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.

(MSNBC)   One in three Americans back Obama's health care reform. Numbers are even less for people who are members of the Supreme Court   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 256
    More: Fail, obama, supreme courts, healthcare reform, Americans, Associated Press-GfK, extended coverage, health care law, supreme court rules  
•       •       •

3483 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 01:42:51 PM

pdee: George_W_Hussein: A friend is a medical supply distributor and one day he held up this tiny screw that is used to mend bones in place. He said in France that this little screw costs about 50 cents and then he smiled and said here in the US, the same screw costs $10.

Why are we so willing to subsidize global health care and so stubborn to help ourselves?

Execellent point. Now how would single payer address this?


My guess is the same way it does in the countries where it only costs 50 cents? Just a wild guess there.
 
2012-06-22 01:43:26 PM

vernonFL: I bet that 1 out of 10 Americans have even the slightest clue what the bill actually does.

I would be against it too if I thought that all it was was forced abortions and death panels and me paying for 50 year old illegal alien heroin addicts to get heart transplants ahead of needy children.


Sadly in the interests of maintaining media balance, they HAVE to report that because.........*SMOKEBOMB!!*
 
2012-06-22 01:43:33 PM

pdee: Single payer is not the majic bullet


Is a "majic" bullet anything like boneless "wyngz"?
 
2012-06-22 01:45:21 PM

pdee: Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys.


Yep, you're right - insurance companies only exist in countries without a single payer system. You're right.

Every single argument you have used has been tried before, and they have been trounced for being untrue because they are outright untrue.
 
2012-06-22 01:45:27 PM

pdee: Epoch_Zero: pdee: Epoch_Zero: pdee: Single payer wont solve that problem.

Swing and a miss.
Just using one example.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 562x479]

So, just to reiterate - you are 100% incorrect.

In cast you may have missed it the Us is not Australia,Canada,France,Germany,Japan,Switzerland or the UK.

Apples =/= Oranges.

Look at how stupid you are. Look.

The stupid is comming from and your fantasy that single payer will fix anything. Insruance company profit margins run about 3-4%. Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys. Look at your own chart. Take 3-4% off the US bar and health care costs are still out of control. Take 10-20% off the US bar and we would still spend more than any other contry on the list.

Single payer is not the majic bullet.


No, insurance companies add a 30% cost increase to health care of which they take 3-4% (which is bullshiat). So reduce the costs by 30% and you get the relational drops you see in that graph that was posted. Wow, are you really that bad at math?
 
2012-06-22 01:46:58 PM

pdee: Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys


First of all, no, it wouldn't. Most places with single payer still have private insurance industries that cater to people who want to pay extra for extra services.

Second of all, what do you think will happen to absurd prices if the primary source of payment is one bargaining partner? You want to charge me $1500 for a bed, a couple of tylenol and a nurse who stopped by for fifteen seconds for one night? Fark you, I'll pay you a third of that or you'll get nothing.

You'd have to be pretty willfully ignorant to believe that a reasonably instituted single payer system wouldn't have a dramatic impact on costs.
 
2012-06-22 01:47:16 PM
I don't know what you libtards are whining about. I for one love my God-given right to choose which private-sector death panel wants to rape my ass.

Why do you hate freedom?
 
2012-06-22 01:47:59 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: palelizard: We might need to raise the medicare tax for that, but it would have made the insurance industry collectively shiat a brick.

Which, incidentally, is not covered under Medicare.


CPT code 44512, colostomy with removal of foreign body.

Or possibly ICD-9 98.04 - Removal of intraluminal foreign body from large intestine without incision
 
2012-06-22 01:48:05 PM

pdee: George_W_Hussein: A friend is a medical supply distributor and one day he held up this tiny screw that is used to mend bones in place. He said in France that this little screw costs about 50 cents and then he smiled and said here in the US, the same screw costs $10.

Why are we so willing to subsidize global health care and so stubborn to help ourselves?

Execellent point. Now how would single payer address this?


Well as long as we don't put in any hurrr durr provisions about not being able to negotiate prices it would give the gubmint a lot of power to strongarm suppliers. That wouldn't SOLVE the problem but it would help.

To get serious about costs we'd need to go after the AMA and the FDA, with tools sharp, heavy, and hot.
 
2012-06-22 01:48:37 PM
As a resident of MA, I'll still have our slice of Obamneycare in place and operational. It'll suck if I ever wanted to move to another state.

/I feel sorry for the rest of you
 
2012-06-22 01:48:52 PM

pdee: The stupid is comming from and your fantasy that single payer will fix anything. Insruance company profit margins run about 3-4%. Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys. Look at your own chart. Take 3-4% off the US bar and health care costs are still out of control. Take 10-20% off the US bar and we would still spend more than any other contry on the list.


Insurance company profits may only be 3-4%, but they've all complained that about the requirement that they spend at least 80% of the premiums they collect on actual health care. Cutting out the for-profit middleman of insurance companies and replacing them with not-for-profit civil service schleps could apparently cut administration costs by at least 20%.
 
2012-06-22 01:49:05 PM

iaazathot: pdee: George_W_Hussein: A friend is a medical supply distributor and one day he held up this tiny screw that is used to mend bones in place. He said in France that this little screw costs about 50 cents and then he smiled and said here in the US, the same screw costs $10.

Why are we so willing to subsidize global health care and so stubborn to help ourselves?

Execellent point. Now how would single payer address this?

My guess is the same way it does in the countries where it only costs 50 cents? Just a wild guess there.


Every Republican after anything like that is brought up in legislation: "COMMERCE CLAUSE AND FURTHERMORE.."
 
2012-06-22 01:50:28 PM

mrshowrules: pdee: Epoch_Zero: pdee: Single payer wont solve that problem.

Swing and a miss.
Just using one example.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 562x479]

So, just to reiterate - you are 100% incorrect.

In cast you may have missed it the Us is not Australia,Canada,France,Germany,Japan,Switzerland or the UK.

Apples =/= Oranges.

Are your hospitals on huge airships, doctors are androids and your illnesses are caused by futuristic nanobots laced with biotoxin?

I pretty sure Canada is socio-economically identical to your northern States. Please explain the fundamental differences of health care in Michigan versus Ontario for instance? I pretty sure it boils down to the insurance be management by one Government rather than a handful of private insurance monopolies but please elaborate.

BTW is Hawaii not in the US because there system seems to work pretty farking well.


This is the same red herring that conservatives always trot out when anybody rational says, "wait, these other seven to ten countries seem to be able to do it." Oh, the US is a super special case and has zero similarity to anything else in the world. We are special, we are special, we are special...
 
2012-06-22 01:51:35 PM
I think the problem is allowing the media and tea-hadists define the narrative as "Obamacare"...that already colors how you will percieve it. If you already dont like Obama for whatever reason, you already are predusposed to think negativly of the Affordable Care Act.

Cool story bro: had healthcare class in which the prod would not let you finish your thought unless you refered to the bill by its actual name.

That said, was it the best bill congress couldve written? No, but it does provode a framework to work fron provided SCOTUS has their way with it.
 
2012-06-22 01:51:46 PM
The American people love benefits but hate paying for them?

www.popscreen.com
 
2012-06-22 01:51:54 PM
Well, too bad. They have it anyway. And when they don't want something else that's "best" for them, we'll shove that down their throats, too. Farking cannibals.
 
2012-06-22 01:52:27 PM

Karac: pdee: The stupid is comming from and your fantasy that single payer will fix anything. Insruance company profit margins run about 3-4%. Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys. Look at your own chart. Take 3-4% off the US bar and health care costs are still out of control. Take 10-20% off the US bar and we would still spend more than any other contry on the list.

Insurance company profits may only be 3-4%, but they've all complained that about the requirement that they spend at least 80% of the premiums they collect on actual health care. Cutting out the for-profit middleman of insurance companies and replacing them with not-for-profit civil service schleps could apparently cut administration costs by at least 20%.


According to that graph, more like 30-33%, judging by other countries. Oh but wait, I forgot, we are special. Unfortunately our specialness is more like short bus specialness rather than elite specialness, because we apparently choose to fark ourselves over on healthcare over and over and over.
 
2012-06-22 01:52:36 PM

iaazathot: pdee: Epoch_Zero: pdee: Epoch_Zero: pdee: Single payer wont solve that problem.

Swing and a miss.
Just using one example.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 562x479]

So, just to reiterate - you are 100% incorrect.

In cast you may have missed it the Us is not Australia,Canada,France,Germany,Japan,Switzerland or the UK.

Apples =/= Oranges.

Look at how stupid you are. Look.

The stupid is comming from and your fantasy that single payer will fix anything. Insruance company profit margins run about 3-4%. Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys. Look at your own chart. Take 3-4% off the US bar and health care costs are still out of control. Take 10-20% off the US bar and we would still spend more than any other contry on the list.

Single payer is not the majic bullet.

No, insurance companies add a 30% cost increase to health care of which they take 3-4% (which is bullshiat). So reduce the costs by 30% and you get the relational drops you see in that graph that was posted. Wow, are you really that bad at math?


And you believe the government agency that administers single payer will have 0% costs?

Look how stupid you are. Look.
 
2012-06-22 01:53:32 PM

iaazathot: This is the same red herring that conservatives always trot out when anybody rational says, "wait, these other seven to ten countries seem to be able to do it." Oh, the US is a super special case and has zero similarity to anything else in the world. We are special, we are special, we are special...


Tell them this then: we're an exceptional - no THE exceptional country. We should be the one country that can take single payer and make it work!
 
2012-06-22 01:53:48 PM

iaazathot: Wow, are you really that bad at math?


pdee: And you believe the government agency that administers single payer will have 0% costs?


You ask a question...
 
2012-06-22 01:56:13 PM

Ned Stark: Well as long as we don't put in any hurrr durr provisions about not being able to negotiate prices it would give the gubmint a lot of power to strongarm suppliers. That wouldn't SOLVE the problem but it would help.

To get serious about costs we'd need to go after the AMA and the FDA, with tools sharp, heavy, and hot.


Some of that's already in place for Medicare. There are fee schedules revised yearly in each state dictating how much Medicare will reimburse for a procedure. Now, how those are set is a complicated matter... but the government already does do some price control.
 
2012-06-22 01:56:39 PM

pdee: And you believe the government agency that administers single payer will have 0% costs?


No, I'm pretty sure that everyone on Fark agrees that Medicare for All's administrative costs would total somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,092,834,891,734,689,723,984,234,891,248,976,238,947% of what they spend on actual health care.
 
2012-06-22 01:56:56 PM

pdee: And you believe the government agency that administers single payer will have 0% costs?


Close to it.

www.cbpp.org
 
2012-06-22 02:00:33 PM
amazing what a multi-billion dollar dis-information campaign can do eh?
 
2012-06-22 02:01:35 PM
Biased article relying on biased poll is biased. Let's try to get a more complete picture:

"As you may know, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the health care law later this month. I would like to ask how you would feel about a few possible outcomes of the ruling. For example, the court could decide to [see below]. Would you be happy or unhappy with this decision?"

"Uphold the entire law:" Happy: 39 Unhappy: 51

"Throw out the entire law:" Happy: 44 Unhappy: 48

Link
 
2012-06-22 02:04:08 PM
I don't care if we have universal health care if they at least fix what we have now...

A few examples: It shouldn't be a game of Russian Roulette every time you get a new job. Currently, it's all based on how big your company is and how good of a negotiator their HR person is. I have great insurance through my wife, a weekend in the hospital, wired to morphine and saline drips all weekend, followed by an MRI. Total cost out of my pocket: $250. With my insurance, it would have been $1800 out of my pocket before insurance even kicked in.

Also, doctors shouldn't have to fight to get the insurance companies to pay up. I had a Dr that still had bills a year after they were pre-approved by my insurance. This crap is a part of the reason why the Drs up their prices, so they have money in the bank while they are fighting to get insurance companies to comply with the laws already in place.

Personal medical insurance should not be so ridiculously priced that people can't afford it. We have affordable auto insurance, but pretty much have to harvest our own organs(And pay for the service as well) to get insured if our company doesn't have insurance, or if it sucks as bad as the insurance at my work does.

Really, we need better regulation, affordable prices and a more consistent model. If it takes Obamacare to do that, I'm fine with it. If the Insurance companies can agree to comply with the laws alrerady in place and quit gouging us without Obamacare, I'm fine with that, too.
 
2012-06-22 02:05:30 PM

iaazathot: No, insurance companies add a 30% cost increase to health care of which they take 3-4% (which is bullshiat). So reduce the costs by 30% and you get the relational drops you see in that graph that was posted. Wow, are you really that bad at math?


The true "magic" of single-payer, isn't the immediate savings you can achieve (although that is significant), the real benefit is bringing health care costs increases in line with general inflation/cost of living increases which is your real problem.
 
2012-06-22 02:05:59 PM

palelizard: More_Like_A_Stain: palelizard: We might need to raise the medicare tax for that, but it would have made the insurance industry collectively shiat a brick.

Which, incidentally, is not covered under Medicare.

CPT code 44512, colostomy with removal of foreign body.

Or possibly ICD-9 98.04 - Removal of intraluminal foreign body from large intestine without incision


LOL! I stand corrected.

iaazathot: We are special, we are special, we are special...



pablochiste.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-22 02:07:58 PM

Serious Black: Deftoons: LasersHurt: Guess it's time for Single-Payer.

You'll need to pass a Constitutional Amendment first. Good luck with that.

Please explain why Medicare is unconstitutional.


With single payer, Government then becomes the sole provider of health care. Medicare is a public option, only for a certain age demographic.

Single payer goes above and beyond what Medicare is. And I have a really hard time thinking SCOTUS would find single payer Constitutional, unless Obama did what FDR did during his New Deal days and "pack the courts" in order to skirt around checks and balances. I don't think the general welfare clause is not a blank check for federal authority.

Anyone here want single payer? Take it up with your state, like with what Vermont just did.
 
2012-06-22 02:07:59 PM

birchman: An awesome layman's description of what Obamacare actually does from a guy over at Reddit. (new)


That was awesome...thank you. I shall drink a beer in your honor tonight
 
2012-06-22 02:09:37 PM

pdee: iaazathot: pdee: Epoch_Zero: pdee: Epoch_Zero: pdee: Single payer wont solve that problem.

Swing and a miss.
Just using one example.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 562x479]

So, just to reiterate - you are 100% incorrect.

In cast you may have missed it the Us is not Australia,Canada,France,Germany,Japan,Switzerland or the UK.

Apples =/= Oranges.

Look at how stupid you are. Look.

The stupid is comming from and your fantasy that single payer will fix anything. Insruance company profit margins run about 3-4%. Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys. Look at your own chart. Take 3-4% off the US bar and health care costs are still out of control. Take 10-20% off the US bar and we would still spend more than any other contry on the list.

Single payer is not the majic bullet.

No, insurance companies add a 30% cost increase to health care of which they take 3-4% (which is bullshiat). So reduce the costs by 30% and you get the relational drops you see in that graph that was posted. Wow, are you really that bad at math?

And you believe the government agency that administers single payer will have 0% costs?

Look how stupid you are. Look.


Hey, I wasn't confusing profit margins with total costs, moron. What if the savings was 15%, 12%, 11%? The point is that the savings are significant. I realize you disinformationalists want to avoid discussing that, but too bad.
 
2012-06-22 02:09:45 PM

Deftoons: I don't think the general welfare clause is not a blank check for federal authority.


I meant to type "I don't think the general welfare clause is a blank check for federal authority."

FTFM. I need to stop using double negatives.
 
2012-06-22 02:10:12 PM
I don't even want to think about how much could be saved if we just farking allowed Medicare to farking negotiate the farking prices of the drugs they buy from Big Farking Pharma.

It's not like the goddamned Federal farking government is the single farking largest drug purchasing entity on the farking PLANET or anything, and who'd want to use that position to any advantage. Not the farking GOP, I can tell you that right farking now.

// fark
 
2012-06-22 02:13:33 PM
This must be a hard choice for the Conservative Judges. On one hand they can strike down one of Obama's landmark achievements during an election year, making him look like he suffered a huge blow. On the other hand thu have before them a health care reform package that the GOP spent almost 20 years proposing that is stuffed full of goodies for the health insurance industry, with the individual mandate as the keystone to Conservative HCR.

If they strike it down Obama looks bad right before an election, but they also create the need for a new HCR, but next time the Conservative option will be off the table - leaving single payer as the only real way to go.

I suppose the more Liberal Justices have the same problem in reverse.

It's a strange world we live in.
 
2012-06-22 02:14:46 PM

pdee: Insruance company profit margins run about 3-4%. Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys. Look at your own chart. Take 3-4% off the US bar and health care costs are still out of control. Take 10-20% off the US bar and we would still spend more than any other contry on the list.

Single payer is not the majic bullet.


Have you ever seen what healthcare charges are to the uninsured? Insurance companies pay less than the doctor would otherwise charge. Medicare does the same thing. About 10 years ago, I had gallbladder surgery without insurance. They charged $30,000 for a procedure that normally costs about 1/3 that amount.

Prices would have to go down if the gov't gives rates for payouts, based on actual costs (with some markup for a level of profit) and says "Here's what you will be paid. If you don't like it, go fark yourself."

Or just do what the UK does - make doctors government employees.

Do you have a better suggestion for bringing prices down? If you say "tort reform," you are as uninformed as they come.

Link

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not onlycurb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.
 
2012-06-22 02:18:40 PM
Just some interesting cited FYI facts.
Pharmaceutical research from 1997-2011 was approximately 58 billon a year.
American's spent $320 billion on prescription drugs in 2011
The top 19 pharma companies had revenues of 497 billion in 2008, with a net income of 110 billion. 497-110 = 380 billion in expenses.

The money spent in the US alone comes to within 60 billion dollars a year of the total costs of running all the drug companies in the world; or in other words, about one-tenth of what we spent on the military in 2010. And that number'd get even lower if you discount costs for lobbying politicians and putting out commercials from drugs that'll give you pychotic anal leakage with the side effect of regrowing your hair. The US alone could just about fund prescription drugs and research for the entire world.
 
2012-06-22 02:19:15 PM

Deftoons: And I have a really hard time thinking SCOTUS would find single payer Constitutional, unless Obama did what FDR did during his New Deal days and "pack the courts" in order to skirt around checks and balances.


Roosevelt never packed the courts.

And single payer invokes the spending power instead of the commerce power or tax power implicated by Obamacare. Although I wouldn't put it past the Roberts court to try to fashion a principle which preserved Social Security and Medicare while barring single payer, it's hard to imagine that principle would be cogent. Under the spending power, Congress can provide income and health care for old people and the disabled, but not the general public? Weird. The alternative is to fashion a sound principle that strikes down Social Security and Medicare. We've moved to the right as a country, but we're not quite there yet, however big of a boner you get when you masturbate to Ayn Rand.
 
2012-06-22 02:19:24 PM
Again, I'll ask:

Why do Americans think it is perfectly acceptable to leave the fate of your healthcare needs in the hands of a for-profit, private company?
 
2012-06-22 02:20:50 PM

bugontherug: Deftoons: And I have a really hard time thinking SCOTUS would find single payer Constitutional, unless Obama did what FDR did during his New Deal days and "pack the courts" in order to skirt around checks and balances.

Roosevelt never packed the courts.

And single payer invokes the spending power instead of the commerce power or tax power implicated by Obamacare. Although I wouldn't put it past the Roberts court to try to fashion a principle which preserved Social Security and Medicare while barring single payer, it's hard to imagine that principle would be cogent. Under the spending power, Congress can provide income and health care for old people and the disabled, but not the general public? Weird. The alternative is to fashion a sound principle that strikes down Social Security and Medicare. We've moved to the right as a country, but we're not quite there yet, however big of a boner you get when you masturbate to Ayn Rand.


Also, single payer already exists: It's called Tricare
 
2012-06-22 02:20:59 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Again, I'll ask:

Why do Americans think it is perfectly acceptable to leave the fate of your healthcare needs in the hands of a for-profit, private company?


because socialism that's why.
 
2012-06-22 02:21:59 PM

rufus-t-firefly: pdee: Insruance company profit margins run about 3-4%. Single payer will only eliminate the insruance companys. Look at your own chart. Take 3-4% off the US bar and health care costs are still out of control. Take 10-20% off the US bar and we would still spend more than any other contry on the list.

Single payer is not the majic bullet.

Have you ever seen what healthcare charges are to the uninsured? Insurance companies pay less than the doctor would otherwise charge. Medicare does the same thing. About 10 years ago, I had gallbladder surgery without insurance. They charged $30,000 for a procedure that normally costs about 1/3 that amount.

Prices would have to go down if the gov't gives rates for payouts, based on actual costs (with some markup for a level of profit) and says "Here's what you will be paid. If you don't like it, go fark yourself."

Or just do what the UK does - make doctors government employees.

Do you have a better suggestion for bringing prices down? If you say "tort reform," you are as uninformed as they come.

Link

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not onlycurb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.


Oh, I love the tort reform derp.

GOP and their corporate masters: Let's tell the rubes that the costs are because evil greedy people want to take advantage of doctors (despite the fact that there is zero evidence of a problems with frivolous suits, but rather that our court system is very good at filtering them out). It will save the insurance companies a lot of money and help to erode citizen redress in the courts (the last resort for the citizenry to actually hedge corporate power).

Of course, idiot conservatives, eager to eat their own fellow citizens and feed their rampant sense of righteousness, go along with it.
 
2012-06-22 02:23:44 PM

Dr Dreidel: I don't even want to think about how much could be saved if we just farking allowed Medicare to farking negotiate the farking prices of the drugs they buy from Big Farking Pharma.

It's not like the goddamned Federal farking government is the single farking largest drug purchasing entity on the farking PLANET or anything, and who'd want to use that position to any advantage. Not the farking GOP, I can tell you that right farking now.

// fark


It isn't hard to calculate, insurance companies and Medicare pay about double of every where else. Not alot of negotiation required. Take a Canadian province as an example. The company wants $20 for a pill. The Government says, we will give you $10 and if you don't like it, we will wait for the generics. The Pharma company can say no to 10 Million customers if it wants. It never does because even at 50% of what the US pays, they are making a bloody fortune.
 
2012-06-22 02:23:49 PM

mrshowrules: iaazathot: No, insurance companies add a 30% cost increase to health care of which they take 3-4% (which is bullshiat). So reduce the costs by 30% and you get the relational drops you see in that graph that was posted. Wow, are you really that bad at math?

The true "magic" of single-payer, isn't the immediate savings you can achieve (although that is significant), the real benefit is bringing health care costs increases in line with general inflation/cost of living increases which is your real problem.


Yes, those savings are huge, as well.
 
2012-06-22 02:24:42 PM

Deftoons: Serious Black: Deftoons: LasersHurt: Guess it's time for Single-Payer.

You'll need to pass a Constitutional Amendment first. Good luck with that.

Please explain why Medicare is unconstitutional.

With single payer, Government then becomes the sole provider of health care. Medicare is a public option, only for a certain age demographic.

Single payer goes above and beyond what Medicare is. And I have a really hard time thinking SCOTUS would find single payer Constitutional, unless Obama did what FDR did during his New Deal days and "pack the courts" in order to skirt around checks and balances. I don't think the general welfare clause is not a blank check for federal authority.

Anyone here want single payer? Take it up with your state, like with what Vermont just did.


What are you talking about? I quote from day 2's transcript of the SCOTUS argument that directly dealt with whether the individual mandate was constitutional:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: "Let's assume that it (Congress) could use the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single payer. How does that factor into our analysis? In one sense, it can be argued this is what the government is doing; it ought to be honest about the power it is using and use the correct power. On the other hand, it means that since .... Congress can do it anyway, we give a certain amount of latitude."

Kennedy is tacitly asserting that Medicare for All is constitutional.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: "It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need. But when you do, and the government provides it. I thought that was an important part of your argument, that when you need health care, the government will make sure you get it. Well, when you need police assistance or fire assistance or ambulance assistance, the government is going to make sure to the best extent it can that you get it - get it."

Roberts is tacitly asserting that Medicare for All is constitutional.
 
2012-06-22 02:24:59 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Again, I'll ask:

Why do Americans think it is perfectly acceptable to leave the fate of your healthcare needs in the hands of a for-profit, private company?


Well, because a BS narrative that mingless rugged individualism, corporate hegemony, and fear of government for, by, and of the people has been so skillfully sold to the dullard masses, that they are willing to throw themselves under the bus rather than be labeled soshulisms.
 
2012-06-22 02:43:19 PM

birchman: An awesome layman's description of what Obamacare actually does from a guy over at Reddit. (new)


Thank-you. That was informative.
 
2012-06-22 02:43:23 PM

Deftoons: I meant to type "I don't think the general welfare clause is a blank check for federal authority."


No important figure in American political history has suggested that it is. Sorry, the douchebag 19 year old liberal in your poli-sci 101 class who couldn't tell his ass from Article I with a magnifying glass and a hornbook doesn't constitute an "important figure in American political history." The notion that anyone seriously claims the general welfare clause is a "blank check for federal authority" is now, and has been since the inception of the republic, a strawman.

Now, when I'm feeling saucy, I like to take that strawman, and ram it up right wingers' asses. When you mischaracterize the progressive position on the general welfare clause as a "blank check on federal authority," it gives me the opportunity to do this:

Accepting as true the proposition that some serious parties regard the general welfare clause as a blank check on federal authority, that means there are three major positions on its meaning:

1) The extreme left: the general welfare clause effectively renders the rest of the Article I powers null and void by constituting a grant of general authority to legislate for the general welfare. In this view, the other enumerated powers are redundant and meaningless, because they all fall within the scope of the general welfare clause anyway.

2) The extreme right: the rest of Article I renders the general welfare clause null and void, because any power to spend for the enumerated powers is logically encompassed in the necessary and proper clause. In this view, the general welfare clause is redundant and meaningless, because spending is "necessary and proper" to all the other enumerated powers, and therefore the power to spend for them is encompassed within that clause.

3) The golden mean: The general welfare clause constitutes an independent enumerated power. Not to "legislate" for the general welfare, but to spend for the general welfare. Under this view the other Article I powers remain important because the general welfare clause isn't broad enough to constitute a general grant of legislative authority. And the general welfare clause itself isn't rendered moot by the necessary and proper clause. Not only is this position the happy medium between two absurd extremes, but it is clearly correct under the doctrine that all words in the Constitution should be construed to have legal meaning.

See how that works? By setting up your little strawman there, I got to characterize the progressive position on the general welfare clause as the "reasonable center," which has enormous persuasive appeal. Believe it or not, it's actually in your interests sometimes NOT to mischaracterize your opponent's position.
 
2012-06-22 02:44:03 PM
In other news, 1 in 3 Americans think death panels are a great idea!
 
2012-06-22 02:45:13 PM
FTA:

"But Hess, 77, said he favors the provision requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of their medical condition. "There needs to be compromise on both sides," the retired school administrator said."

So, A, this guy only likes the provision that is likely to help him, and B doesn't realize that the current law, already WAS a compromise. That seems to be the mentality with some Republicans these days. Compromise means that the other side completely caves. Why do people still vote for these yahoos?
 
2012-06-22 02:50:46 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Also, single payer already exists: It's called Tricare


Interesting point.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report