solution, if any solution at all.

Again, why should he? The intention is not for people with good employer funded health care to make any change. This discussion is only so much nonsense.

[edit to add]
I would hope you do understand the difference between the words free and universal. These political discussions you claim to abhor are tough enough with ignorant masses. Intentional obfuscation is rather dishonest.

Star Trek isn't real.

Even if they don't dump them, the cost of insurance that can't exclude preexisting condtions or "children" under 25 may make it expensive enough to place it out of a lot of peoples' reach. Fixing something that wasn't broken for them, forcing them into a government program they never wanted.

Even the most ardent UHC cheerleader will, reluctantly and under duress, admit that while the total cost for everyone collectively might go down, the cost for me as an individual wage-earner above the poverty line might go up, and still instist that I should accept the extra expense out of compassion for my fellow citizens.

Maybe you should, you know, pay your fare share Albert.

Fare share? Are we air-lifting the uninsured?

Yes -- why let an understanding of the actual facts get in the way of a good soundbite?

Fair enough, would you mind pointing out the non-factual bit of what you quoted?

Pretty much this. It would be great if technology came about that could replicate all the food and water the world needs to end world hunger. Of course the show never answered whether or not that tech was created by the public or private sector. I also have a hard time believing that people would work in restaurants for long hours like Sisko's father did without pay. Or that officers would think it a good idea to bring their families on board a ship that faces the possibility of being shot out of space?

I've never gotten the mindset of lefties who watched that show and thought that only only people like them could enjoy it. It's just a T.V Show. It's entertainment. Nothing more.

Since you're so fond of being deliberately obtuse, I'll explain in detail.

The quote -- that the head of the IRS doesn't want to switch insurance providers -- is presumably accurate. But it is also completely immaterial, and anyone who acts like it has great significance is either ignorant or misunderstanding deliberately in the service of their agenda.

Here's an analogy:

In many states, the public university system was predated by a number of private colleges. But at some point, the various legislatures decided it would be a good idea to establish public universities. As a result, we now have lots of public options for people who otherwise couldn't afford to attend a private college -- just as the state-level exchanges are intended to make insurance available to people who otherwise have no practical way of getting it.

Now imagine that a bunch of legislators who opposed creating public universities decided to throw a massive temper tantrum. Among other things, imagine that they proposed a law saying that all state employees must send their children to public universities.

Then imagine that a state employee said "No, I want to have a choice, just like everybody else does." Whereupon a bunch of ignorant commentators would leap on his words and say "Aha! This proves that public universities are bad!"

It's illogical and nonsensical, and acceptance of the argument hinges on either ignorance or deliberate deceit.

No he doesn't.

He deserves emergency care. And that is what he gets anyway.

At a price that guarantees he'll be living on the streets forever.