Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Arizona's Governor on ObamaCare: This violates the tenth amendment. We shall fight this. Arizona's Governor on Medical Marijuana: This violates Federal law. Who are we to question them?   (bloomberg.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic, Arizona, medical cannabis, United States Department of Justice, dispensary  
•       •       •

2091 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jan 2012 at 9:52 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-01-08 01:00:04 PM  

balloot: Let's get a little more concrete. I am 30 years old. I take no medications, haven't been to the hospital in 6 years, and I go to the doctor very infrequently. I just applied for individual health insurance and was denied because I hit my temple in a freak accident 2 years ago and ended up diagnosed with a minor concussion. I have tried to appeal this but there is no process to do so. If I apply for any other insurance I have to check a box that says "I was denied for coverage" which basically screws me from the get go.

What would you suggest for someone like me? Because right now the solution is to count down the days until January 1, 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to sell me insurance. Again, as an actual person who is having problems with insurance I am THRILLED that I will eventually be forced to buy it.

I would like to hear your solution for my problem, other than "don't ever hit your head".


If he's anything like Ron Paul, his solution is to make you beg charities to pay for your health care.
 
2012-01-08 01:09:23 PM  

balloot:

Again, your solution is to ramble a bit and then do nothing. I don't see you proposing any actual changes to anything.

Let's get a little more concrete. I am 30 years old. I take no medications, haven't been to the hospital in 6 years, and I go to the doctor very infrequently. I just applied for individual health insurance and was denied because I hit my temple in a freak accident 2 years ago and ended up diagnosed with a minor concussion. I have tried to appeal this but there is no process to do so. If I apply for any other insurance I have to check a box that says "I was denied for coverage" which basically screws me from the get go.

What would you suggest for someone like me? Because right now the solution is to count down the days until January 1, 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to sell me insurance. Again, as an actual person who is having problems with insurance I am THRILLED that I will eventually be forced to buy it.

I would like to hear your solution for my problem, other than "don't ever hit your head".


I don't have an answer for you. I was in a very serious car accident 8 years ago (not my fault, but I still had medical expenses) - and I have yet to be denied coverage. However, sounds like you're self-employed - whereas I have always worked for someone else - and have never been told I could not have H/C coverage from my employer.
 
2012-01-08 01:12:20 PM  

1morerun: Where do you feel the restraints are on a personal mandate such as this? Does it apply to this and nothing else ever? That's not how courts work, this gives precedence, precedence leads to imitation, abuse, etc. Yes I'm concerned. Show me how if this passes there would still be restraints on new mandates. from a judicial standpoint.


You can't just ride the slippery slope all the way down without even attempting to reach for the roots and ropes (the specific facts and arguments) that would stop you.

Let's take your example: requirement to have health insurance may lead to the government prohibiting you from banging your wife for pleasure. Quite a gap there; what bridge did you take?

Oh, that's right. You claim that a governmental mandate against non-procreational sex is "just as good" for the people as the health insurance mandate.

Please explain what leads you to say that this practice "benefits the human race as much" as the AHCA.
 
2012-01-08 01:13:01 PM  

Yeah_Right: One of the arguments for making everyone 'buy' H/C insurance is that everyone has a 'body' - therefore, everyone should be forced to cover the possibility that your body will need medical services. Well, to that point, everyone needs food - and clothing. What's to stop the Feds from 'mandating' those purchases?


If you don't buy clothes you'll eventually end up naked and fined for it.

If you don't buy food you'll starve so you'll end up in the ER, in custody as a danger to yourself, or dead (and un-finable)

It is possible to get free food and free clothes, but I'll bet damn few people who do will be paying fines for not having health insurance. I'd bet that most people who get free food and clothing will be damn happy that the government is going to help subsidize health care.

If a person has some sort of principled objection to buying insurance then he should help to pay for his inevitable visit to the ER. The fine is likely to be less expensive than insurance would have been.
 
2012-01-08 01:13:35 PM  

Serious Black:
While the mandate does not change this, remember that in most cases, health insurance was already a mandate for many employers over a certain size. At lease I recall it is, if not correct me.

Incorrect. The employer mandate included in ObamaCares was the first of its kind for the federal government. Hawaii, Washington, California, Oregon, and Massachusetts all have had state-level employer mandates at various times in the last thirty years; I believe Hawaii, California, and Massachusetts are the only ones that still have them as active laws.


That is probably what I was thinking of then, state mandates.

So far as federal goes, (shrug).

I understand what the goal is with ObamaCare. It is not a bad goal, (except for any of politically-inevitable graft to corporations it includes), but the method will just end up raising costs and lowering access and choice for the average person.

A general rule I have seen written about, and observed, is that whenever the consumer of a good or service does not also pay for it directly, they want the best and most expensive solution. Beggars become choosers. Look at almost any government program for examples.

Also, when those that provide the good or service have to answer to someone other than the consumer, the market forces that cause costs to go down, and availability and variety to go up, disappear. Think the phone company before deregulation and cell phones.

A more enlightened way to do this would have been to still create a mandate, BUT require every employer of any size to provide the minimum plan, and also allow employees to opt out and receive the full value of the cost of the plan in their paychecks, provided they bought their own private plan. (Right now I could do that, but I would only receive $500 back, not the thousands it actually costs. Is that fair?)

That way, there would be incentive for employees to find a better and less expensive plan that met their needs better. They could pocket the difference. Market rules come into play and increase efficiencies, widen choice and availability and drive down costs. The insurers now need to answer to the patients that hold the policies, not the employers looking to get off cheap.

Plus, you could keep that same policy as you move from job to job, rather than being at the mercy of your company HR choices each year, or the politicians choices each election cycle for that matter.

Once the insurers have to answer to the patients and not the employers, you will see a massive shift in attitude. As an analogy, I can tell you I get a hell of a lot better service and coverage from my homeowners and auto insurance than I do from my health insurance. the difference being I can walk away and go elsewhere if I am dissatisfied with my homeowners or auto. I can't really do that with my health insurer, as that is determined by my employers needs, not mine.
 
2012-01-08 01:15:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.

Yeah, count my state (Missouri) as part of that.

I mean we're slashing education budget and cutting programs for the eldery...but apparantly we have money to piss on this dick-waving contest that will probably produce no end result.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...no matter how terrible of a job Congress is doing...my state Legislature is doing much worse.


I'm from Arizona and today we celebrate the anniversary of one of out members of Congress getting gunned down (Congressional approval rate was 14% at the the time and she's been spending the last year at her actual home in Texas recovering thanks to her Congressional Health Plan, but all that's another story).

I'm not saying I'd gun down state or federal legislators --- but I understand.
 
2012-01-08 01:17:55 PM  

Yeah_Right: balloot:

Again, your solution is to ramble a bit and then do nothing. I don't see you proposing any actual changes to anything.

Let's get a little more concrete. I am 30 years old. I take no medications, haven't been to the hospital in 6 years, and I go to the doctor very infrequently. I just applied for individual health insurance and was denied because I hit my temple in a freak accident 2 years ago and ended up diagnosed with a minor concussion. I have tried to appeal this but there is no process to do so. If I apply for any other insurance I have to check a box that says "I was denied for coverage" which basically screws me from the get go.

What would you suggest for someone like me? Because right now the solution is to count down the days until January 1, 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to sell me insurance. Again, as an actual person who is having problems with insurance I am THRILLED that I will eventually be forced to buy it.

I would like to hear your solution for my problem, other than "don't ever hit your head".

I don't have an answer for you. I was in a very serious car accident 8 years ago (not my fault, but I still had medical expenses) - and I have yet to be denied coverage. However, sounds like you're self-employed - whereas I have always worked for someone else - and have never been told I could not have H/C coverage from my employer.


That's because federal law says an employer who offers health insurance for its employees is not allowed to discriminate against employees systematically. You can thank ERISA for that.

/not much else to thank ERISA for
 
2012-01-08 01:21:54 PM  

Serious Black: Yeah_Right: balloot:

Again, your solution is to ramble a bit and then do nothing. I don't see you proposing any actual changes to anything.

Let's get a little more concrete. I am 30 years old. I take no medications, haven't been to the hospital in 6 years, and I go to the doctor very infrequently. I just applied for individual health insurance and was denied because I hit my temple in a freak accident 2 years ago and ended up diagnosed with a minor concussion. I have tried to appeal this but there is no process to do so. If I apply for any other insurance I have to check a box that says "I was denied for coverage" which basically screws me from the get go.

What would you suggest for someone like me? Because right now the solution is to count down the days until January 1, 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to sell me insurance. Again, as an actual person who is having problems with insurance I am THRILLED that I will eventually be forced to buy it.

I would like to hear your solution for my problem, other than "don't ever hit your head".

I don't have an answer for you. I was in a very serious car accident 8 years ago (not my fault, but I still had medical expenses) - and I have yet to be denied coverage. However, sounds like you're self-employed - whereas I have always worked for someone else - and have never been told I could not have H/C coverage from my employer.

That's because federal law says an employer who offers health insurance for its employees is not allowed to discriminate against employees systematically. You can thank ERISA for that.

/not much else to thank ERISA for


Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.
 
2012-01-08 01:26:28 PM  

Yeah_Right: balloot:

Again, your solution is to ramble a bit and then do nothing. I don't see you proposing any actual changes to anything.

Let's get a little more concrete. I am 30 years old. I take no medications, haven't been to the hospital in 6 years, and I go to the doctor very infrequently. I just applied for individual health insurance and was denied because I hit my temple in a freak accident 2 years ago and ended up diagnosed with a minor concussion. I have tried to appeal this but there is no process to do so. If I apply for any other insurance I have to check a box that says "I was denied for coverage" which basically screws me from the get go.

What would you suggest for someone like me? Because right now the solution is to count down the days until January 1, 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to sell me insurance. Again, as an actual person who is having problems with insurance I am THRILLED that I will eventually be forced to buy it.

I would like to hear your solution for my problem, other than "don't ever hit your head".

I don't have an answer for you. I was in a very serious car accident 8 years ago (not my fault, but I still had medical expenses) - and I have yet to be denied coverage. However, sounds like you're self-employed - whereas I have always worked for someone else - and have never been told I could not have H/C coverage from my employer.


--------------

OK. So you don't have an answer for me. Obama's plan does.

You basically have chosen the philosophy that has the cheapest and easiest answer for your exact situation. As for other people, who cares? The government doesn't have that luxury, and it has to come up with something that best helps people across the board.


PS. the reason you've never been denied is because employer group insurance doesn't turn people down. With a big enough group the risk is pooled sufficiently. But given all I've learned in the last few weeks I highly doubt you would be able to self-insure at any point in your life until the ACA takes hold.
 
2012-01-08 01:27:34 PM  

tomWright: A more enlightened way to do this would have been to still create a mandate, BUT require every employer of any size to provide the minimum plan, and also allow employees to opt out and receive the full value of the cost of the plan in their paychecks, provided they bought their own private plan. (Right now I could do that, but I would only receive $500 back, not the thousands it actually costs. Is that fair?)

That way, there would be incentive for employees to find a better and less expensive plan that met their needs better. They could pocket the difference. Market rules come into play and increase efficiencies, widen choice and availability and drive down costs. The insurers now need to answer to the patients that hold the policies, not the employers looking to get off cheap.

Plus, you could keep that same policy as you move from job to job, rather than being at the mercy of your company HR choices each year, or the politicians choices each election cycle for that matter.


That was what Ron Wyden's Free Choice Amendment would have done; it was in the original version of the Senate bill that was passed on Christmas Eve, but it got watered down tremendously and is only available to people who make under 400% FPL and whose insurance costs more than 8% of income. His original version, which would allow employees at businesses of 100+ employees to take the cash value and buy on the open market no matter what, is in the Ryan-Wyden Medicare reform proposal.
 
2012-01-08 01:29:51 PM  

Yeah_Right: Serious Black: Yeah_Right: balloot:

Again, your solution is to ramble a bit and then do nothing. I don't see you proposing any actual changes to anything.

Let's get a little more concrete. I am 30 years old. I take no medications, haven't been to the hospital in 6 years, and I go to the doctor very infrequently. I just applied for individual health insurance and was denied because I hit my temple in a freak accident 2 years ago and ended up diagnosed with a minor concussion. I have tried to appeal this but there is no process to do so. If I apply for any other insurance I have to check a box that says "I was denied for coverage" which basically screws me from the get go.

What would you suggest for someone like me? Because right now the solution is to count down the days until January 1, 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to sell me insurance. Again, as an actual person who is having problems with insurance I am THRILLED that I will eventually be forced to buy it.

I would like to hear your solution for my problem, other than "don't ever hit your head".

I don't have an answer for you. I was in a very serious car accident 8 years ago (not my fault, but I still had medical expenses) - and I have yet to be denied coverage. However, sounds like you're self-employed - whereas I have always worked for someone else - and have never been told I could not have H/C coverage from my employer.

That's because federal law says an employer who offers health insurance for its employees is not allowed to discriminate against employees systematically. You can thank ERISA for that.

/not much else to thank ERISA for

Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.


--------------------

So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?
 
2012-01-08 01:37:51 PM  

balloot:

OK. So you don't have an answer for me. Obama's plan does.

You basically have chosen the philosophy that has the cheapest and easiest answer for your exact situation. As for other people, who cares? The government doesn't have that luxury, and it has to come up with something that best helps people across the board.


PS. the reason you've never been denied is because employer group insurance doesn't turn people down. With a big enough group the risk is pooled sufficiently. But given all I've learned in the last few weeks I highly doubt you would be able to self-insure at any point in your life until the ACA takes hold.


As I have already stated, I don't have a problem with a single-payer system (which I think would be the best solution) in theory ... BUT, that system would only work if you had a population that was very conscious of the finite resources that are available. Unfortunately, the public is far too 'me-first' centric for such a system to work.
 
2012-01-08 01:40:59 PM  

balloot: Yeah_Right: Serious Black: Yeah_Right: balloot:

Again, your solution is to ramble a bit and then do nothing. I don't see you proposing any actual changes to anything.

Let's get a little more concrete. I am 30 years old. I take no medications, haven't been to the hospital in 6 years, and I go to the doctor very infrequently. I just applied for individual health insurance and was denied because I hit my temple in a freak accident 2 years ago and ended up diagnosed with a minor concussion. I have tried to appeal this but there is no process to do so. If I apply for any other insurance I have to check a box that says "I was denied for coverage" which basically screws me from the get go.

What would you suggest for someone like me? Because right now the solution is to count down the days until January 1, 2014 when insurance companies will be forced to sell me insurance. Again, as an actual person who is having problems with insurance I am THRILLED that I will eventually be forced to buy it.

I would like to hear your solution for my problem, other than "don't ever hit your head".

I don't have an answer for you. I was in a very serious car accident 8 years ago (not my fault, but I still had medical expenses) - and I have yet to be denied coverage. However, sounds like you're self-employed - whereas I have always worked for someone else - and have never been told I could not have H/C coverage from my employer.

That's because federal law says an employer who offers health insurance for its employees is not allowed to discriminate against employees systematically. You can thank ERISA for that.

/not much else to thank ERISA for

Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.

--------------------

So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?


You asked for a solution ... not 'a solution-that-fits-only-what-I'm-willing-to-do.'
 
2012-01-08 01:43:14 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: 1morerun: Where do you feel the restraints are on a personal mandate such as this? Does it apply to this and nothing else ever? That's not how courts work, this gives precedence, precedence leads to imitation, abuse, etc. Yes I'm concerned. Show me how if this passes there would still be restraints on new mandates. from a judicial standpoint.

You can't just ride the slippery slope all the way down without even attempting to reach for the roots and ropes (the specific facts and arguments) that would stop you.

Let's take your example: requirement to have health insurance may lead to the government prohibiting you from banging your wife for pleasure. Quite a gap there; what bridge did you take?

Oh, that's right. You claim that a governmental mandate against non-procreational sex is "just as good" for the people as the health insurance mandate.

Please explain what leads you to say that this practice "benefits the human race as much" as the AHCA.


That's for the supreme court to decide, not you or me. Defining precedent. And the current non-procreational sex banning proponent is a 2012 GOP hopeful, not me, don't get confused. He's said he want's to make it law. I don't want to allow him an avenue, by precedent. Am I wrong?
 
2012-01-08 01:47:27 PM  

balloot: So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?


I think his answer is fark you, I've got mine.
 
2012-01-08 01:57:40 PM  

Yeah_Right: balloot:

OK. So you don't have an answer for me. Obama's plan does.

You basically have chosen the philosophy that has the cheapest and easiest answer for your exact situation. As for other people, who cares? The government doesn't have that luxury, and it has to come up with something that best helps people across the board.


PS. the reason you've never been denied is because employer group insurance doesn't turn people down. With a big enough group the risk is pooled sufficiently. But given all I've learned in the last few weeks I highly doubt you would be able to self-insure at any point in your life until the ACA takes hold.

As I have already stated, I don't have a problem with a single-payer system (which I think would be the best solution) in theory ... BUT, that system would only work if you had a population that was very conscious of the finite resources that are available. Unfortunately, the public is far too 'me-first' centric for such a system to work.


--------------------

Again, you talk about these things like there aren't all kinds of examples of this "theory" being played out. Here's a chart of top countries in the world plotting out life expectancy vs spending:

upload.wikimedia.org

If you drew a regression line through that chart, the major outlier is the US. ALL of the other countries on the chart that have better life expectancy for cheaper implement health care systems that you claim don't work:

Japan - single payer
Switzerland - individual mandate
Canada - single payer
France - single payer
Germany - individual mandate/single payer hybrid
Sweden - single payer
UK - single payer

ALL of these countries spend less than the US and deliver more. Perhaps you should look around a bit before talking about single payer like it's some theoretical system that's never been tried?
 
2012-01-08 02:01:17 PM  

Serious Black: tomWright: A more enlightened way to do this would have been to still create a mandate, BUT require every employer of any size to provide the minimum plan, and also allow employees to opt out and receive the full value of the cost of the plan in their paychecks, provided they bought their own private plan. (Right now I could do that, but I would only receive $500 back, not the thousands it actually costs. Is that fair?)

That way, there would be incentive for employees to find a better and less expensive plan that met their needs better. They could pocket the difference. Market rules come into play and increase efficiencies, widen choice and availability and drive down costs. The insurers now need to answer to the patients that hold the policies, not the employers looking to get off cheap.

Plus, you could keep that same policy as you move from job to job, rather than being at the mercy of your company HR choices each year, or the politicians choices each election cycle for that matter.

That was what Ron Wyden's Free Choice Amendment would have done; it was in the original version of the Senate bill that was passed on Christmas Eve, but it got watered down tremendously and is only available to people who make under 400% FPL and whose insurance costs more than 8% of income. His original version, which would allow employees at businesses of 100+ employees to take the cash value and buy on the open market no matter what, is in the Ryan-Wyden Medicare reform proposal.


What's FPL?

I guess it did not offer enough graft to the pols, profti for the isurers or control of employees to be passed.

/But to think a politician actually offered something I am thinking...better go get an Alzheimer's test
 
2012-01-08 02:06:08 PM  

Yeah_Right: Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.

--------------------

So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?

You asked for a solution ... not 'a solution-that-fits-only-what-I'm-willing-to-do.'


------------------

OK. Well with all due respect, your solution is farking retarded and is awful for the country. And that is why you have lost the national argument on this issue. Thanks for playing.
 
2012-01-08 02:11:48 PM  

Yeah_Right: However, sounds like you're self-employed - whereas I have always worked for someone else - and have never been told I could not have H/C coverage from my employer.


That would be because your employer buys insurance for ALL of you, which means that your risk factors are spread out across a pool of all of your co-workers.
 
2012-01-08 02:14:34 PM  

Yeah_Right: Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.


You're proving a point I've made here time and again: the only people who think our current system works are those who -like yourself- have no actual contact with it as your employer (or more likely, someone they employ) takes care of all your insurance issues for you.

/You get a completely different perspective when you actually have to deal with the insurance industry yourself.
 
2012-01-08 02:23:42 PM  
I estimate that I've paid Blue Cross/Blue Shield Wellmark about $300k since the 1980's for health insurance. I estimate that they've paid out about $30k in claims (so they've made a nice profit for themselves).

Last year they cancelled my insurance because, and I'm quoting here, my wife had, "had too many operations." The 'too many operations' were an emergency appendectomy and gall bladder surgery.

I can't wait for 'Obamacare' to begin. Nobody in the right mind (or not on the payroll of a health insurance company) would ever defend the current 'for profit' health insurance system.
 
2012-01-08 02:27:56 PM  

balloot: Yeah_Right: Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.

--------------------

So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?

You asked for a solution ... not 'a solution-that-fits-only-what-I'm-willing-to-do.'

------------------

OK. Well with all due respect, your solution is farking retarded and is awful for the country. And that is why you have lost the national argument on this issue. Thanks for playing.


What you mean is ... it's awful for you.

With all due respect,this is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of an American populace that expects instant gratification - and the 'I-should-have-it-my-way-just-because-I want-it-that-way' mentaility. This is why a single-payer system will not work here (in the U.S.) - and why I expect that the current H/C law will fail. Not because it's a bad law ... or even a bad idea. It's because the public - in general - will use/abuse the system to the point where it will become un-workable. Either Doctors/nurses will quit due to over-work and under pay - or the system will collapse due to other resource shortages.
 
2012-01-08 02:41:30 PM  

Yeah_Right: balloot: Yeah_Right: Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.

--------------------

So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?

You asked for a solution ... not 'a solution-that-fits-only-what-I'm-willing-to-do.'

------------------

OK. Well with all due respect, your solution is farking retarded and is awful for the country. And that is why you have lost the national argument on this issue. Thanks for playing.

What you mean is ... it's awful for you.

With all due respect,this is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of an American populace that expects instant gratification - and the 'I-should-have-it-my-way-just-because-I want-it-that-way' mentaility. This is why a single-payer system will not work here (in the U.S.) - and why I expect that the current H/C law will fail. Not because it's a bad law ... or even a bad idea. It's because the public - in general - will use/abuse the system to the point where it will become un-workable. Either Doctors/nurses will quit due to over-work and under pay - or the system will collapse due to other resource shortages.


So you're saying that the American people are so philosophically unique in the world that a system that has worked for numerous other countries has no chance of working here? Any chance you'd want to back up your reasoning for that? Because it seems like kind of an extreme and unfounded generalization based on your own opinions and unfounded in evidence.
 
2012-01-08 02:56:00 PM  

1morerun: That's for the supreme court to decide, not you or me. Defining precedent. And the current non-procreational sex banning proponent is a 2012 GOP hopeful, not me, don't get confused. He's said he want's to make it law. I don't want to allow him an avenue, by precedent. Am I wrong?


Nnnnokay, fine, I'll bite.

You're essentially saying, "Well the Supreme Court can decide whatever the hell they want, so by allowing this mandate they could create a mandate that we pig fark every Tuesday."

Well that's not very silly, is it? I mean you're just alternating a half pig fark step every other judicial Tuesday.

Seriousness aside, the issue with the Affordable Care Act is whether the federal government has the authority to require states to comply with its individual mandate. There are a few bases set forth for this authority, primarily including of course the commerce clause (more plausibly) and the general welfare clause (srsly?).

I don't actually expect the SCOTUS to uphold the individual mandate portion of the act, they can come up with plenty enough legal fictions to make a difference between taxation and this sort of mandate. Same way Scalia tried to distance himself from Lopez in the Raich decision. Ultimately, the issue will probably come down to severability.
 
2012-01-08 03:05:53 PM  

Erix: I speak of an American populace that expects instant gratification - and the 'I-should-have-it-my-way-just-because-I want-it-that-way' mentaility. This is why a single-payer system will not work here (in the U.S.) - and why I expect that the current H/C law will fail. Not because it's a bad law ... or even a bad idea. It's because the public - in general - will use/abuse the system to the point where it will become un-workable. Either Doctors/nurses will quit due to over-work and under pay - or the system will collapse due to other resource shortages.

So you're saying that the American people are so philosophically unique in the world that a system that has worked for numerous other countries has no chance of working here? Any chance you'd want to back up your reasoning for that? Because it seems like kind of an extreme and unfounded generalization based on your own opinions and unfounded in evidence.


No, he's saying that here in 'Merca we are too lazy and shiftless to be honest about a day's work. The US is full of privileged assholes and welfare queens who like Bedazzled jean vests and gay day at Disney.*

*Other Side of Mouth: America is the best place on earth, we have the hardest working people on earth, and anyone who says otherwise can suck my nucleus.
 
2012-01-08 03:18:55 PM  

Erix: Yeah_Right: balloot: Yeah_Right: Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.

--------------------

So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?

You asked for a solution ... not 'a solution-that-fits-only-what-I'm-willing-to-do.'

------------------

OK. Well with all due respect, your solution is farking retarded and is awful for the country. And that is why you have lost the national argument on this issue. Thanks for playing.

What you mean is ... it's awful for you.

With all due respect,this is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of an American populace that expects instant gratification - and the 'I-should-have-it-my-way-just-because-I want-it-that-way' mentaility. This is why a single-payer system will not work here (in the U.S.) - and why I expect that the current H/C law will fail. Not because it's a bad law ... or even a bad idea. It's because the public - in general - will use/abuse the system to the point where it will become un-workable. Either Doctors/nurses will quit due to over-work and under pay - or the system will collapse due to other resource shortages.

So you're saying that the American people are so philosophically unique in the world that a system that has worked for numerous other countries has no chance of working here? Any chance you'd want to back up your reasoning for that? Because it seems like kind of an extreme and unfounded generalization based on your own opinions and unfounded in evidence.


Yes.. I'm saying that the current U.S. population is not capable of being self-sacrificing enough for that kind of system.

When you remove most (if not all) repercussions/responsibility for one's actions - bad things tend to happen. Will everyone abuse the system? No. But enough people will. And while that abuse is certainly happening now ... wait and watch what happens when the Feds mandate for 'everyone has to carry coverage' is implemented.

For a recent example of this phenomenon - one only has to look at Real Estate. Enough people bought into the meme that 'Real Estate never goes down, you'll always make money' that almost caused a catastrophic collapse of the RE market. What do you think will happen if you get a population that thinks they can walk into any H/C office, and be covered for any ailment they have, regardless of how that aliment occurred? You think the RE market was bad? Try 300+ million people all expecting that they will never have to pay - directly - for any health care consequences that may result from their actions/behaviors.
 
2012-01-08 03:26:19 PM  

Yeah_Right: balloot: Yeah_Right: Then I'd say you've answered your own question - go work for a company that has employer-sponsored H/C benefits. Then you'll be covered.

--------------------

So I'm not allowed to choose my own profession because I hit my head 2 years ago? Seriously - that's your answer?

You asked for a solution ... not 'a solution-that-fits-only-what-I'm-willing-to-do.'

------------------

OK. Well with all due respect, your solution is farking retarded and is awful for the country. And that is why you have lost the national argument on this issue. Thanks for playing.

What you mean is ... it's awful for you.

With all due respect,this is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of an American populace that expects instant gratification - and the 'I-should-have-it-my-way-just-because-I want-it-that-way' mentaility. This is why a single-payer system will not work here (in the U.S.) - and why I expect that the current H/C law will fail. Not because it's a bad law ... or even a bad idea. It's because the public - in general - will use/abuse the system to the point where it will become un-workable. Either Doctors/nurses will quit due to over-work and under pay - or the system will collapse due to other resource shortages.


Again, you completely ignore all the other countries where single payer and individual mandates have worked just fine and act like we are doing something that is totally unknown.

It seems clear from your posts here that you have no interest whatsoever in solving the problems that exist with the uninsured in our country. You're insured, and that's all that matters and everyone else can eat shiat and die. You show me a libertarian, and I'll show you someone who is massively selfist and borderline autistic in lack of empathy for others.
 
2012-01-08 03:47:52 PM  
The Republicans are just entirely nihilistic at this point. I'm so sick of their nonsense; but in a way I'm even sicker of the left, even the radical left.

There's a kind of emptiness to resistance today in what seems to me to be a very scary way -- "we're against the left and the right, people shouldn't serve money, money should serve people," etc. To be brutally frank every fascist would have signed this.

It is simply insufficient. We need radical solutions but I'm not sure we have them -- here I am modest and pessimistic, I worry that we are descending headlong into dangerous waters, with dark clouds building overhead.

Cue sad violin music.

Are we going to be able to come up with real solutions for the problems we are going to face in this century, many of which are already looming?

Global warming is particularly symptomatic here, as we have already let the situation get so terrible it may no longer be possible to actually reverse it (even if every gas-powered machine were to stop today, etc.)

At any rate I worry that no one has a good idea of what the social and economic arrangements that would function "the day after" a people's revolution might look like.

Seriously, what are you going to do? Nationalize everything, devolve decision-making to worker's councils, what? Nobody seems to know, but that's the critical point to resistance -- not the spectacular carnival of direct action and urban protest camping, but what happens the day after de-occupation, when we return to "daily life" -- how will that life be transformed, changed? How will social and economic life be different?
 
2012-01-08 04:13:47 PM  

Yeah_Right: Erix: So you're saying that the American people are so philosophically unique in the world that a system that has worked for numerous other countries has no chance of working here? Any chance you'd want to back up your reasoning for that? Because it seems like kind of an extreme and unfounded generalization based on your own opinions and unfounded in evidence.

Yes.. I'm saying that the current U.S. population is not capable of being self-sacrificing enough for that kind of system.


Ah - so this is what conservatives mean when they talk about "American exceptionalism!"
 
2012-01-08 04:16:31 PM  

BMulligan: Yes.. I'm saying that the current U.S. population is not capable of being self-sacrificing enough for that kind of system.

Ah - so this is what conservatives mean when they talk about "American exceptionalism!"


It's better than that; the American populace can be trust to regulate itself in all things -which is why we need to make the Federal government as small as possible- except healthcare, where they would "pig out" if it were made available to them at at reasonable cost.

/you folks can't have it both ways.
 
2012-01-08 04:41:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: tomWright: Biological Ali: Yeah_Right: So.. where does it stop? What if the next 'mandate' by the Feds is to 'require' you to buy a Perdue chicken... or, require you to buy a pair of Levi jeans?

Bear in mind that the mandate isn't to buy health insurance (much less buy health insurance from some specific company) - the mandate is simply to have health insurance.

Yaeh, a distinction without difference.

You buy it directly yourself.

You buy it indirectly through your employer.

You buy it with taxpayer money.

To have it, you must buy it one way or the other.

The difference is, nobody is requiring you to buy a specific brand of health insurance, only to have minimum coverage. Think of it as the "public decency" law of healthcare. People are required to have clothing on, right? Why isn't that unconstitutional?


I'm glad someone pointed out that the government already mandates purchase or other acquisition of clothing.
 
2012-01-08 04:44:15 PM  

BMulligan: Yeah_Right: Erix: So you're saying that the American people are so philosophically unique in the world that a system that has worked for numerous other countries has no chance of working here? Any chance you'd want to back up your reasoning for that? Because it seems like kind of an extreme and unfounded generalization based on your own opinions and unfounded in evidence.

Yes.. I'm saying that the current U.S. population is not capable of being self-sacrificing enough for that kind of system.

Ah - so this is what conservatives mean when they talk about "American exceptionalism!"


I wouldn't know - as I am certainly not a conservative.

I'm pro-choice.
I'm for same-sex marriage.
I'm for keeping religious doctrine out of public schools.
I'm for legalization of marijuana.

I'm also in favor of people owning guns (within reason - I don't see the need for people to own howitzers)
I'm for personal responsibility.
I'm for limits to immigration.

And what you post is what's wrong with this country today - the mentality of 'you're either with us, or you're with them.' It's just not black or white folks ... there are many, many shades of gray.

What I am for - reasonable, workable solutions. I'm not for strict mandates, because they tend to be 'one size fits all' - whic,h it never does.
 
2012-01-08 04:53:19 PM  

Yeah_Right: And what you post is what's wrong with this country today - the mentality of 'you're either with us, or you're with them.' It's just not black or white folks ... there are many, many shades of gray.


This is a kinda guy who I would buy a beer for
 
2012-01-08 04:58:27 PM  

cman: Yeah_Right: And what you post is what's wrong with this country today - the mentality of 'you're either with us, or you're with them.' It's just not black or white folks ... there are many, many shades of gray.

This is a kinda guy who I would buy a beer for


Enjoy your TF
 
2012-01-08 05:09:27 PM  

Yeah_Right: BMulligan: Yeah_Right: Erix: So you're saying that the American people are so philosophically unique in the world that a system that has worked for numerous other countries has no chance of working here? Any chance you'd want to back up your reasoning for that? Because it seems like kind of an extreme and unfounded generalization based on your own opinions and unfounded in evidence.

Yes.. I'm saying that the current U.S. population is not capable of being self-sacrificing enough for that kind of system.

Ah - so this is what conservatives mean when they talk about "American exceptionalism!"

I wouldn't know - as I am certainly not a conservative.

I'm pro-choice.
I'm for same-sex marriage.
I'm for keeping religious doctrine out of public schools.
I'm for legalization of marijuana.

I'm also in favor of people owning guns (within reason - I don't see the need for people to own howitzers)
I'm for personal responsibility.
I'm for limits to immigration.

And what you post is what's wrong with this country today - the mentality of 'you're either with us, or you're with them.' It's just not black or white folks ... there are many, many shades of gray.

What I am for - reasonable, workable solutions. I'm not for strict mandates, because they tend to be 'one size fits all' - whic,h it never does.


So you'd be in favor of some sort of system where you're free to choose your specific provider, which would be the exact opposite of "one size fits all"? If only there was some proposal that combined that freedom of choice with the benefits of universal coverage...
 
2012-01-08 05:20:33 PM  
Want to win the war on drugs? Eliminate Mexican drug wars? Eliminate the national debt?
Legalize all Hemp production.
All of it.

The only people that should die a horrifically painful Chemo death are those who are against medical MJ.
 
2012-01-08 05:31:05 PM  

vudukungfu: Want to win the war on drugs? Eliminate Mexican drug wars? Eliminate the national debt?
Legalize all Hemp production.
All of it.

The only people that should die a horrifically painful Chemo death are those who are against medical MJ.


Then the black market will move to selling women into sexual slavery to make their money. Should we legalize that, too?
 
2012-01-08 05:32:49 PM  

Yeah_Right: What I am for - reasonable, workable solutions


And how exactly is a single-payer, universal system not a "reasonable, workable solution"? Especially given that it works so well in every other industrial- and post-industrial nation on the planet?
 
2012-01-08 05:34:08 PM  

Yeah_Right: I'm also in favor of people owning guns (within reason - I don't see the need for people to own howitzers), I'm for personal responsibility.


Show me someone who thinks these two things are conservative positions and I'll show you a Fark Independent(tm).
 
2012-01-08 05:37:17 PM  

cman: vudukungfu: Want to win the war on drugs? Eliminate Mexican drug wars? Eliminate the national debt?
Legalize all Hemp production.
All of it.

The only people that should die a horrifically painful Chemo death are those who are against medical MJ.

Then the black market will move to selling women into sexual slavery to make their money. Should we legalize that, too?


You don't think perhaps that combatting human trafficking will be both easier and more worthwhile?
 
2012-01-08 05:46:38 PM  

cman: vudukungfu: Want to win the war on drugs? Eliminate Mexican drug wars? Eliminate the national debt?
Legalize all Hemp production.
All of it.

The only people that should die a horrifically painful Chemo death are those who are against medical MJ.

Then the black market will move to selling women into sexual slavery to make their money. Should we legalize that, too?


Only your mom. And I doubt they'll get much for her.
 
2012-01-08 05:47:08 PM  

actualhuman: Then the black market will move to selling women into sexual slavery to make their money. Should we legalize that, too?


Statements like that should make it clear to everyone here that cman is a troll and should be blocked.
 
2012-01-08 05:50:28 PM  

actualhuman: cman: vudukungfu: Want to win the war on drugs? Eliminate Mexican drug wars? Eliminate the national debt?
Legalize all Hemp production.
All of it.

The only people that should die a horrifically painful Chemo death are those who are against medical MJ.

Then the black market will move to selling women into sexual slavery to make their money. Should we legalize that, too?

You don't think perhaps that combatting human trafficking will be both easier and more worthwhile?


More worthwhile? Definitely. Easier? Dont really know.

My point I was trying to make is that no matter what you do the black market will always move on to something else. Legalizing marijuana would not end the drug war in Mexico (they do have other drugs). It is a simplistic view that so much can be achieved with doing so little. No, you cant end the killing with legalizing weed, and you cant make $300 an hour working from home.
 
2012-01-08 05:51:35 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: actualhuman: Then the black market will move to selling women into sexual slavery to make their money. Should we legalize that, too?

Statements like that should make it clear to everyone here that cman is a troll and should be blocked.

lol

/Suports legalization
 
2012-01-08 05:54:31 PM  

cman: actualhuman: cman: vudukungfu: Want to win the war on drugs? Eliminate Mexican drug wars? Eliminate the national debt?
Legalize all Hemp production.
All of it.

The only people that should die a horrifically painful Chemo death are those who are against medical MJ.

Then the black market will move to selling women into sexual slavery to make their money. Should we legalize that, too?

You don't think perhaps that combatting human trafficking will be both easier and more worthwhile?

More worthwhile? Definitely. Easier? Dont really know.

My point I was trying to make is that no matter what you do the black market will always move on to something else. Legalizing marijuana would not end the drug war in Mexico (they do have other drugs). It is a simplistic view that so much can be achieved with doing so little. No, you cant end the killing with legalizing weed, and you cant make $300 an hour working from home.


Well, ya know, I'm just sayin - you can't vacuum-seal a slave-girl, least ways not unless you're serving a very particular market.
 
2012-01-08 06:26:07 PM  

cman: cman: Yeah_Right: And what you post is what's wrong with this country today - the mentality of 'you're either with us, or you're with them.' It's just not black or white folks ... there are many, many shades of gray.

This is a kinda guy who I would buy a beer for

Enjoy your TF


Thanks..! Very unexpected... and appreciated..!
 
2012-01-08 06:58:25 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Yeah_Right: What I am for - reasonable, workable solutions

And how exactly is a single-payer, universal system not a "reasonable, workable solution"? Especially given that it works so well in every other industrial- and post-industrial nation on the planet?


I'll answer your question, with a question. In creating such a system, what will be covered? What is not covered? Does everyone get the exact same coverage? Keep in mind - whatever you choose, will have to satisfy the medical needs of 300 million people.

It seems like a cop-out ... I know. But when you factor in the very diverse needs of so many people, it's going to be difficult to come up with a system that will make everyone happy.

Like I said, and I'll say again - I think a single-payer system is the best solution. But, it's going to take a real fundamental shift in thinking and behavior, for it to come about.
 
2012-01-08 08:02:19 PM  

thamike: [www.reece-eu.net image 512x447]

You know who you are.


Aww, but I hadn't even posted anything yet.
 
2012-01-08 08:22:25 PM  

Yeah_Right: Dwight_Yeast: Yeah_Right: What I am for - reasonable, workable solutions

And how exactly is a single-payer, universal system not a "reasonable, workable solution"? Especially given that it works so well in every other industrial- and post-industrial nation on the planet?

I'll answer your question, with a question. In creating such a system, what will be covered? What is not covered? Does everyone get the exact same coverage? Keep in mind - whatever you choose, will have to satisfy the medical needs of 300 million people.

It seems like a cop-out ... I know. But when you factor in the very diverse needs of so many people, it's going to be difficult to come up with a system that will make everyone happy.

Like I said, and I'll say again - I think a single-payer system is the best solution. But, it's going to take a real fundamental shift in thinking and behavior, for it to come about.


---------------------

No, it's not going to take some "fundamental shift" for single payer to work. It already happens all around the world.
 
2012-01-08 09:27:10 PM  

Yeah_Right: I'll answer your question, with a question. In creating such a system, what will be covered? What is not covered? Does everyone get the exact same coverage? Keep in mind - whatever you choose, will have to satisfy the medical needs of 300 million people.


That's an astonishingly stupid question: you cover what needs to be covered and don't cover what doesn't. When you put EVERYONE into the same risk pool, costs become MUCH cheaper, as those of us who need little to average care cover the costs of those who need a lot. It's the whole reason insurance exists in the first place.

Remember that we already spend more PER CAPITA on healthcare than any nation on earth, yet we come in something like tenth in terms of quality of care.

Personally, I'm a fan of the German system, which is universal, and single-payer, but privately-run: insurers, doctors and hospitals are for-profit. The government sets premium levels and what can be charged for procedures, and pays everyone's premiums with revenue collected from taxes. If you lose your job, the government keeps paying your insurer who keeps paying your doctor, and you don't have to worry about changing coverage.

Here's an example of how badly broken the American system is: insurance is designed such that the less likely an event is to happen, the cheaper it is to insure against. If you want to take our insurance against alien abduction, for example, it's very cheap as they'll never have to pay out.

I was looking at rates (as I'm self-employed and actually have to deal with insurers myself) and found that they're now offering cheap policies where you pay X hundred dollars a day for hospital stays, BUT THEY CUT OFF COVERAGE AFTER FIVE DAYS.

Now, being sick enough that you need to be in hospital for more than two days is extremely rare, and if you are, it means something serious has happened to you. If you're like me -a healthy person in their mid-30s with no unusual medical problems- it should be very cheap to be insured against long hospital stays, as the chances of them happening are infinitesimal. Which means that the amount an insurer has to pay out for a long hospital stay are low each year, as only a very small number of people will be in the hospital that long.

But the "insurers" have decided that -rather than collect premiums and pay out on claims when they happen- they like just keeping the money. So what we have in this country isn't a health insurance industry; it's a premium-collection scheme which may (or may not) pay your health expenses as an incidental side-effect of their making money.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report