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.

(Chicago Trib)   Final poll before SCOTUS rules on Obamacare shows Americans still hate it even though they love everything in it   (articles.chicagotribune.com) divider line 352
    More: Stupid, Americans, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, Ipsos, political independents, health care law, Americans oppose, individual mandate  
•       •       •

2803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2012 at 7:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-24 12:32:23 PM  
Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)
 
2012-06-24 12:41:24 PM  
Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

Not a single person is undecided or has mixed feelings? Great poll.
 
2012-06-24 12:54:44 PM  
I trust Karl Rove and/or David Axelrod to tell me what I like or don't like. That whole thinking thing just got tedious.
 
2012-06-24 03:41:00 PM  

Dogberry: I trust Karl Rove and/or David Axelrod to tell me what I like or don't like. That whole thinking thing just got tedious.


LIBERAL! The real thinkists is cumming from the John Birch Society.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Obamacare is a UN conspiracy.
 
2012-06-24 04:06:31 PM  

abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)


100 theoretica bucks says the mandate is kept but the rest is repealed.
 
2012-06-24 04:40:13 PM  
While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.
 
2012-06-24 04:49:18 PM  

Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business


4.bp.blogspot.com

Shut up and get a job like your parents did, hippie.
 
2012-06-24 05:10:46 PM  

Somacandra: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x323]

Shut up and get a job like your parents did, hippie.


emotibot.net
 
2012-06-24 05:15:45 PM  
Republicans did such a fantastic job astroturfing their oppostition, it's amazing anyone has a clear view on this at all. Meanwhile, their plan is nonexistent, so if it goes, and you get sick, die quickly.
 
2012-06-24 05:26:52 PM  
Yeah subby, it's called being a partisan douchebag.
 
2012-06-24 05:35:58 PM  

Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.


Is it the federal government's business if you have a mortgage?
 
2012-06-24 05:40:22 PM  

Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.


The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.
 
2012-06-24 05:46:05 PM  
When pulled on its components:

72% were in favour of the death panels
59% agreed with mandatory abortions
67% like the idea all the decisions on their medical treatment being made my Nancy Pelosi
 
2012-06-24 05:54:34 PM  

Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.


Good lord, do you not understand wtf this is about? When people like you get a disease or gets injured or sick and have to go to the hospital and then can't pay, guess what happens? Yep, the hospital that has to eat your bill ups the price of aspirin and band-aids and everything else another percent to make up for it.

But I guess you'll never get sick or injured so it's only your business, right?
 
2012-06-24 05:55:48 PM  
but but obama is black
 
2012-06-24 06:21:16 PM  
The clause that I don't understand is where they will tax high-end ("Cadillac") plans but not other plans. Why can't all plans be taxed equally under the law? My employer has drastically increased my contributions (in deductible and paycheck deductions) since this was passed, in anticipation of coming in just under the threshold by the cutoff date.

Now it costs me more to go, so I don't go as often. How is that better healthcare?
 
2012-06-24 06:22:44 PM  

Gig103: The clause that I don't understand is where they will

INCREASE tax ON high-end ("Cadillac") plans but not other plans.

Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.
 
2012-06-24 06:22:46 PM  

Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.


How is that not societies problem? People that think like that cost Americans billions of dollars a year. Why should we put up with that?
 
2012-06-24 06:30:15 PM  

Tor_Eckman: But I guess you'll never get sick or injured so it's only your business, right?


Those are some sharp knees he has; it would be a real shame if anything happened to them...?
 
2012-06-24 06:42:12 PM  

Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.


The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.
 
2012-06-24 06:44:21 PM  

itsdan: Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.

The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.


Canadians don't pay a cent and if anything, they wish people went to their doctors more often.
 
2012-06-24 06:59:23 PM  
No surprise

It is easy to like something if you don't understand the cost or how it interacts with other things.
 
2012-06-24 07:04:30 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No surprise

It is easy to like something if you don't understand the cost or how it interacts with other things.


You understand the complexity though? Right?
 
2012-06-24 07:12:15 PM  
The

abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)


Ah, yes. The mandate, which until about three years ago was THE calling card of the Republican solution to the healthcare crisis. Romney - pro-mandate. Gingrich - pro-mandate. Most of the Republicans in the Congress and Senate -- pro-mandate. Marcus Bachmann -- pro-ManDate...so, so very pro man date.

/OK, the last part was a cheap shot
//the mandate was still a Republican invention and they supported it until Obama said he did
 
2012-06-24 07:15:19 PM  

Gig103: The clause that I don't understand is where they will tax high-end ("Cadillac") plans but not other plans. Why can't all plans be taxed equally under the law? My employer has drastically increased my contributions (in deductible and paycheck deductions) since this was passed, in anticipation of coming in just under the threshold by the cutoff date.

Now it costs me more to go, so I don't go as often. How is that better healthcare?


Because actual even taxes weren't allowed, so they took steps where they could to balance the short-term costs. Long term it is a net gain to the budget, but short term it is a loss.

Also, the "Cadillac" plans were targeting union members. It's why the GOP has never complained about it.
 
2012-06-24 07:17:52 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Theabb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)

Ah, yes. The mandate, which until about three years ago was THE calling card of the Republican solution to the healthcare crisis. Romney - pro-mandate. Gingrich - pro-mandate. Most of the Republicans in the Congress and Senate -- pro-mandate. Marcus Bachmann -- pro-ManDate...so, so very pro man date.

/OK, the last part was a cheap shot
//the mandate was still a Republican invention and they supported it until Obama said he did


I wonder why when Obama proposes republican ideas they are all of a sudden the worst thing to ever be uttered and worse than anything Stalin or Hitler did? Obama needs to come out and say this country should be a xian theocracy with a gun in every hand. The right wing would explode in rage over it...
 
2012-06-24 07:32:21 PM  
 
2012-06-24 07:33:08 PM  
F*cking cognitive dissonance, how does it work?


abb3w: mandate


If they'd just called it a tax we wouldn't be in this mess now.
 
2012-06-24 07:33:20 PM  
It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.
 
2012-06-24 07:38:15 PM  
I'll translate this for you...

'When people are presented with cherry picked points of ObamaCare they say they like those points but we just can't get them to ignore all the other stuff no matter how hard we try!'

This submission headline would be the same as asking people what they like about a car with a nice paint job and good interior with a nice stereo... but with crap breaks, engine, tires, suspension, safety features, and comfort...

Then standing around going 'But they LIKE things about this car!!'
 
2012-06-24 07:39:25 PM  
Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"
 
2012-06-24 07:39:59 PM  
Hi there! I'm in Europe! We have wicked socialist medicine!

The term "medical bankruptcy" has no meaning here. It's a horrible place to be!
 
2012-06-24 07:40:02 PM  
In other breaking news, Skinnyhead is actually relatively intelligent.


For an American.
 
2012-06-24 07:40:45 PM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.


On what grounds do you say it is unconstitutional? A mythical difference between activity and inactivity that doesn't exist in the words of the Constitution, decades of precedent, or historical record of what politicians in the late 1700's actually signed into law?
 
2012-06-24 07:41:11 PM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.


Does the federal government have the power to force you to sell your homegrown wheat on the open market (and thus force you to buy it again if you want to use it), rather than allow you to keep and use it after it's harvested?

If you answered no, then you don't understand Constitutional law.
 
2012-06-24 07:41:39 PM  

Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"


You're going to have to explain why this was so illegal when the GOP proposed the individual mandate first in 1994.
 
2012-06-24 07:42:07 PM  

randomjsa: I'll translate this for you...

'When people are presented with cherry picked points of ObamaCare they say they like those points but we just can't get them to ignore all the other stuff no matter how hard we try!'

This submission headline would be the same as asking people what they like about a car with a nice paint job and good interior with a nice stereo... but with crap breaks, engine, tires, suspension, safety features, and comfort...

Then standing around going 'But they LIKE things about this car!!'


So vote Republican...who have consistantly told me over the course of the debate to basically die quick because of my pre-existing condition.
 
2012-06-24 07:43:54 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)

100 theoretica bucks says the mandate is kept but the rest is repealed.


That would be the dumbest thing to do. Ergo...
 
2012-06-24 07:45:04 PM  

GAT_00: Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"

You're going to have to explain why this was so illegal when the GOP proposed the individual mandate first in 1994.


Because Reagan, that's why not.
 
2012-06-24 07:45:16 PM  

Bungles: Hi there! I'm in Europe! We have wicked socialist medicine!

The term "medical bankruptcy" has no meaning here. It's a horrible place to be!


I'm in America, where we had a long drawn out debate with a lot of pissing and moaning where one side said a system like in Europe would be a lot better than what we have, and the other side said it wouldn't.

In the end we passed a law that had nothing do with that and we're still arguing about it now.
 
2012-06-24 07:45:17 PM  

Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"


heh. more like "Activist justices on the Supreme Court overturn 100 year precedent and their own previous opinions to block you from getting healthcare"
 
2012-06-24 07:47:52 PM  

randomjsa: I'll translate this for you...

'When people are presented with cherry picked points of ObamaCare they say they like those points but we just can't get them to ignore all the other stuff no matter how hard we try!'

This submission headline would be the same as asking people what they like about a car with a nice paint job and good interior with a nice stereo... but with crap breaks, engine, tires, suspension, safety features, and comfort...

Then standing around going 'But they LIKE things about this car!!'


I smell the part/whole fallacy:

I might like doughnuts, friend chicken, jello, and apple sauce, but I don't want to eat in a pile of mushed up mess. And I might be able to eat eat individual slice of a 300 ft long subway sandwich for dinner, but I can't the whole thing.

So, yeah, one can like individual bits of the bill and still think it should be repealed and/or rejected as unconstitutional by the SC.
 
2012-06-24 07:50:09 PM  
As a foreigner, it's a little baffling to see all these people masturbating over Constitution, as if it were some immutable divine tablet from God.

The meat of the Constitution is amendments. You change it when it's clearly not working or not addressing a situation. The US having such a backward medical system is clearly one of those situations.

If it doesn't let you do something that anyone with even the smallest grasp of the situation can see as necessary, amend the damn thing.

You like people lying in the streets because some men in the 18th C didn't foresee the cost of cancer medication?
 
2012-06-24 07:50:48 PM  

mrshowrules: itsdan: Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.

The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.

Canadians don't pay a cent and if anything, they wish people went to their doctors more often.


That's because they have a magical money tree. Can you really be dumb enough to think that they don't pay for it out of taxes? Please try to remember that governments don't actually have any money only what they take from or borrow on behalf of the people.
 
2012-06-24 07:51:01 PM  
I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.
 
2012-06-24 07:51:50 PM  

Bungles: The meat of the Constitution is amendments. You change it when it's clearly not working or not addressing a situation. The US having such a backward medical system is clearly one of those situations.

If it doesn't let you do something that anyone with even the smallest grasp of the situation can see as necessary, amend the damn thing.


Our constitution is ridiculously hard to amend. The last time it was amended on any issue of policy which mattered to people was about a hundred years ago, and that amendment was repealed.
 
2012-06-24 07:52:41 PM  

tcan: Please try to remember that governments don't actually have any money only what they take from or borrow on behalf of the people.


This is literally the opposite of reality. Money comes from the government. It literally prints the stuff.
 
2012-06-24 07:54:22 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.


Pretty much "THIS". But as I said, they were too pussy to call it a "tax" and had to go with "individual mandate" instead.
 
2012-06-24 07:54:38 PM  

BKITU: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.


Really? You are going with ignorance as your stance? Any hospital can stop taking in uninsured whenever they want. They just get no Medicare or Medicaid dollars. Read the emtala law sometime. How about next time the government tries to bribe morality thy actually pay for it?

And for those "but they love all those individual pieces!" Idiots.

1) would you like a new tv? Yes!
2) are you going to pay for the tv? No!

These are not contradictory viewpoints. They are two separate items. Extending coverage until 26 isn't magically free. No co pay for preventative care is not free. Once.you factor in actual costs, peoples views change. Stop being retarded with your view that they are uninformed.
 
2012-06-24 07:56:08 PM  

MyRandomName: BKITU: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.

Really? You are going with ignorance as your stance? Any hospital can stop taking in uninsured whenever they want. They just get no Medicare or Medicaid dollars. Read the emtala law sometime. How about next time the government tries to bribe morality thy actually pay for it?

And for those "but they love all those individual pieces!" Idiots.

1) would you like a new tv? Yes!
2) are you going to pay for the tv? No!

These are not contradictory viewpoints. They are two separate items. Extending coverage until 26 isn't magically free. No co pay for preventative care is not free. Once.you factor in actual costs, peoples views change. Stop being retarded with your view that they are uninformed.


Actually a majority of Americans are ok with the extending coverage until 26 part.
 
2012-06-24 07:56:18 PM  

DamnYankees: Bungles: The meat of the Constitution is amendments. You change it when it's clearly not working or not addressing a situation. The US having such a backward medical system is clearly one of those situations.

If it doesn't let you do something that anyone with even the smallest grasp of the situation can see as necessary, amend the damn thing.

Our constitution is ridiculously hard to amend. The last time it was amended on any issue of policy which mattered to people was about a hundred years ago, and that amendment was repealed.


Please tell me you are referring to prohibition, because that issue mattered!

If you are, it technically wasn't repealed, the Constitution was amended again.

/beer snob. this counts, right?
 
2012-06-24 07:56:34 PM  
People advocating for the overturn of the individual mandate and/or Obamacare must hold one of the following logical positions:
- Complete removal of similar mandated insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security
- Creation of a universal coverage single payer solution (ie Medicare for everyone)

Otherwise, they are partisan assbags that cry about everyone paying their fair share and making their own choice right up until you point out that hospitals are forced to provide emergency care.
 
2012-06-24 07:57:02 PM  

fusillade762: Hobodeluxe: I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.

Pretty much "THIS". But as I said, they were too pussy to call it a "tax" and had to go with "individual mandate" instead.


if they rule against it everyone should start refusing to pay into medicare on that basis then. let's see how long that lasts once the courts start filling up with those cases.
 
2012-06-24 07:57:39 PM  

bulldg4life: People advocating for the overturn of the individual mandate and/or Obamacare must hold one of the following logical positions:
- Complete removal of similar mandated insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security
- Creation of a universal coverage single payer solution (ie Medicare for everyone)


Why would someone advocate overturning the mandate and support the second one?
 
2012-06-24 07:58:51 PM  

bulldg4life: People advocating for the overturn of the individual mandate and/or Obamacare must hold one of the following logical positions:
- Complete removal of similar mandated insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security
- Creation of a universal coverage single payer solution (ie Medicare for everyone)

Otherwise, they are partisan assbags that cry about everyone paying their fair share and making their own choice right up until you point out that hospitals are forced to provide emergency care.


exactly. the main thing the mandate does is keep the freeloaders who choose not to purchase insurance (even though they can afford it) from abusing that law.
 
2012-06-24 07:59:15 PM  

DamnYankees: Why would someone advocate overturning the mandate and support the second one?


If they don't like the current bill, but do not agree with abolishing Medicare/SS....then they must be ok with government provided solutions that provide a safety net to the community and can compete with private insurance. They must be ok with a government provided public option.
 
2012-06-24 07:59:34 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.


Aca was not argued under tax and spend you ignorant twat. Even sotomayor blasted that argument 1st day of oral arguments. The democrats did not want tor be accused of raising taxes, so they tried to shoe horn Aca under commerce.
 
2012-06-24 08:00:18 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.


Because the mandate is to buy private insurance. Taxes are paid to the government, this is settled fact. But the mandate isn't a tax. You don't pay taxes to a private company (well, not directly, anyway).

The same people who have been screaming for years for the government to get out of the way of business are literally now hopping mad that the government got completely out of the way of business.... they're pissed off because instead of acting as a tax-collecting middleman, the government is allowing the private sector direct access to the customers. Pretty much exactly what these retards supposedly wanted this whole time....
 
2012-06-24 08:00:28 PM  

randomjsa: I'll translate this for you...

'When people are presented with cherry picked points of ObamaCare they say they like those points but we just can't get them to ignore all the other stuff no matter how hard we try!'

This submission headline would be the same as asking people what they like about a car with a nice paint job and good interior with a nice stereo... but with crap breaks, engine, tires, suspension, safety features, and comfort...

Then standing around going 'But they LIKE things about this car!!'


There is a major flaw in your logic. First, Obama was elected and a major part of that was to repair a car that was already broken. People like all the fixes except the part of paying for it.
 
2012-06-24 08:00:53 PM  
Who gives a fark what people think about it? The mandate will be struck down by the ideologues on the supreme court, insurance costs will skyrocket, and eventually we will open medicare to everybody because we have no other choice. Eventuallywe get to single payer and the republicans kick and scream every step of the way. It's going to happen because there is no alternative.
 
2012-06-24 08:01:49 PM  

MyRandomName: Hobodeluxe: I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.

Aca was not argued under tax and spend you ignorant twat. Even sotomayor blasted that argument 1st day of oral arguments. The democrats did not want tor be accused of raising taxes, so they tried to shoe horn Aca under commerce.


How does it matter what it was argued under? If the government can do something, they can do something. The word they use to describe their action is totally irrelevant. The government can't kill you by calling it a "life tax", and they can still tax you even if they call it "economic murder". The words don't matter.
 
2012-06-24 08:01:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: BKITU: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.

Really? You are going with ignorance as your stance? Any hospital can stop taking in uninsured whenever they want. They just get no Medicare or Medicaid dollars. Read the emtala law sometime. How about next time the government tries to bribe morality thy actually pay for it?

And for those "but they love all those individual pieces!" Idiots.

1) would you like a new tv? Yes!
2) are you going to pay for the tv? No!

These are not contradictory viewpoints. They are two separate items. Extending coverage until 26 isn't magically free. No co pay for preventative care is not free. Once.you factor in actual costs, peoples views change. Stop being retarded with your view that they are uninformed.

Actually a majority of Americans are ok with the extending coverage until 26 part.


Really? Is your reading comprehension level at 1st graer? I never made an argument people didn't like coverage extended to 26.
 
2012-06-24 08:01:52 PM  
So when this gets repealed, what will be the next step then Republicans?

Hint:

If it involves the words "tort reform" or "cross-border competition), you will get punched in the cock.

/sits back and waits for the response
 
2012-06-24 08:01:59 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It's going to happen because there is no alternative.


The 20 years between the backlash and it actually happening are going to suck, though.

Much like the impending collapse of higher education because of student loan debt.
 
2012-06-24 08:02:09 PM  

MyRandomName: Aca was not argued under tax and spend you ignorant twat.


Medicare isn't a "tax."
 
2012-06-24 08:02:42 PM  

Splinshints: Because the mandate is to buy private insurance. Taxes are paid to the government, this is settled fact. But the mandate isn't a tax. You don't pay taxes to a private company (well, not directly, anyway).


What is the constitutional basis whereby one is allowed and the other not? I see no provision of the constitution which makes a distinction between these two things.
 
2012-06-24 08:03:16 PM  

DamnYankees: Why would someone advocate overturning the mandate and support the second one?


They hate insurance company execs buying yacht number 5 and wiping their asses with 100 dollar bills?
 
2012-06-24 08:03:50 PM  

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: BKITU: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.

Really? You are going with ignorance as your stance? Any hospital can stop taking in uninsured whenever they want. They just get no Medicare or Medicaid dollars. Read the emtala law sometime. How about next time the government tries to bribe morality thy actually pay for it?

And for those "but they love all those individual pieces!" Idiots.

1) would you like a new tv? Yes!
2) are you going to pay for the tv? No!

These are not contradictory viewpoints. They are two separate items. Extending coverage until 26 isn't magically free. No co pay for preventative care is not free. Once.you factor in actual costs, peoples views change. Stop being retarded with your view that they are uninformed.

Actually a majority of Americans are ok with the extending coverage until 26 part.

Really? Is your reading comprehension level at 1st graer? I never made an argument people didn't like coverage extended to 26.


You said people's views on the matter change. They didn't in the case of extending coverage to 26 year olds.

Maybe you're the one with the reading comprehension my friend.
 
2012-06-24 08:04:51 PM  
And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.
 
2012-06-24 08:07:28 PM  

DamnYankees: What is the constitutional basis whereby one is allowed and the other not? I see no provision of the constitution which makes a distinction between these two things.


You don't see a distinction between the government collecting taxes and telling you that you have to buy something? There's a distinction. One's in the constitution, the other isn't. Or, at least, that's the opposition's argument.
 
2012-06-24 08:08:45 PM  
I think the funniest thing about this whole situation will be the posts on Facebook (or the trolls here) that cheer its overturn.

"yay, we got rid of a small improvement to our health care system and its now back to the broken form it was 3 years ago!"
 
2012-06-24 08:09:03 PM  

DamnYankees: Bungles: The meat of the Constitution is amendments. You change it when it's clearly not working or not addressing a situation. The US having such a backward medical system is clearly one of those situations.

If it doesn't let you do something that anyone with even the smallest grasp of the situation can see as necessary, amend the damn thing.

Our constitution is ridiculously hard to amend. The last time it was amended on any issue of policy which mattered to people was about a hundred years ago, and that amendment was repealed.


The constitution has been amended twelve times in just the last hundred years.
 
2012-06-24 08:09:09 PM  

Splinshints: DamnYankees: What is the constitutional basis whereby one is allowed and the other not? I see no provision of the constitution which makes a distinction between these two things.

You don't see a distinction between the government collecting taxes and telling you that you have to buy something? There's a distinction. One's in the constitution, the other isn't. Or, at least, that's the opposition's argument.


No, I don't. What the difference between the government taxing you and then using that tax money to buy something from a private company, then giving you that product, versus just cutting out the middle man and give you the product?

In both situations, the government is taking money away from you, the private company is getting that money, and you are getting a product. I fail to see any material difference in the 2 ways of making that happen.
 
2012-06-24 08:09:45 PM  

bulldg4life: I think the funniest thing about this whole situation will be the posts on Facebook (or the trolls here) that cheer its overturn.

"yay, we got rid of a small improvement to our health care system and its now back to the broken form it was 3 years ago!"


And almost all of those amendment were procedural, not policy, related.
 
2012-06-24 08:10:55 PM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare.


ProTip: Yes, they actually do. I suggest reading the actual Constitution - beyond the 2nd Amendment. Then I suggest you look at the stuff done BY those very same forefathers who signed it. Your head may very well explode. But if you survive, you will become stronger than you can possibly imagine.
 
2012-06-24 08:11:51 PM  
Can we stop all this petty bickering and just get on with UHC already?
 
2012-06-24 08:13:05 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No surprise

It is easy to like something if you don't understand the cost or how it interacts with other things.


Well, THANK GOD we've got someone like you who can set the rest of us straight on this stuff!!!
 
2012-06-24 08:16:42 PM  

mrshowrules: There is a major flaw in your logic. First, Obama was elected and a major part of that was to repair a car that was already broken. People like all the fixes except the part of paying for it.


No, they don't like 'all the fixes', as I said when presented with cherry picked aspects of ObamaCare, people say they like those cherry picked aspects. The problem is you don't get the bits you like, you have to take the bits you like along with the rest of it which is a complete and total disaster.

Pincy: Can we stop all this petty bickering and just get on with UHC already?


How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?
 
2012-06-24 08:17:43 PM  
Either way, I bet the supreme court does a lot of jumping and dancing around to avoid stepping on their own dicks.
 
2012-06-24 08:18:00 PM  

randomjsa: Pincy: Can we stop all this petty bickering and just get on with UHC already?

How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?


Fine. While we're at it, I'm thinking we need to go ahead and remove federal laws forcing hospitals to provide emergency care. Fair's fair.
 
2012-06-24 08:18:10 PM  

Endive Wombat: ... If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's...


If we can make it ILLEGAL TO TREAT YOU if you get sick and can't pay, I agree.
 
2012-06-24 08:18:35 PM  
Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.
 
2012-06-24 08:19:28 PM  

Hobodeluxe: fusillade762: Hobodeluxe: I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.

Pretty much "THIS". But as I said, they were too pussy to call it a "tax" and had to go with "individual mandate" instead.

if they rule against it everyone should start refusing to pay into medicare on that basis then. let's see how long that lasts once the courts start filling up with those cases.


your employer isn't gonna listen to your insane ramblings and stop deducting fica from your check.
they'd be on the hook for it.
they would owe that money to the irs.
 
2012-06-24 08:22:00 PM  

randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?


Hey - I got a better idea. Since you don't know if you will be hit by a catastrophic medical condition or not, and neither do I - let's hedge by pooling our risk. It would even be a better hedge if we could get all 300 million of our fellow Americans in the pool, too!

It would be awesome and what could be fairer than everyone sharing alike?
 
2012-06-24 08:22:55 PM  

bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.


While we are all being super fair about stuff, it is OK for me not to pay for killing brown people I've never met?
 
2012-06-24 08:23:06 PM  

bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.


Indeed. It's hard to make an argument that invalidates the individual mandate that doesn't also invalidate those, both of which are considered Constitutional.
 
2012-06-24 08:23:17 PM  
Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

I don't care if the poll showed the opposite, citing an online poll is idiotic. They're not scientific, and their only valid use is for entertainment purposes.

You may as well toss a bunch of numbered oranges in a dryer and cite the one that you pull out first. It would be as useful and meaningful of a result.
 
2012-06-24 08:26:14 PM  

GhostFish: Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

I don't care if the poll showed the opposite, citing an online poll is idiotic. They're not scientific, and their only valid use is for entertainment purposes.

You may as well toss a bunch of numbered oranges in a dryer and cite the one that you pull out first. It would be as useful and meaningful of a result.


In other words, it's GOP SOP.
 
2012-06-24 08:26:22 PM  

puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.


Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.
 
2012-06-24 08:27:41 PM  
I dont see what the issue is, as long as we have a strong defense. So what if everyone is sick and dead?
 
2012-06-24 08:29:36 PM  

truthseeker2083: Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


From the same minds that bring you "people on welfare and unemployment are living the high life with their AC and refrigerators".

There are people everywhere quitting their jobs and getting fired just to be on welfare cause it is so awesoem.
 
2012-06-24 08:29:38 PM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


Well, lots of teabaggers said they weren't going to make any money over $250k because of HORRIBUL TACKSES! They also aren't going to hire anyone, even if they need them, because of Obama.

So, you know, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
 
2012-06-24 08:30:04 PM  

randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?

I don't like paying for YOUR fire and police protection. I can just pay firemen and policemen out of pocket, so lets get rid of the whole socialized fire and police service.
 
2012-06-24 08:30:36 PM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


Poor people have refrigerators which apparently equates with economic Nirvana.
 
2012-06-24 08:30:42 PM  

tcan: mrshowrules: itsdan: Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.

The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.

Canadians don't pay a cent and if anything, they wish people went to their doctors more often.

That's because they have a magical money tree. Can you really be dumb enough to think that they don't pay for it out of taxes? Please try to remember that governments don't actually have any money only what they take from or borrow on behalf of the people.


I'm Canadian. Americans pay more in taxes towards health care per capita than we do. That's excluding premiums/just looking at taxes.

I have a question for you.

How much does your local library charge you take out books?
 
2012-06-24 08:32:56 PM  

ghare: truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.

Well, lots of teabaggers said they weren't going to make any money over $250k because of HORRIBUL TACKSES! They also aren't going to hire anyone, even if they need them, because of Obama.

So, you know, it's not out of the realm of possibility.


Yes, but to be fair, those teabaggers are full of poo. I'd take over that ammount and gladly pay the taxes on it.... but then again, I'm not a selfish, childish, dick, and I understand how living in an advanced society works.
 
2012-06-24 08:34:03 PM  

Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.


So what happens when, not if, you get sick? You'll just go to the emergency room, and get free treatment? You do realize the government and the insurance companies end up having to pay for you, right? And you realize that when you choose not to have insurance, you indirectly make everybody's insurance premiums, as well as government expenditures, go up? Because when you take those things into consideration, it is very much more than just YOUR business.
 
2012-06-24 08:34:24 PM  

GAT_00: bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.

Indeed. It's hard to make an argument that invalidates the individual mandate that doesn't also invalidate those, both of which are considered Constitutional.


I'd say it goes further than that. Just about any argument about the activity/inactivity distinction that invalidates the mandate could also be used to invalidate every single exemption, exclusion, deductions, deferral, credit, and preferential tax rate in the entire tax code.
 
2012-06-24 08:34:32 PM  

bk3k: randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair? I don't like paying for YOUR fire and police protection. I can just pay firemen and policemen out of pocket, so lets get rid of the whole socialized fire and police service.


Kinda makes you wonder if the supreme court has noticed that there's a difference between paying taxes for a government service and mandating that citizens pay a private for-profit company instead. I hope someone made them aware.
 
2012-06-24 08:37:28 PM  

bulldg4life: truthseeker2083: Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.

From the same minds that bring you "people on welfare and unemployment are living the high life with their AC and refrigerators".

There are people everywhere quitting their jobs and getting fired just to be on welfare cause it is so awesoem.


It's funny... I lived in section 8 housing for about a year or so a couple years ago... 600 square feet, you'd freeze to death if you didn't watch the airconditioner. The fridge tho... well, it was a 1960's dinosaur and was empty most of the time we were there. Our 20+ year old truck was too nice to qualify for more than $16 a month in foodstamps. While it sucked that we couldn't get more help, I can't imagine turning around and telling someone else that they don't deserve help. This country is just full of selfish assholes who can't see further than their face. Ugh!
 
2012-06-24 08:37:53 PM  
Maybe if that clusterfark HCR law is struck down, we can get real reform and expand Medicare to cover everyone.

Doesn't scare stupid, old voters (AKA "keeps the government out of Medicare") and passes constitutional muster.
 
2012-06-24 08:39:14 PM  

paygun: bk3k: randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair? I don't like paying for YOUR fire and police protection. I can just pay firemen and policemen out of pocket, so lets get rid of the whole socialized fire and police service.

Kinda makes you wonder if the supreme court has noticed that there's a difference between paying taxes for a government service and mandating that citizens pay a private for-profit company instead. I hope someone made them aware.


So if it was structured as a tax credit for those responsible enough to have insurance, you would be OK with it?
 
2012-06-24 08:41:06 PM  

GAT_00: bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.

Indeed. It's hard to make an argument that invalidates the individual mandate that doesn't also invalidate those, both of which are considered Constitutional.


It also invalidates any attempt to privatize Social Security.
 
2012-06-24 08:41:26 PM  

GoldSpider: Maybe if that clusterfark HCR law is struck down, we can get real reform and expand Medicare to cover everyone.


Yes, we'll get that. In 20 years. Until then, we're befarked.
 
2012-06-24 08:41:57 PM  

mrshowrules: So if it was structured as a tax credit for those responsible enough to have insurance, you would be OK with it?


THOSE TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS ARE RAISING EVERYONE'S TAXES! VOTE THEM OUT! SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTIONS! WHARGARBLE
 
2012-06-24 08:42:48 PM  
www.mediaite.com
Would you buy a casket from this man?
 
2012-06-24 08:43:00 PM  
The best possible outcome would be for the individual mandate to be struck -- with the rest of the law remaining on the books.

That would cause a breakdown of the entire for-profit healthcare system and force the government to intervene as a single payer.

If the entire law is upheld, the country is likely screwed. If the entire law is declared unconstitutional, the country is even more screwed.
 
2012-06-24 08:43:05 PM  
randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?

How about we shorten that up a bit and call it "I got mine, so fark you"?
 
2012-06-24 08:44:03 PM  
nothing wrong with the public option. no one is making a profit off the government mandate to purchase a private and substandard product with the public option.
no question of whether the government has the ability to tax and spend.
it's just too bad obama didn't just do what he promised and instead cut a deal with the for profit insurance lobby to kill the public option.
 
2012-06-24 08:44:26 PM  

qorkfiend: GAT_00: bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.

Indeed. It's hard to make an argument that invalidates the individual mandate that doesn't also invalidate those, both of which are considered Constitutional.

It also invalidates any attempt to privatize Social Security.


Yeah, but that's different, because socialism.
 
2012-06-24 08:45:01 PM  
Once the law fails, then we can try again for single payer. Use 45% of the 60% tax on capital gains retroactive to 2007 to pay for it.
 
2012-06-24 08:46:03 PM  

Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.


Do you not carry auto liability insurance? They require you to have that, you know. Would you prefer that nobody carry auto insurance unless they feel like it, and when you get in a wreck that's not your fault, too bad so sad for you?

Mandated insurance--of any kind--is there to ensure the rest of us don't have to pick up after people who want to mind their own business but forget they live in a larger community. I would much rather be required to carry health insurance so the hospitals can get paid instead of watching emergency rooms go out of business because of uninsured patients. As it is, there's only one or two Level One Trauma centers in all of So Cal, because people don't have health insurance. Now if you're going to pay out of pocket for your trauma surgery when you get in that car accident you don't have insurance for, that's fine; but I suspect you don't have a half-million dollars in your checking account right now.
 
2012-06-24 08:47:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: So when this gets repealed, what will be the next step then Republicans?

Hint:

If it involves the words "tort reform" or "cross-border competition), you will get punched in the cock.

/sits back and waits for the response


President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.
 
2012-06-24 08:48:22 PM  

Endive Wombat: I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.


Actually, if they strike the whole thing down (which is unlikely) the GOP loses it's biggest piece of ammunition against Obama. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they lose a huge piece of ammunition against Obama.

Once again he's buggered them for a lark.
 
2012-06-24 08:51:38 PM  

missiv: [www.mediaite.com image 300x400]
Would you buy a casket from this man?


I'd buy a casket FOR him...
 
2012-06-24 08:51:56 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Actually, if they strike the whole thing down (which is unlikely) the GOP loses it's biggest piece of ammunition against Obama. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they lose a huge piece of ammunition against Obama.

Once again he's buggered them for a lark.


And the rest of us still have to deal with a hackneyed, half-assed, health care law. But "your side" wins, and that's what's important.
 
2012-06-24 08:52:35 PM  

Opeth1429: Mrtraveler01: So when this gets repealed, what will be the next step then Republicans?

Hint:

If it involves the words "tort reform" or "cross-border competition), you will get punched in the cock.

/sits back and waits for the response

President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


If a doctor screws up and does $1,000,000 in damage to a patient, but they can only get $500,000 in compensation, how does that help prevent medical bankruptcies?
 
2012-06-24 08:52:47 PM  

GoldSpider: And the rest of us still have to deal with a hackneyed, half-assed, health care law. But "your side" wins, and that's what's important.


Those damn democrats. Screwing up the healthcare debate.
 
2012-06-24 08:53:02 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.

Do you not carry auto liability insurance? They require you to have that, you know. Would you prefer that nobody carry auto insurance unless they feel like it, and when you get in a wreck that's not your fault, too bad so sad for you?

Mandated insurance--of any kind--is there to ensure the rest of us don't have to pick up after people who want to mind their own business but forget they live in a larger community. I would much rather be required to carry health insurance so the hospitals can get paid instead of watching emergency rooms go out of business because of uninsured patients. As it is, there's only one or two Level One Trauma centers in all of So Cal, because people don't have health insurance. Now if you're going to pay out of pocket for your trauma surgery when you get in that car accident you don't have insurance for, that's fine; but I suspect you don't have a half-million dollars in your checking account right now.


Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.
 
2012-06-24 08:54:23 PM  

Farty McPooPants: Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.


And yet the principle is exactly the same.
 
2012-06-24 08:55:19 PM  

Splinshints: DamnYankees: What is the constitutional basis whereby one is allowed and the other not? I see no provision of the constitution which makes a distinction between these two things.

You don't see a distinction between the government collecting taxes and telling you that you have to buy something? There's a distinction. One's in the constitution, the other isn't. Or, at least, that's the opposition's argument.


The whole mandate thing is such a retarded fiasco that it should be taught in poli sci classes for the next hundred years. Easily the worst political move by a President since Roosevelt's court packing plan. Your idiotic post is a great example of why. Reasons:

1) Obama instinctively knew the mandate was a loser from the beginning. He campaigned against a mandate. As a candidate he said it was lousy idea. That's the incredible part of the whole thing--Obama knew the idea was a piece of shiat on first hearing, and got argued by his advisers into pushing something that he knew was crap.

2) One of the big political problems with the mandate was that it had been big with the GOP chattering class, but had never become a shibboleth of the party. Cut taxes, less regulation, strong defense, etc. are concepts so integral to the GOP that party members can't just dump them one day and pretend they were party principles. The mandate is a 100% Republican concept -- originated with the Heritage Foundation, embraced by Republicans as the alternative to HIllarycare, proposed by Bob Dole, endorsed by Gingrich, enacted by Romney. (Democrats had no use for the mandate--they wanted to get rid of private health insurance, not require people to buy it.) But the idea never became central the GOP, or internalized by Republican voters. Obama thought he was being clever by turning around and embracing a Republican idea, with it probably never occurring to him that the GOP would not only instantly drop the idea, but also turn completely against it. (Same thing with cap and trade--it originated with the University of Chicago's conservative law and economics crew, was embraced by the first Bush administration urged by C. Boyden Gray and was opposed by Democrats. Interesting that two of the most reviled Obama policies were Obama embracing solutions proposed by conservatives.) This is also why you never saw any GOP health reform plan--they didn't have one to propose, because Obama had already proposed it. (Notice how Ryan's proposal for Medicare is essentially Obamacare with the consumer protections removed?) Basically what happened with the GOP and Obama was that they swapped positions on the mandate, with the vast majority of voters having no idea that the mandate was originally a GOP plan.

3) Democrats don't like health insurance companies and it was asking way too much to ever think that a huge majority of Democratic voters would switch to support a mandate. The reason the ACA polls so badly is that its centerpiece is a GOP policy (the mandate) that the GOP abandoned and that Democratic voters never particularly liked in the first place. The whole constitutional argument is nonsense--in reality, all it is a tax that can be avoided by insuring oneself privately. You didn't hear a peep about the alleged unconstitutionality of the mandate until Republican politicians needed an excuse to come out against the mandate they had been backing for close to twenty years. Why was there no mention of unconstitutionality back when the Heritage Foundation, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were pushing the idea? Kinda reminds me the way Southerners discovered state's rights AFTER the Civil War. (When the idea was never mentioned in the South back when war was declared--except for Southern states being against Northern states asserting states' rights to not return fugitive slaves.)

4) One of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration has made is loudly supporting and protecting the mandate. Politically, the appropriate response would have been to simply say, "Hey, the mandate wasn't our idea to begin with. Thank Mitt Romney and the Republicans for the mandate--if they want to drown their own baby, let them. And hey, Republican Supreme Court justices, if you want to strike out the Republican part of the law, go right ahead."
 
2012-06-24 08:56:15 PM  

Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


How does tort reform mitigate costs?

It doesn't. Just look at Texas and California and see what tort reform has done to health care costs in both states.
 
2012-06-24 08:56:39 PM  
Ok, that'll be power seats, heated headrests, OnStar, a martini dispenser (which requires the autonomous drive option), sunroof, and hood-top bikini model. You like? YES YES YES!

Here's what it's gonna cost you. WHOA WHOA WHOA!

Does this come as some kind of surprise to anybody?
 
2012-06-24 08:58:33 PM  
Another Canadian here, and I'm surprised the jobs side hasn't been discussed more: it's pretty fantastic to pick and choose any job I want without worrying about benefits. Yes, I have supplementary insurance for things like prescriptions and dental care through my job, but I'd never have to work a job I hate just to help pay a sick spouse's medical bills. When I got pregnant I upgraded to the family insurance (kids' dental, private hospital rooms etc) - for $3.21 a month. Takes pressure off employers too.

In fact, the losers with socialized medicine seem to be...insurance companies...and right wing ideologues.
 
2012-06-24 08:59:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.

How does tort reform mitigate costs?

It doesn't. Just look at Texas and California and see what tort reform has done to health care costs in both states.


A more meaningful metric is what it's done to insurance premiums for medical providers. Do you know those figures?
 
2012-06-24 09:00:03 PM  

GoldSpider: Maybe if that clusterfark HCR law is struck down, we can get real reform and expand Medicare to cover everyone.

Doesn't scare stupid, old voters (AKA "keeps the government out of Medicare") and passes constitutional muster.


A couple more republican majorities and they'll get right on it, right?

Oh, wait, they've buried things in so much rhetoric it'll be decades before they can openly suggest anything other than vouchers and tax cuts.
 
2012-06-24 09:01:16 PM  

Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


Except for in the now 39 or 40 states that have caps on malpractice lawsuits (and basically all malpractice torts are filed in state courts, so it's kind of a matter for state law to put limits on civil suits in the states), many for decades, you're totally right.
 
2012-06-24 09:01:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: A couple more republican majorities and they'll get right on it, right?


That would be remarkably stupid thing to believe. I can't imagine why you would suggest something so dumb.
 
2012-06-24 09:05:53 PM  

abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)


Kind of hoping that this 61% who oppose the mandate will soon become 100% of those who are denied health insurance should this law be overruled. Now that would be sweet justice.

Wonder how many who oppose said mandate also get their insurance from their master, er I mean corporate employer?
 
2012-06-24 09:06:31 PM  
I'm not sure why this law won't still operate effectively without the mandate.
the mandate was simply a way to get those who will be highly profitable premium payers that don't get sick very often to help pad the insurance company bottom line.

in response to this the insurance companies will presumably just have to raise rates on everyone else more than they projected.
that might not be a bad thing.

it could be bad for obama, but it might be good for the nation. the sooner people realize that this system is irrevocably broken and that prices will continue to rise faster than inflation without real reform and a government system to limit price increases the better.
and it seems to me like just striking the mandate increases that likelihood.
 
2012-06-24 09:07:40 PM  
The simple answer is, is that we are farked. Congresscritters get free health care, so why should they lift a finger to do anything to help anyone else?

They dont give a shiat, and never ever will. For profit healthcare is a big joke, nearly as bad as our excessively bloated defense industry.

We're farked.
 
2012-06-24 09:07:40 PM  

bulldg4life: truthseeker2083: Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.

From the same minds that bring you "people on welfare and unemployment are living the high life with their AC and refrigerators".

There are people everywhere quitting their jobs and getting fired just to be on welfare cause it is so awesoem.


You haven't lived until you've used food stamps to buy vintage champagne at Sotheby's.
 
2012-06-24 09:08:02 PM  

GoldSpider: Smackledorfer: A couple more republican majorities and they'll get right on it, right?

That would be remarkably stupid thing to believe. I can't imagine why you would suggest something so dumb.


And yet you and others apparently blame the dems and Obama for their inability to surpass the propaganda and blocking of the right.

Any and all defense of the side closer to reform is viewed by you as partisanship.

So, aside from saying bsrb and leaving it at that, what is your path forward?
 
2012-06-24 09:08:11 PM  

Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


That would be because malpractice accounts for AT MOST 3% of our healthcare spending, and we spend more per capita than any nation on earth. For all the money we spend, we rank about #20 in terms of quality of care.

You want to cut healthcare costs in the US? Cut profits to insurers and service providers (ie, for-profit hospitals).
 
2012-06-24 09:09:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Farty McPooPants: Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.

And yet the principle is exactly the same.


not really.
you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.
 
2012-06-24 09:10:22 PM  

elffster: The simple answer is, is that we are farked. Congresscritters get free health care


No, it's not free. We, the American taxpayers, pay for it.
 
2012-06-24 09:11:30 PM  

DamnYankees: Farty McPooPants: Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.

And yet the principle is exactly the same.


Indeed. If you choose not to have a car, you don't have to have auto insurance. If you do so choose, you must carry liability insurance so that when you cause an accident, the other person doesn't wind up paying for your stupidity.

You don't choose to live; but you are alive, and you will undoubtedly get injured or sick and need a doctor. Either you pay for it out of your own pocket, or the rest of us have to pay for you in some way. That may be because you get injured and need a hospital (in which case all MY taxes are paying for you); or you get fat and diabetic (in which case all MY taxes are paying for your inability to work); or you have a preemie baby who develops into a special-needs child (in which case all MY taxes are paying for your defective offspring's schooling and care).

If you're going the Ted Kacyzski route and living in a cave with no amenities and when you die bears will eat you, then by all means, you don't have to have health insurance. Otherwise, as long as MY taxes are paying for your potential illness or disability, stop blocking this measure.
 
2012-06-24 09:11:33 PM  
I'm still thoroughly incredulous at the way the administration dropped the single payer component practically before "negotiations" began. Shooting themselves in the foot, two-legged stool, et cetera. Made the whole thing toothless.* Unbalanced and a complete ʞɹɐɟɹǝʇsnןɔ. Would the act be so ridiculously large and unwieldy if this had not happened?

I honestly don't know who to be angrier at, the Republicans for being such obdurate jerks, or the Democrats for being so pathetically spineless, even more than we've become accustomed to. I'm definitely ashamed at the millions upon millions of US citizens who allow themselves to be blindly led by morally bankrupt ideologues who clearly do not have said citizens' best interests at >cough, cough< "heart."

* Makes me think of
Idiot wind blowing every time your move your mouth
Blowing down the backroads heading south
Idiot wind blowing every time you move your teeth
You're an idiot babe
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe
 
2012-06-24 09:13:38 PM  

Smackledorfer: And yet you and others apparently blame the dems and Obama for their inability to surpass the propaganda and blocking of the right.

Any and all defense of the side closer to reform is viewed by you as partisanship.


I've said no such thing. You're making that up.

Smackledorfer: So, aside from saying bsrb and leaving it at that, what is your path forward?


That I have said, in this thread. Look for it.
 
2012-06-24 09:16:05 PM  

relcec: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.


And you don't have to own health insurance if you never use any public health services.

Oh wait, literally no one can promise that.
 
2012-06-24 09:17:41 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Endive Wombat: I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.

Actually, if they strike the whole thing down (which is unlikely) the GOP loses it's biggest piece of ammunition against Obama. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they lose a huge piece of ammunition against Obama.

Once again he's buggered them for a lark.


It's like Obama has this grand plan to pass a piece of shiat half-ass health care bill and then he's all "muhahahaha! It'll get repealed by the Supreme Court just before the election and then that'll make the GOP look bad."

/big pile o' derp
 
2012-06-24 09:18:30 PM  

runcible spork: Would the act be so ridiculously large and unwieldy if this had not happened?


It was going to be big, as it redraws a major sector of our economy. The notion that it's "large" and "too big to read" were just BS talking points used by the GOP (and Blue Dogs) to confuse people as to what's actually in it, as was the notion that it had to be passed to find out what was in it.
 
2012-06-24 09:20:03 PM  

relcec: I'm not sure why this law won't still operate effectively without the mandate.
the mandate was simply a way to get those who will be highly profitable premium payers that don't get sick very often to help pad the insurance company bottom line.

in response to this the insurance companies will presumably just have to raise rates on everyone else more than they projected.
that might not be a bad thing.

it could be bad for obama, but it might be good for the nation. the sooner people realize that this system is irrevocably broken and that prices will continue to rise faster than inflation without real reform and a government system to limit price increases the better.
and it seems to me like just striking the mandate increases that likelihood.


I really have not come up with an opinion as to the best outcome. Striking down just the mandate would put an immense amount of pressure on Congress to fix the obvious flaws that could start a death spiral. Striking down the whole law could destroy a big motivator for people voting for Romney and push him to have a specific policy response that will open him up to attacks, and Obama could come out for Medicare for All which many Americans want. Leaving the whole law intact (most likely by a 6-3 ruling as I can't see only Kennedy swinging) would protect Obama from the almost guaranteed attacks that the court is being wildly activist unless they want to take the step of calling Roberts a RINO.
 
2012-06-24 09:20:24 PM  

paygun: bk3k: randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair? I don't like paying for YOUR fire and police protection. I can just pay firemen and policemen out of pocket, so lets get rid of the whole socialized fire and police service.

Kinda makes you wonder if the supreme court has noticed that there's a difference between paying taxes for a government service and mandating that citizens pay a private for-profit company instead. I hope someone made them aware.


You're right. I think I should stop paying mandatory auto insurance to my insurance company and start paying more in taxes instead. Lets change the law to make the government my auto insurance company paid for in taxes.

Now before you go on how "that's different because you technically don't HAVE TO drive," I'd like to point out that you technically don't HAVE TO work, because those who do not work don't have to buy this. The IRS cannot penalize the federal taxes - that you no longer pay being unemployed - and on welfare.

Now if you intend to be a productive member of society, you must both work and drive. So yes, that is the same thing. If your (or if you have family lets say their) uninsured ass ends up in the ER for any reason, my ass gets to pay for it in taxes. So yes, the individual mandate MAKES YOU PAY FOR YOU and makes ME PAY FOR ME.

That is the very same reason that mandatory auto insurance laws exist. In fact, one provision of that law - at least in IL - makes you pay for insurance to cover MEDICAL EXPENSES of anyone you hit. AKA I am already forced to buy medical insurance from the government.
 
2012-06-24 09:22:22 PM  
 
2012-06-24 09:22:40 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Another Canadian here, and I'm surprised the jobs side hasn't been discussed more: it's pretty fantastic to pick and choose any job I want without worrying about benefits. Yes, I have supplementary insurance for things like prescriptions and dental care through my job, but I'd never have to work a job I hate just to help pay a sick spouse's medical bills. When I got pregnant I upgraded to the family insurance (kids' dental, private hospital rooms etc) - for $3.21 a month. Takes pressure off employers too.

In fact, the losers with socialized medicine seem to be...insurance companies...and right wing ideologues.



We were yoked into the system in the post-WWII boom. Falls under the category of "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time/Unintended Consequences/Competition is Always the Best Solution." While the quality of US Healthcare is very good (though still not the "best in the world" as some are wont to tout), it is woefully expensive on a per capita basis, which takes it down many, many pegs. Not to mention the widespread lack of coverage, and the very real possibilities of medical bankruptcy. It's execrable.
 
2012-06-24 09:23:47 PM  
www.modleft.com
 
2012-06-24 09:25:47 PM  
Obamacare will give you An Incurable Desire for Shiftlessness.
 
2012-06-24 09:25:55 PM  
Poll shows that a majority of Americans would prefer to live naked in a tropical forest, subsisting on berries, grubs and the occasional frog while spending their free time grooming themselves for lice.
 
2012-06-24 09:27:26 PM  

Mantour: [www.modleft.com image 500x370]


She's a plant, you can tell by the spelling and the European Z.
 
2012-06-24 09:28:05 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: runcible spork: Would the act be so ridiculously large and unwieldy if this had not happened?

It was going to be big, as it redraws a major sector of our economy. The notion that it's "large" and "too big to read" were just BS talking points used by the GOP (and Blue Dogs) to confuse people as to what's actually in it, as was the notion that it had to be passed to find out what was in it.



Yes, but would have been as big, as convoluted, as susceptible to loopholes, coverage gaps, and exploitation had single-payer remained? I don't know, but that's my sense of it. And why I'm asking.
 
2012-06-24 09:29:08 PM  

namatad: but but obama is black


That's a great point! Succinct, yet all-encompassing. And the Supreme Court is fixin to give Obamacare the beatdown! And the Fark Lib Circle Jerk Club can't stop it!
 
2012-06-24 09:29:39 PM  

s2s2s2: Obamacare will give you An Incurable Desire for Shiftlessness.


You think you're clever don't you?
 
2012-06-24 09:30:14 PM  

DamnYankees: relcec: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.

And you don't have to own health insurance if you never use any public health services.

Oh wait, literally no one can promise that.


and that's why your analogy sucks. the premise is inaccurate and comparison is bad fit anyway.
 
2012-06-24 09:30:46 PM  

Friction8r: namatad: but but obama is black

That's a great point! Succinct, yet all-encompassing. And the Supreme Court is fixin to give Obamacare the beatdown! And the Fark Lib Circle Jerk Club can't stop it!


Why are republicans fascinated with male on male sexuality? I'm gay and I don't think about cock as much as you guys do.
 
2012-06-24 09:31:52 PM  

relcec: DamnYankees: relcec: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.

And you don't have to own health insurance if you never use any public health services.

Oh wait, literally no one can promise that.

and that's why your analogy sucks. the premise is inaccurate and comparison is bad fit anyway.


Well, you saying so certainly makes it true.
 
2012-06-24 09:32:10 PM  

relcec: DamnYankees: relcec: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.

And you don't have to own health insurance if you never use any public health services.

Oh wait, literally no one can promise that.

and that's why your analogy sucks. the premise is inaccurate and comparison is bad fit anyway.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-06-24 09:33:11 PM  

truthseeker2083: Friction8r: namatad: but but obama is black

That's a great point! Succinct, yet all-encompassing. And the Supreme Court is fixin to give Obamacare the beatdown! And the Fark Lib Circle Jerk Club can't stop it!

Why are republicans fascinated with male on male sexuality? I'm gay and I don't think about cock as much as you guys do.


Obviously he has some homosexual tendencies that he's trying to mask and project onto others.
 
2012-06-24 09:33:41 PM  

s2s2s2: Mantour: [www.modleft.com image 500x370]

She's a plant, you can tell by the spelling and the European Z.



Yes, those misspellings are definitely not the expected misspellings!
 
2012-06-24 09:34:53 PM  

runcible spork: Yes, but would have been as big, as convoluted, as susceptible to loopholes, coverage gaps, and exploitation had single-payer remained? I don't know, but that's my sense of it.


Single-payer was never on the table. What was cut out was the "government option", which would have put the Federal government into the insurance business to keep the other insurers in line.

Given that we have people in Congress fighting FOR Medicare waste and fraud because it benefits their major donors, I'm really amazed that we got what we got, which is that insurance company profits are capped.
 
2012-06-24 09:35:02 PM  
European/Canadian socialized medicine is more constitutional than the individual mandate.
 
2012-06-24 09:35:27 PM  

itsdan: Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.

The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.



That's impossible. According to the Democrats you pay $300,000 a year for your health insurance and have to fight daily to keep hospitals from murdering you and selling you for parts.
 
2012-06-24 09:37:05 PM  

Mrtraveler01: truthseeker2083: Friction8r: namatad: but but obama is black

That's a great point! Succinct, yet all-encompassing. And the Supreme Court is fixin to give Obamacare the beatdown! And the Fark Lib Circle Jerk Club can't stop it!

Why are republicans fascinated with male on male sexuality? I'm gay and I don't think about cock as much as you guys do.

Obviously he has some homosexual tendencies that he's trying to mask and project onto others.


Which is funny, because most straight guys I've ever known wouldn't treat that kind of thing like the insult it's meant to be. They would just think it was childish and move on. So, even as a desperate 'slam' or insult or whatever it's called now, it fails, and it fails hard.
 
2012-06-24 09:37:11 PM  

s2s2s2: Mantour: [www.modleft.com image 500x370]

She's a plant, you can tell by the spelling and the European Z.


t.qkme.me
 
2012-06-24 09:38:15 PM  

Gig103: Gig103: The clause that I don't understand is where they will INCREASE tax ON high-end ("Cadillac") plans but not other plans.

Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.


I think it's just because if you can afford a high-end plan, you can afford a tax, but if you can't, you probably don't need more taxes.

/At least, that's why I'd do it
//Taxing poor people is just slightly pointless--what, you get two cents? Yeah, that'll keep government running. Get real money from people who won't get hurt when you take it.
 
2012-06-24 09:39:15 PM  

truthseeker2083: Mrtraveler01: truthseeker2083: Friction8r: namatad: but but obama is black

That's a great point! Succinct, yet all-encompassing. And the Supreme Court is fixin to give Obamacare the beatdown! And the Fark Lib Circle Jerk Club can't stop it!

Why are republicans fascinated with male on male sexuality? I'm gay and I don't think about cock as much as you guys do.

Obviously he has some homosexual tendencies that he's trying to mask and project onto others.

Which is funny, because most straight guys I've ever known wouldn't treat that kind of thing like the insult it's meant to be. They would just think it was childish and move on. So, even as a desperate 'slam' or insult or whatever it's called now, it fails, and it fails hard.


you said hard heheheh YEAH YAEH hehehhahuhuhu
 
2012-06-24 09:39:18 PM  
Consider that this thread and this entire subject closely resembles a chaotic plane crash no matter how it turns out...

img688.imageshack.us

...I just wanted to tell you good luck. We're all counting on you.
 
2012-06-24 09:39:25 PM  
Hey Palin. Don't cross into Canada for taxpayer funded health care like you used to do.
 
2012-06-24 09:40:04 PM  

HeWhoHasNoName: Consider that this thread and this entire subject closely resembles a chaotic plane crash no matter how it turns out...

[img688.imageshack.us image 640x360]

...I just wanted to tell you good luck. We're all counting on you.


I can't wait until the court makes a decision. FARK will be fun that day
 
2012-06-24 09:41:16 PM  
Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

i.imgur.com

I like almost everything in this car.

I like aspects of Wickard, but think the decision illogical.
I definitely dislike everything about Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific

I don't see stare decisis in the Constitution, and frankly, I am not all that enamored of it.

If we were to unzip Wickard and Santa Clara, I would be okay with that.
 
2012-06-24 09:42:14 PM  
This is quite possibly the stupidest first-world country on Earth.
 
2012-06-24 09:44:41 PM  

Bhasayate: truthseeker2083: Mrtraveler01: truthseeker2083: Friction8r: namatad: but but obama is black

That's a great point! Succinct, yet all-encompassing. And the Supreme Court is fixin to give Obamacare the beatdown! And the Fark Lib Circle Jerk Club can't stop it!

Why are republicans fascinated with male on male sexuality? I'm gay and I don't think about cock as much as you guys do.

Obviously he has some homosexual tendencies that he's trying to mask and project onto others.

Which is funny, because most straight guys I've ever known wouldn't treat that kind of thing like the insult it's meant to be. They would just think it was childish and move on. So, even as a desperate 'slam' or insult or whatever it's called now, it fails, and it fails hard.

you said hard heheheh YEAH YAEH hehehhahuhuhu


Lol, I giggled when I read this, tried to hold it in and I couldn't. Damnit, I woke up the dog!
 
2012-06-24 09:46:03 PM  
MyRandomName:
i39.tinypic.com
Any hospital can stop taking in uninsured whenever they want. They just get no Medicare or
Medicaid dollars. Read the emtala law sometime.

i43.tinypic.com

For all purposes, that's approximately zero hospitals. So no, we can't exclusively use those if we wish, and yes, anyone trying to argue that the uninsured aren't everyone else's problem is a dumbass.
 
2012-06-24 09:49:11 PM  

RoyBatty: Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[i.imgur.com image 622x298]

I like almost everything in this car.


If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.
 
2012-06-24 09:50:52 PM  

BKITU: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.


How about this logic?

You fat 30 year old fark, I'm going to have to pay for your diabetes and your triple bypass, so pay the health fine or go to jail.

/A law does not invalidate an individual's right to live as they choose.
 
2012-06-24 09:51:41 PM  

Kome: If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.


I understand that. I won't be terribly upset if ACA passes -- god knows I need it.

But I will lament that we missed another opportunity to pass a single payer universal health care plan, (and the fantasy opportunity to peel back Wickard.)
 
2012-06-24 09:56:47 PM  

Opeth1429: Mrtraveler01: So when this gets repealed, what will be the next step then Republicans?

Hint:

If it involves the words "tort reform" or "cross-border competition), you will get punched in the cock.

/sits back and waits for the response

President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


Many states have enacted "tort reform." In NONE of them has the cost of insurance gone down (until Obamacare."
 
2012-06-24 09:58:02 PM  

Biological Ali: relcec: DamnYankees: relcec: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.

And you don't have to own health insurance if you never use any public health services.

Oh wait, literally no one can promise that.

and that's why your analogy sucks. the premise is inaccurate and comparison is bad fit anyway.

notsureifserious.jpg



reality: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car.
it's a kind of a big problem since the analogy is obamacare is like car insurance in that if you own a car you have to buy insurance for it.


Serious Black: relcec: I'm not sure why this law won't still operate effectively without the mandate.
the mandate was simply a way to get those who will be highly profitable premium payers that don't get sick very often to help pad the insurance company bottom line.

in response to this the insurance companies will presumably just have to raise rates on everyone else more than they projected.
that might not be a bad thing.

it could be bad for obama, but it might be good for the nation. the sooner people realize that this system is irrevocably broken and that prices will continue to rise faster than inflation without real reform and a government system to limit price increases the better.
and it seems to me like just striking the mandate increases that likelihood.

I really have not come up with an opinion as to the best outcome. Striking down just the mandate would put an immense amount of pressure on Congress to fix the obvious flaws that could start a death spiral. Striking down the whole law could destroy a big motivator for people voting for Romney and push him to have a specific policy response that will open him up to attacks, and Obama could come out for Medicare for All which many Americans want. Leaving the whole law intact (most likely by a 6-3 ruling as I can't see only Kennedy swinging) would protect Obama from the almost guaranteed attacks that the court is being wildly activist unless they want to take the step of calling Roberts a RINO.



the difference between the two candidates with regard to the things that I care about are negligible. obama is horrible on immigration but romney is impressively moronic on healthcare. they are both idiots when it comes to the war on drugs and war in general and everyone going forward looks like they will be imperial president types. to me they look like practically indistinguishable examples of awful government when I take the D and R away and just look at the issues.

obviously I'm odd in that I don't see increased commercial rates as a bad thing necessarily (and my theory as to why it might not be a bad thing has a big weak spot; it presupposes that the majority of people are smart and care enough enough to wisen up eventually and come to the correct conclusion about necessary reform), but one thing that definitely would be bad with just a mandate repeal is that I've heard that catastrophic coverage was prohibited as a way to increase insurance premiums and insurance company profit.

if the young and healthy won't be required to obtain insurance, and also won't have the option of purchasing catastrophic that could be a substantial problem it seems. I don't know whether that is true though. it is mentioned at the bottom of this economist article on the reform package.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/obamacare-a n d-supreme-court
 
2012-06-24 09:58:19 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: This is quite possibly the stupidest first-world country on Earth.


There's certainly no longer any reason to prefer America to any other civilized country.
 
2012-06-24 09:59:19 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: runcible spork: Yes, but would have been as big, as convoluted, as susceptible to loopholes, coverage gaps, and exploitation had single-payer remained? I don't know, but that's my sense of it.

Single-payer was never on the table. What was cut out was the "government option", which would have put the Federal government into the insurance business to keep the other insurers in line.



Was it removed even before coercion and caving negotiations began, or was it never seriously included? Can I still be outraged and angry? Please?

Given that we have people in Congress fighting FOR Medicare waste and fraud because it benefits their major donors, I'm really amazed that we got what we got, which is that insurance company profits are capped.

My sense is that it's so convoluted and ungainly and the insurers are so ruthless and rapacious that they'll find many ways to subvert the intent of the law (should it be passed) and continue to reap ridiculous profits.
 
2012-06-24 10:03:14 PM  

relcec: reality: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car.
it's a kind of a big problem since the analogy is obamacare is like car insurance in that if you own a car you have to buy insurance for it.


What baffles me is the fact that everything you've said is just bolstering DamnYankees' point, and yet your tone suggests some sort of vague attempt to argue against him. I'm just not sure what exactly it is you're trying to say here.
 
2012-06-24 10:04:52 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: This is quite possibly the stupidest first-world country on Earth.


you are only a little wrong, we're the stupidest and it isn't even close. the only country where legislative gridlock at times looks like an improvement. when both parties agreed during the last 30 years it has been quite often to the significant detriment of the citizenry. a bill to significantly increase h1b visas in the midst of the great recession and record unemployment passed the house almost unanimously the other week.
 
2012-06-24 10:06:01 PM  

wozzeck: The whole mandate thing is such a retarded fiasco that it should be taught in poli sci classes for the next hundred years.


1) Favorited
2) Voted Smartest
 
2012-06-24 10:06:05 PM  

Biological Ali: relcec: reality: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car.
it's a kind of a big problem since the analogy is obamacare is like car insurance in that if you own a car you have to buy insurance for it.

What baffles me is the fact that everything you've said is just bolstering DamnYankees' point, and yet your tone suggests some sort of vague attempt to argue against him. I'm just not sure what exactly it is you're trying to say here.



if you were agreeing with me I'd have to revisit my argument.
thank you for your support.
 
2012-06-24 10:07:18 PM  

wozzeck: Easily the worst political move by a President since Roosevelt's court packing plan.


What? The court-packing plan worked.
 
2012-06-24 10:08:00 PM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.


Give this man/woman a cigar.
This is the only proper way to do it. Not by gutting the constitution.

// Personally in favor of an amendment to give the government the power to do this.
 
2012-06-24 10:08:40 PM  

DamnYankees: wozzeck: Easily the worst political move by a President since Roosevelt's court packing plan.

What? The court-packing plan worked.


so did the interment camps.
 
2012-06-24 10:09:08 PM  

relcec: DamnYankees: wozzeck: Easily the worst political move by a President since Roosevelt's court packing plan.

What? The court-packing plan worked.

so did the interment camps.


Are you just posting random words?
 
2012-06-24 10:10:09 PM  

truthseeker2083: s2s2s2: Obamacare will give you An Incurable Desire for Shiftlessness.

You think you're clever don't you?


Not for that shiat, but generally.
 
2012-06-24 10:11:26 PM  

truthseeker2083: Bhasayate: truthseeker2083: Mrtraveler01: truthseeker2083: Friction8r: namatad: but but obama is black

That's a great point! Succinct, yet all-encompassing. And the Supreme Court is fixin to give Obamacare the beatdown! And the Fark Lib Circle Jerk Club can't stop it!

Why are republicans fascinated with male on male sexuality? I'm gay and I don't think about cock as much as you guys do.

Obviously he has some homosexual tendencies that he's trying to mask and project onto others.

Which is funny, because most straight guys I've ever known wouldn't treat that kind of thing like the insult it's meant to be. They would just think it was childish and move on. So, even as a desperate 'slam' or insult or whatever it's called now, it fails, and it fails hard.

you said hard heheheh YEAH YAEH hehehhahuhuhu

Lol, I giggled when I read this, tried to hold it in and I couldn't. Damnit, I woke up the dog!


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-24 10:12:06 PM  

runcible spork: My sense is that it's so convoluted and ungainly and the insurers are so ruthless and rapacious that they'll find many ways to subvert the intent of the law (should it be passed) and continue to reap ridiculous profits.


I get the sense that it's much more straightforward than it's made out to be. The only thing that's unclear is there's to me is how coverage is going to work for people with low incomes and those -like myself- who have to buy our own insurance.
 
2012-06-24 10:13:04 PM  

runcible spork: Dwight_Yeast: runcible spork: Yes, but would have been as big, as convoluted, as susceptible to loopholes, coverage gaps, and exploitation had single-payer remained? I don't know, but that's my sense of it.

Single-payer was never on the table. What was cut out was the "government option", which would have put the Federal government into the insurance business to keep the other insurers in line.

Was it removed even before coercion and caving negotiations began, or was it never seriously included? Can I still be outraged and angry? Please?

Given that we have people in Congress fighting FOR Medicare waste and fraud because it benefits their major donors, I'm really amazed that we got what we got, which is that insurance company profits are capped.

My sense is that it's so convoluted and ungainly and the insurers are so ruthless and rapacious that they'll find many ways to subvert the intent of the law (should it be passed) and continue to reap ridiculous profits.


Firedog Lake: The Day Single Payer Was Removed Indelicately From the Table (Video) and Landes' "Beware of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing"
 
2012-06-24 10:13:22 PM  

DamnYankees: What? The court-packing plan worked.


The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 sought to add 6 new justices to the supreme court. That provision was defeated in the Senate. So yes, it failed.
 
2012-06-24 10:15:16 PM  

GoldSpider: DamnYankees: What? The court-packing plan worked.

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 sought to add 6 new justices to the supreme court. That provision was defeated in the Senate. So yes, it failed.


It failed to pass, but it succeeded in scaring the crap out of the court and ending any challenge they posed to the New Deal after that.
 
2012-06-24 10:15:26 PM  

GoldSpider: DamnYankees: What? The court-packing plan worked.

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 sought to add 6 new justices to the supreme court. That provision was defeated in the Senate. So yes, it failed.


Wikipedia, how does it work?--
As Michael Parrish has written, "the protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat at the hands of Chief Justice Hughes and the administration's Congressional opponents."
 
2012-06-24 10:15:44 PM  

DamnYankees: relcec: DamnYankees: wozzeck: Easily the worst political move by a President since Roosevelt's court packing plan.

What? The court-packing plan worked.

so did the interment camps.

Are you just posting random words?


I was pointing out the ends don't always justify the means. that governemnt policies need to be graded on more than effectiveness.
next time I'll just come right out and say it for you. trying to pack the supreme court because you don't like the way it rules isn't cool because in the end you get what you wanted, politically or otherwise.
 
2012-06-24 10:17:32 PM  

DamnYankees: wozzeck: Easily the worst political move by a President since Roosevelt's court packing plan.

What? The court-packing plan worked.


So we have eighteen Justices and the bulk of the New Deal wasn't overturned?

/confused
 
2012-06-24 10:17:44 PM  

Kome: RoyBatty: Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[i.imgur.com image 622x298]

I like almost everything in this car.

If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.


What if it cost more to keep up than the job you have to get to pays?
 
2012-06-24 10:21:11 PM  

RoyBatty: runcible spork: Dwight_Yeast: runcible spork: Yes, but would have been as big, as convoluted, as susceptible to loopholes, coverage gaps, and exploitation had single-payer remained? I don't know, but that's my sense of it.

Single-payer was never on the table. What was cut out was the "government option", which would have put the Federal government into the insurance business to keep the other insurers in line.

Was it removed even before coercion and caving negotiations began, or was it never seriously included? Can I still be outraged and angry? Please?

Given that we have people in Congress fighting FOR Medicare waste and fraud because it benefits their major donors, I'm really amazed that we got what we got, which is that insurance company profits are capped.

My sense is that it's so convoluted and ungainly and the insurers are so ruthless and rapacious that they'll find many ways to subvert the intent of the law (should it be passed) and continue to reap ridiculous profits.

Firedog Lake: The Day Single Payer Was Removed Indelicately From the Table (Video) and Landes' "Beware of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing"



See also:

Truthdig: Chris Hedges' Columns: Obama's Health Care Bill Is Enough to Make You Sick

And

Fifty Medical Doctors for Single Payer Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Individual Mandate
 
2012-06-24 10:23:08 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: The only thing that's unclear is there's to me is how coverage is going to work for people with low incomes and those -like myself- who have to buy our own insurance.


How the Affordable Care Act works for those who buy their own insurance has been covered endlessly on Fark
 
2012-06-24 10:23:54 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: runcible spork: My sense is that it's so convoluted and ungainly and the insurers are so ruthless and rapacious that they'll find many ways to subvert the intent of the law (should it be passed) and continue to reap ridiculous profits.

I get the sense that it's much more straightforward than it's made out to be. The only thing that's unclear is there's to me is how coverage is going to work for people with low incomes and those -like myself- who have to buy our own insurance.



I'm rooting for your version, but life has consistently shown me that increasing amounts of bureaucracy tend to correlate with accumulated and unintentional idiocy (never mind actual corruption). And, ironically (or paradoxically), I'm not a "small-government" type.
 
2012-06-24 10:26:11 PM  

Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

You sir, are the reason there are now bill collectors in the ER.

 
2012-06-24 10:28:18 PM  
I.e., "Keep yer gubbmint hands off my Medicare."

Man are those freedom/liberty/teabagger types in for some huge surprises.

"Wait...what?"

"WHAT?!?!?!"
 
2012-06-24 10:33:52 PM  

s2s2s2: Kome: RoyBatty: Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[i.imgur.com image 622x298]

I like almost everything in this car.

If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.

What if it cost more to keep up than the job you have to get to pays?


Well, you've convinced me. Time to ditch the ugly car, lose the job as a result and no longer be a productive contributor to the country, and sit around collecting unemployment money from the government.
 
2012-06-24 10:35:08 PM  
Aside:: Am becoming increasingly aware that "myFark" easily parses to "myocardial infarction."
 
2012-06-24 10:36:37 PM  

runcible spork: but life has consistently shown me that increasing amounts of bureaucracy tend to correlate with accumulated and unintentional idiocy


Don't confuse bureaucracy with regulation.
 
2012-06-24 10:36:58 PM  
RoyBatty: See also:

Truthdig: Chris Hedges' Columns: Obama's Health Care Bill Is Enough to Make You Sick

Fifty Medical Doctors for Single Payer Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Individual Mandate


Thanks for posting those. It seems pretty clear to me now that we have to get away from the employer paid model. It's not controlling costs, not insuring everyone, and it's a major drag on our economy. Not only does the ACA do nothing to bring costs down, but it actually further entrenches a system we know does not work. I honestly can't recall a single piece of legislation, passed in my lifetime, that is more irresponsible than this one. It doesn't solve problems and adds the creepy new idea that Congress can make you enter into contracts with private companies whenever they think there is some public policy benefit.

If the Court upholds the mandate, we won't see actual reform for a very long time.
 
2012-06-24 10:41:04 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: I honestly can't recall a single piece of legislation, passed in my lifetime, that is more irresponsible than this one.


How old are you?

Medicare Part D?

PATROIT Act?

DoMA??

DMCA?
 
2012-06-24 10:41:11 PM  

s2s2s2: Kome: RoyBatty: Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[i.imgur.com image 622x298]

I like almost everything in this car.

If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.

What if it cost more to keep up than the job you have to get to pays?


I had a job at starbucks a couple of years ago. I had insurance for my partner and myself through them. Then, it got to where filling up the car cost more than I was paid. I kept it for as long as I could since my partner's work wouldn't cover me, but it was way too much in gas. We haven't been able to get affordable insurance since then, so no doctors for us. Of course, he's a disabled vet, so he can go to the VA if he needs. I however just pray that nothing happens to me, because we can't afford it.

TLDR: insurance shouldn't be tied to work, because if you lose your job/have to quit, you're screwed.
 
2012-06-24 10:41:38 PM  
People hated Social Security when it was first implemented. Now, you can't even get a Tea Bagger to want to cut it.
 
2012-06-24 10:41:55 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: I honestly can't recall a single piece of legislation, passed in my lifetime, that is more irresponsible than this one.


You type really well for a 3 year old.
 
2012-06-24 10:42:27 PM  
Much as I dislike the new health care bill (I'm pro-single payer), I have lived in a society where there is an individual mandate (Switzerland) and having studied their health care system it becomes immediately apparent that the system would fall apart without everyone buying in. Don't people in America get that? Of course, the Swiss government is nowhere near as corrupt as ours because corporations don't run Bern as they run D.C. and the Swiss government heavily regulates the health care companies, but still- without an individual mandate, it simply would not work.
 
2012-06-24 10:43:50 PM  
Oh, and I forgot to add:
Go 'mercia!!! We're #1 (for not giving a damn about the poor, needy, and sick) USA USA USA
 
2012-06-24 10:43:54 PM  

Kome: s2s2s2: Kome: RoyBatty: Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[i.imgur.com image 622x298]

I like almost everything in this car.

If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.

What if it cost more to keep up than the job you have to get to pays?

Well, you've convinced me. Time to ditch the ugly car, lose the job as a result and no longer be a productive contributor to the country, and sit around collecting unemployment money from the government.


Or you could call your Chinese friend for a loan.
 
2012-06-24 10:45:47 PM  

coco ebert: Don't people in America get that?


No, Americans want their cake and to eat it, as well. They want to be protected and coddled but they don't want to admit their part of a society.
 
2012-06-24 10:46:07 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: runcible spork: but life has consistently shown me that increasing amounts of bureaucracy tend to correlate with accumulated and unintentional idiocy

Don't confuse bureaucracy with regulation.



One often begets the other.
 
2012-06-24 10:47:40 PM  

fusillade762: F*cking cognitive dissonance, how does it work?

abb3w: mandate

If they'd just called it a tax we wouldn't be in this mess now.


It's not a tax. The mandate says that by 2014 you need to prove you have some sort of private coverage. If you don't you will suffer a tax penalty that increases as time goes on. There are subsidies for lower income people. The idea is to get everybody who can afford insurance to buy it.
 
2012-06-24 10:47:44 PM  
Please, the Supreme Court is above such petty things as fickle popularity contests and can use their brilliant minds guided by the great principals that make this nation great to make a ruling that provides the best path to the future while upholding the traditions that brought us to today. Those great principals,of course, being cold, hard, cash.
 
2012-06-24 10:48:10 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Don't confuse bureaucracy with regulation.


Regulations don't enforce themselves.
 
2012-06-24 10:48:23 PM  

truthseeker2083: s2s2s2: Kome: RoyBatty: Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[i.imgur.com image 622x298]

I like almost everything in this car.

If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.

What if it cost more to keep up than the job you have to get to pays?

I had a job at starbucks a couple of years ago. I had insurance for my partner and myself through them. Then, it got to where filling up the car cost more than I was paid. I kept it for as long as I could since my partner's work wouldn't cover me, but it was way too much in gas. We haven't been able to get affordable insurance since then, so no doctors for us. Of course, he's a disabled vet, so he can go to the VA if he needs. I however just pray that nothing happens to me, because we can't afford it.

TLDR: insurance shouldn't be tied to work, because if you lose your job/have to quit, you're screwed.


Healthcare should be free for everyone, and funded in like measure as is war.
I hope things improve for you.
 
2012-06-24 10:49:04 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: coco ebert: Don't people in America get that?

No, Americans want their cake and to eat it, as well. They want to be protected and coddled but they don't want to admit their part of a society.


Well, it's farking annoying. I really don't have anything more profound than that. It's farking annoying that we can't view our society as a society instead of a random assortment of highly rational individuals who can pick and choose exactly what he or she wants and doesn't want with no repercussions.
 
2012-06-24 10:49:18 PM  
Isn't healthcare overpriced because of insurance? I have insurance now, and the same doctor visit I had prior to insurance was 65 bucks. Now with insurance I still end up paying around 65 bucks, but when the charges come in to show what insurance covers it was well over 500 bucks. How does that work, oh yeah, its a scam
 
2012-06-24 10:49:27 PM  
DamnYankees

Good argument. About the best defense of this stupid thing I've seen yet.
 
2012-06-24 10:50:12 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: RoyBatty: See also:

Truthdig: Chris Hedges' Columns: Obama's Health Care Bill Is Enough to Make You Sick

Fifty Medical Doctors for Single Payer Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Individual Mandate

Thanks for posting those. It seems pretty clear to me now that we have to get away from the employer paid model. It's not controlling costs, not insuring everyone, and it's a major drag on our economy. Not only does the ACA do nothing to bring costs down, but it actually further entrenches a system we know does not work. I honestly can't recall a single piece of legislation, passed in my lifetime, that is more irresponsible than this one. It doesn't solve problems and adds the creepy new idea that Congress can make you enter into contracts with private companies whenever they think there is some public policy benefit.

If the Court upholds the mandate, we won't see actual reform for a very long time.


I agree.

One of my big concerns with the employer paid model, apart from how unfair it is to the mostly employed, or underemployed as well as to the entrepreneur or small business person, is that it makes American companies have very different cost structures than oversea competitors. And I think that means ACA becomes very uncompetitive.

I do fear that similar to HillaryCare in '93, it will be 20 years before the politicians try this again, which is why I want to see it rejected/want to see it passed.
 
2012-06-24 10:53:58 PM  

s2s2s2: truthseeker2083: s2s2s2: Kome: RoyBatty: Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

[i.imgur.com image 622x298]

I like almost everything in this car.

If I desperately needed a mode of transportation and that ugly machine was the only one I could conceivably use for the time being, I should really not care so much about how it looks and focus more on what it can do for me. Does it work? Great! The fact that it looks like sh*t is lamentable, but ultimately irrelevant.

What if it cost more to keep up than the job you have to get to pays?

I had a job at starbucks a couple of years ago. I had insurance for my partner and myself through them. Then, it got to where filling up the car cost more than I was paid. I kept it for as long as I could since my partner's work wouldn't cover me, but it was way too much in gas. We haven't been able to get affordable insurance since then, so no doctors for us. Of course, he's a disabled vet, so he can go to the VA if he needs. I however just pray that nothing happens to me, because we can't afford it.

TLDR: insurance shouldn't be tied to work, because if you lose your job/have to quit, you're screwed.

Healthcare should be free for everyone, and funded in like measure as is war.
I hope things improve for you.


Thanks. I hope so too. All I know is, things have to change. This bill may not be perfect, but it's at least a step towards the ultimate goal of if not tax funded healthcare, at least affordable and consistant care.
 
2012-06-24 10:56:36 PM  
NEWSFLASH: People like the parts where they get things for free from the insurance companies (guaranteed issue, allowing children to stay on parents insurance). They dislike the parts that make it so insurers can actually afford to do those things (individual mandate).

Surveys and articles like this that claim that 'people like the parts, but not the whole, so they must have been brainwashed by republicans' are stupid. People like getting stuff for free. They dislike being told they have to pay for it. That's all these polls show.
 
2012-06-24 10:56:44 PM  
I'LL come over and mow your lawn, walk your dog, wash the dishes, clean out your gutter, and beat you to within an inch of your life with a tire iron. This is a package deal I like to call Nedicare. Now, so far, Nedicare is hugely unpopular. However, if I ask people about individual components they are almost all universally likes.

I can only conclued that the dislike for Nedicare stems from an evil conspiracy to slander the name.
 
2012-06-24 11:01:09 PM  

truthseeker2083: I had a job at starbucks a couple of years ago. I had insurance for my partner and myself through them. Then, it got to where filling up the car cost more than I was paid. I kept it for as long as I could since my partner's work wouldn't cover me, but it was way too much in gas. We haven't been able to get affordable insurance since then, so no doctors for us. Of course, he's a disabled vet, so he can go to the VA if he needs. I however just pray that nothing happens to me, because we can't afford it.


I hear ya. I stayed for years in a terribly sucky job that had good health care benefits. Would have loved to start my own business but without health care for the family, it was impossible.

I think it's grossly unfair to the American People to tie health care to being employed by some big company. And more than just unfair, it actively hurts the American Economy / American Experiment.

That said, a tip of my hat and lots of thanks to Henry Kaiser of Kaiser Steele in who the days before WWII and during WWII was one of the first leaders to make health care available to his workers on a large scale.
 
2012-06-24 11:02:03 PM  
RoyBatty

As far as costs go, that was my big objection too. It's been two years now and I think people have had time to think this through. Insuring employees continues to get more costly and, in many cases, a lot of those costs get shifted to the employee. And, at the same time, wages don't increase enough to cover that and overall health care costs increase. Normally, people would call this sort of thing unworkable. Or crazy.

I understand that people like certain parts of the ACA. The goodies were front-loaded after all. But people have seen through that. It's encouraging to see signs that the general public is smarter than the political class.
 
2012-06-24 11:05:30 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: The goodies were front-loaded after all.


What are you talking about? It is literally designed the opposite way. The bill was passed in 2010 and was designed that most of its changes would not go into effect in 2014. Or do you have access to some insurance exchanges I'm not aware of.
 
2012-06-24 11:13:09 PM  
DamnYankees: What are you talking about? It is literally designed the opposite way. The bill was passed in 2010 and was designed that most of its changes would not go into effect in 2014. Or do you have access to some insurance exchanges I'm not aware of.

You're kidding me right?

Children kept on parent's coverage to 26, free wellness and preventative services, guaranteed issue to those under 19. You're familiar with these and other things right? Apparently not, but that's the stuff that polls well. And it's already in effect. The mandate, not surprisingly, does not poll well and there is an understanding now that this thing will not control costs or get us out from under the employer paid model.
 
2012-06-24 11:17:22 PM  

Talondel: NEWSFLASH: People like the parts where they get things for free from the insurance companies (guaranteed issue, allowing children to stay on parents insurance). They dislike the parts that make it so insurers can actually afford to do those things (individual mandate).

Surveys and articles like this that claim that 'people like the parts, but not the whole, so they must have been brainwashed by republicans' are stupid. People like getting stuff for free. They dislike being told they have to pay for it. That's all these polls show.


So what should we do? Execute Order 66?
 
2012-06-24 11:17:54 PM  

puffy999: MyRandomName: Aca was not argued under tax and spend you ignorant twat.

Medicare isn't a "tax."


Wanna bet?
 
2012-06-24 11:22:33 PM  
how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa
 
2012-06-24 11:24:45 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: The goodies were front-loaded after all.


Are you trolling or stupid?
 
2012-06-24 11:30:33 PM  
Dwight_Yeast

Neither. Do you have anything productive to offer or is being childish all you can manage?
 
2012-06-24 11:34:09 PM  
Americans are too farking stupid to deserve nice things.

/I'm sure it's been said already......
 
2012-06-24 11:34:42 PM  

coco ebert: Much as I dislike the new health care bill (I'm pro-single payer), I have lived in a society where there is an individual mandate (Switzerland) and having studied their health care system it becomes immediately apparent that the system would fall apart without everyone buying in. Don't people in America get that? Of course, the Swiss government is nowhere near as corrupt as ours because corporations don't run Bern as they run D.C. and the Swiss government heavily regulates the health care companies, but still- without an individual mandate, it simply would not work.


we are bad, switzerland is significantly less bad, but also maybe not so great. of course they don't do things like intentionally decreasing the number of residency slots to increase physician pay so they will never be as good as being bad at providing efficient healthcare as us.
I'd rather look to the systems that really hold down cost. like japan. they do well for having such an elderly population (it's actually the oldest in the world).

Link

healthcare as percentage of gdp.
www.paecon.net

www.kff.org
 
2012-06-24 11:37:27 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: Neither. Do you have anything productive to offer


I think calling you out is quite productive. ;)
 
2012-06-24 11:37:41 PM  

kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa


if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care
 
2012-06-24 11:38:51 PM  

runcible spork: I honestly don't know who to be angrier at, the Republicans for being such obdurate jerks, or the Democrats for being so pathetically spineless, even more than we've become accustomed to.


You can choose between Evil or Lame. That's pretty much it politically.
 
2012-06-24 11:41:56 PM  

mrshowrules: itsdan: Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.

The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.

Canadians don't pay a cent and if anything, they wish people went to their doctors more often.


They enslaved their doctors and nurses?!?! I'm shocked! Or do you think taxes aren't payments for government provided social services?
 
2012-06-24 11:42:48 PM  
Dwight_Yeast: I think calling you out is quite productive. ;)

Calling me out on what? The things I listed are already in effect. Those are the items in the ACA that poll well. The law, overall, has not become popular. But hey, if you can find a way to prove that those things are not already in effect, or that they aren't popular, then you might be on to something. Best of luck, and see if you can do it while being a grownup.
 
2012-06-24 11:47:39 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: Calling me out on what?


Being either an idiot or a troll.

The things you listed aren't the most important part of the healthcare bill and the most important parts have yet to take effect. They're things like preventing insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, limiting insurers' profits (including forcing insurers to refund overages to the insured), making healthcare more affordable for the self-employed and subsidizing it for those who can't afford it.

And all of those bits poll well, too.

So do you wish to keep farking your chicken or do you want to answer my question: idiot or troll?
 
2012-06-24 11:47:54 PM  
Dear relcec,

Customers who enjoyed links such as "Japanese Pay Less For Healthcare" and infographics such as "US Healthcare vs. European Countries (as percentage of GDP and per-capita)" also looked at "The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems" (caveat: "The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task. ")

/ doubtful that things have improved in the last 12 years
 
2012-06-24 11:49:36 PM  

relcec: coco ebert: Much as I dislike the new health care bill (I'm pro-single payer), I have lived in a society where there is an individual mandate (Switzerland) and having studied their health care system it becomes immediately apparent that the system would fall apart without everyone buying in. Don't people in America get that? Of course, the Swiss government is nowhere near as corrupt as ours because corporations don't run Bern as they run D.C. and the Swiss government heavily regulates the health care companies, but still- without an individual mandate, it simply would not work.

we are bad, switzerland is significantly less bad, but also maybe not so great. of course they don't do things like intentionally decreasing the number of residency slots to increase physician pay so they will never be as good as being bad at providing efficient healthcare as us.
I'd rather look to the systems that really hold down cost. like japan. they do well for having such an elderly population (it's actually the oldest in the world).

Link

healthcare as percentage of gdp.
[www.paecon.net image 419x298]

[www.kff.org image 640x375]


Oh, it's far from perfect. It's not super progressive in that while the poor get help from the state, working class and middle class people pay the same rates as the rich. Also, it's very expensive. That said, I have never heard of anyone being refused service or having problems with insurance companies paying out. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit off of basic care and so there are disincentives built into the system to keep insurance companies from gouging patients.

My hubby and i have already decided that even if we are covered in the U.S. there just is no trusting the system and if we have some sort of catastrophic health issue, we're packing it up and heading back to good ol' CH.
 
2012-06-24 11:53:53 PM  
runcible spork: ...Japanese Pay Less For More Healthcare...

FTFM
 
2012-06-24 11:58:16 PM  
I'm just here to toss this into the water:

American corporations outsource jobs - high-paying jobs like software engineering - to Canada for this exact reason, that the state pays for healthcare, which saves on their costs.

Nothing else would help business, small and large alone, than having single payer.

Back to your poutrage thread...
 
2012-06-24 11:59:32 PM  
Dwight_Yeast

Ah, I knew it. You just can't avoid being childish. It's pathetic but I've seen you post before so it's not unexpected.

First of all, I did not say that the early implementation included all of the important parts of the bill. I was responding to Damn Yankees mistaken assertion that most of the law does not take affect until 2014. It's actually being rolled out bit by bit. You apparently didn't notice that I was responding to something specific. Your mistake.

Also, I'm aware that guaranteed issue is popluar. The problem is that the mandate is not. It shouldn't be either, because it's an incredibly stupid and damaging way to go at the problem of health insurance. But, who knows, the Court may make a mistake and uphold the mandate. Then we'll have to wait several more years before real reform comes along.

The law will not make health care more affordable in the long run and that, along with the mandate to do business with companies like United Healthcare, is why the ACA is not popular and why it never will be popular.

So congrats. You've managed fail to grasp anything and, at the same time, indicate that you support insurance companies over people. Good job.
 
2012-06-24 11:59:42 PM  

starsrift: Nothing else would help business, small and large alone, than having single payer.


Too bad we don't have a credible force backing single payer here.
 
2012-06-25 12:04:10 AM  

truthseeker2083: Obama needs to come out and say this country should be a xian theocracy with a gun in every hand. The right wing would explode in rage over it...


Probably because of the implication that it isn't already one.
 
2012-06-25 12:08:37 AM  
Do you like icecream?

Sure it is awesome!

Do you support Obama's icecream is good opinion?

OMG why is Obama trying to take us to UN death camps with his communist fascist icecream?!?!?!?!?!
 
2012-06-25 12:09:50 AM  

abb3w: truthseeker2083: Obama needs to come out and say this country should be a xian theocracy with a gun in every hand. The right wing would explode in rage over it...

Probably because of the implication that it isn't already one.


Eh, whatever the cause, it'd be hilarious. Every time the republicans have exploded in rage recently, it reminds me of the nature documentaries where the animals are always loudest right before they have their throat ripped out. The right wing noise machine is screeching it's loudest now, and it's a pleasing sound.
 
2012-06-25 12:11:04 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: It's pathetic but I've seen you post before so it's not unexpected.


Ah, troll. Just as I suspected.

Botkin of the Yard: It shouldn't be either, because it's an incredibly stupid and damaging way to go at the problem of health insurance.


Why?

Botkin of the Yard: The law will not make health care more affordable in the long run


[citation needed]

Botkin of the Yard: you support insurance companies over people. Good job.


Incorrect. Rather, I'm trying to puzzle out why you're basically arguing that the healthcare refore act is a bad thing when you seem so poorly informed about it. It's almost like you're trying to lay the groundwork for the next set of GOP talking points, whatever they may be; I'm too tired to work it out tonight, but if it comes to me in the morning, I'll let you know.

/I'm a single-payer man myself
//I'd have been happy with a public/private system like Japan or Germany
///But what we're getting is better than what we currently have, which means a lot to me, as I haven't been able to afford insurance since 2008.
 
2012-06-25 12:12:41 AM  
How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.
 
2012-06-25 12:38:46 AM  

GAT_00: Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"

You're going to have to explain why this was so illegal when the GOP proposed the individual mandate first in 1994.


They never proposed anything, Romney was never Governor of anywhere, and socialism.
 
2012-06-25 12:47:50 AM  
Dwight_Yeast

Much better. You almost sounded like an adult this time. I knew you could do it.

There is nothing I've said so far that would indicate I am not well informed. You just have nothing new to offer. The mandate, as everyone knows, is not popular. The law, overall, is not popular. It doesn't take a republican (and I'm not one) to understand this. Only the most hardcore democrats still cling to this odd notion.

The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional, is essentially a handout to insurance companies, and leaves customers without any real defense against more and more rate increases. I suppose that's why Obama opposed the mandate when he was running for office. I'm sure you thought he was an idiot then. After all, that's how you view those with whom you disagree.

I agree that single payer is the way to go but the ACA is not a real improvement. It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come and, as even democrats now concede, the law does not control costs, which is a big part of the problem. By supporting this law, you approve of keeping us tied to the employer paid model. That alone tells me you are incredibly uninformed.
 
2012-06-25 12:49:52 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: Dwight_Yeast

Much better. You almost sounded like an adult this time. I knew you could do it.

There is nothing I've said so far that would indicate I am not well informed. You just have nothing new to offer. The mandate, as everyone knows, is not popular. The law, overall, is not popular. It doesn't take a republican (and I'm not one) to understand this. Only the most hardcore democrats still cling to this odd notion.

The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional, is essentially a handout to insurance companies, and leaves customers without any real defense against more and more rate increases. I suppose that's why Obama opposed the mandate when he was running for office. I'm sure you thought he was an idiot then. After all, that's how you view those with whom you disagree.

I agree that single payer is the way to go but the ACA is not a real improvement. It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come and, as even democrats now concede, the law does not control costs, which is a big part of the problem. By supporting this law, you approve of keeping us tied to the employer paid model. That alone tells me you are incredibly uninformed.


Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.
 
2012-06-25 01:00:37 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: Dwight_Yeast

There is nothing I've said so far that would indicate I am not well informed. You just have nothing new to offer. The mandate, as everyone knows, is not popular. The law, overall, is not popular. It doesn't take a republican (and I'm not one) to understand this. Only the most hardcore democrats still cling to this odd notion.

The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional, is essentially a handout to insurance companies, and leaves customers without any real defense against more and more rate increases.


If only I could seperate that last post to only this, you'd be voted funny. Please elaborate and try not to be condescending about it.
 
2012-06-25 01:01:54 AM  

coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You

choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.


And what if you somehow end up at the hospital (which is for all intents and purposes obligated to save your farking life) without choosing to go there?

/ 250+ posts in and people are still offering up this argument?
// not to mention all the preceding threads on this topic
 
2012-06-25 01:04:44 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: but the ACA is not a real improvement. It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come and, as even democrats now concede, the law does not control costs, which is a big part of the problem.


See, by not backing up anything you're saying, you're still sounding like a troll. Specifically, a concern troll.
 
2012-06-25 01:06:45 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: The mandate is idiotic because it's unconstitutional,


You're not really good at this whole arguing a point thing.
 
2012-06-25 01:11:23 AM  
The lack of universal coverage is one of the primary reasons healthcare is so expensive. No primary/preventative care causes people to delay treatment, thereby resulting in costly emergency visits. There's a reason the rest of the civilized world has 2/3 of their doctor's in primary care, while the U.S. has 2/3 in specialty/surgery.

Prevention is always cheaper than emergency maintenance. This is a law of systems, from healthcare to software engineering to societal crime.

The U.S. is on its way to spending 20% of its GDP on healthcare, a sum that far outstrips any other nation in the world, while providing worse services and not covering all of its citizens. That's 20 cents out of every dollar, money that could go to schools, to roads, to infrastructure projects, to research and development, or even the military. When you're talking about trillions of dollars, that's staggering. Germany, a country where 100% of citizens are covered for any service, including massages and dance classes, spends under 15% of its GDP on healthcare. Japan, a country whose citizens live longer, healthier lives, has lower infant mortality, and lower mental illness prevalence, spends less than 10%.

The U.S. must have universal coverage, if not with "Obamacare", then with something, and soon, because 20% of the GDP is not a max. We can go beyond that, and that's a terrifying thought. This issue will haunt our society until it is addressed. It will not go away. We must pass laws to fix it.
 
2012-06-25 01:12:07 AM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.


derp
 
2012-06-25 01:12:19 AM  

firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.



wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?
 
2012-06-25 01:16:18 AM  
Has anyone mentioned that GOOD POLICY IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR OPINION?
 
2012-06-25 01:16:56 AM  

natmar_76: The lack of universal coverage...



As they say, THIS (allofit).
 
2012-06-25 01:30:09 AM  

Truncks1: OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.

derp


Why on earth would you call that 'derp'?

If it's unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional , end of story. Just because you want something badly doesn't override it.

You can change the constitution , it's designed for that. Go start the process.
 
2012-06-25 01:30:37 AM  

relcec: firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.


wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?


So you're argument is that they'll voluntarily pay more to doctors so long as they get their small cut, and without some sort of non-profit based alternative to add pressure for lower costs, everyone would collude to further compound the already far above average sector inflation in the medical sector? That's a fair argument, and a great point for why we should add in a public option. The free-markety side of me though still says that with the low-risk people being compelled to join the pool, they would intuitively seek the low premiums, which wouldn't really be gained by implementing your method. The flip-side to your argument though is that people with worse ailments will be in high demand so they can drive up the patient-cost side of things, permitting companies to make more profit... so pretty much the opposite of what the standard is now.
 
2012-06-25 01:32:33 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Truncks1: OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.

derp

Why on earth would you call that 'derp'?

If it's unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional , end of story. Just because you want something badly doesn't override it.

You can change the constitution , it's designed for that. Go start the process.


The constitution already has a commerce clause... if your argument is that regulating a market that 95% of Americans participate in over any 5 year period and 98% of Americans participate in over the course of their lifetime doesn't fall within the scope of regulating interstate commerce, then by all means, make that case.
 
2012-06-25 01:36:58 AM  

Tor_Eckman: Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.

Good lord, do you not understand wtf this is about? When people like you get a disease or gets injured or sick and have to go to the hospital and then can't pay, guess what happens? Yep, the hospital that has to eat your bill ups the price of aspirin and band-aids and everything else another percent to make up for it.

But I guess you'll never get sick or injured so it's only your business, right?


pretty much that...
 
2012-06-25 01:37:44 AM  
Dwight_Yeast: See, by not backing up anything you're saying, you're still sounding like a troll. Specifically, a concern troll.

Everything I've said is common knowledge at this point. Nothing I've said was incorrect. Do you need a citation to be sure the mandate is unpopular? Really?

You support the law and you can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. So you label them trolls. It doesn't work.
 
2012-06-25 01:49:49 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: You support the law and you can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. So you label them trolls. It doesn't work.


Incorrect, I see no reason to attack the law, as -and I've said this before above- it's better than what we have now, which is NOTHING.

Botkin of the Yard: Do you need a citation to be sure the mandate is unpopular? Really?


No, that's the point of TFA. What I need is a citation for this nonsense, posted by YOU:

Botkin of the Yard: the ACA is not a real improvement


Botkin of the Yard: It pretty much ends the chances of getting single payer for years to come


Botkin of the Yard: as even democrats now concede


Botkin of the Yard: the law does not control costs,


Go ahead and back all that up. I won't be holding my breath, as I know concern trolling when I see it.

So I'm glad we've (indirectly) answered my original question.
 
2012-06-25 01:59:31 AM  

Talondel: NEWSFLASH: People like the parts where they get things for free from the insurance companies (guaranteed issue, allowing children to stay on parents insurance).


Those things are not free. You still have to pay your premiums in order to get them.
 
2012-06-25 02:01:41 AM  
firefly212: The constitution already has a commerce clause... if your argument is that regulating a market that 95% of Americans participate in over any 5 year period and 98% of Americans participate in over the course of their lifetime doesn't fall within the scope of regulating interstate commerce, then by all means, make that case.

Nobody is arguing that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate commerce. People are arguing that the Commerce clause does not give the government the power to write a law that says "You must buy [Lobbyist-sponsored Product X] by [Date] or it is a legal offense." It's kind of amazing how many people want this to be the case.

Throwing out everything and installing a single-payer healthcare system is more constitutional than the mandate.
 
2012-06-25 02:03:27 AM  

Somacandra: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x323]

Shut up and get a job like your parents did, hippie.


Here's the problem with that thinking for those of us who have actually been through the system as it is: It's all a lie.

You get 'good' coverage, pay for it happily for years without even needing it. All of a sudden something serious happens. You're laid up and in the hospital for a month or six. You finally get to go home and heal and then the bills come. Suddenly your coverage is no longer there. Bullshiat letters from lawyers start arriving disputing every charge. Unpaid bills arrive. Your coverage gets cancelled. You have to declare bankruptcy and lose your house...

The people who don't buy coverage are at least smart enough to sidestep all this. I wish I had that foresight before they screwed me. All insurance does is take your money these days, they don't take care of people or uphold their obligations and because they've bought government, you are powerless to do anything about it.
 
2012-06-25 02:03:38 AM  
Dwight_Yeast

This is ridiculous. At this point, if I said Tom Seaver was a great pitcher, you'd ask for a citation.

Once again, everything I've said is common knowledge at this point. A citation is not required when I point out that a number of items in the law took effect immediately or almost immediately, and that those items poll well. Everyone who has followed the story knows this. There has also been extensive coverage of the cost issue. Much of it discusses the very real limitations the federal government will have in trying to hold down rate increases. I'm not your errand boy. Go use the google.

I might as well ask you to provide some evidence that this will control costs. I doubt you can find anything. This is not entirely your fault of course. Much of the funding relies on tax increases and cuts that are yet to be made. If you are among the few who actually believes any of those things will happen, good luck. But again, rates have continued to increase and there is no reason to believe that trend won't continue.

You never addressed my main complaint about the ACA. It is not an improvement over the current system because keeps us tied to the employer paid model. That is an incredibly stupid idea. You are, of course, free to disagree with this. You'd be wrong, but feel free to think the employer paid model (which you support) is just dandy.
 
2012-06-25 02:06:25 AM  
Oh and Obamacare won't change anything at all about how things I mention happen, other than you are now going to be mandatorily screwed rather than have the option of not buying worthless 'insurance.' Heh.
 
2012-06-25 02:12:26 AM  

firefly212: relcec: firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.


wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?

So you're argument is that they'll voluntarily pay more to doctors so long as they get their small cut, and without some sort of non-profit based alternative to add pressure for lower costs, everyone would collude to further compound the already far above average sector inflation in the medical sector? That's a fair argument, and a great point for why we should add in a public option. The free-markety side of me though still says that with the low-risk people being compelled to join the pool, they would intuitively seek the low premiums, which wouldn't really be gained by implementing your method. The flip-side to your argument though is that people with worse ailments will be in high demand so they can drive up the patient-cost side of things, permitting companies to make more profit... so pretty much the opposite of what the standard is now.


my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small company that does contract analysis and commercial contracting for big hospital conglomerates. we, providers, drive costs. I personally help to drive cost increases. 3 weekends ago I worked on an acquisition deal for a couple of hospitals in the northeast. the conglomerate wanted independent analysis about whether they could squeeze an extra 15 million extra out of the commercial side of business in the first year after a takeover a certain regional hospital with a billion in revenue and 160 million in revenue on commercial side from 5 big insurers. they essentially wanted to know if it was reasonable to expect to be able to jack the rates on the big revenue insurers by about 10% in the first year. I got a pretty nice bonus for going over the 8 main commercial contracts that hospital had over the weekend.

I'm just telling you this so you understand I know a little bit about what I talk about here and in fact my interests as they pertain to job security are directly opposed to what I argue and have always argued. the providers are the cost drivers in this industry. if you don't link commercial costs to medicare or some other way limit what providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc) can charge insurers you will never slow costs. that's why the hospital lobby made the deal to kill the public option with obama; because the public option was going to use rates linked to medicare. trust me when I say that even if ACA is fully implemented as written and even if the regulators are as diligent as possible nothing I have seen in it will slightly dent healthcare cost increases. and healthcare cost increase is what is killing us.

when I speak about this stuff I am pretty much begging the american people to dig deep and pull out enough brains and courage to make the politicians put myself and people like me out of a decent paying job forever for good of the country. I don't do it because it is a nice way to bad mouth democrats. it is absolutely against my personal interests to argue what I argue. I do it because we have a disaster on our hands right now and we haven't even driven off the cliff we are headed straight for yet.
 
2012-06-25 02:21:59 AM  

relcec: firefly212: relcec: firefly212: Really, you think that democrats concede that the price controls ensuring that 80% of premiums go to patient care and only 20% can be profit, in addition to actively working against adverse selection doesn't control costs?

Because reality begs to differ.


wait, why do you think something that doesn't address costs has anything to do with controlling them?
don;t you see the way to increase profit when you are limited to a certain percentage of administrative and profit premium is to instead increase total revenue, or total healthcare costs?
make the pie bigger, the cost pie, bigger for all of us?

So you're argument is that they'll voluntarily pay more to doctors so long as they get their small cut, and without some sort of non-profit based alternative to add pressure for lower costs, everyone would collude to further compound the already far above average sector inflation in the medical sector? That's a fair argument, and a great point for why we should add in a public option. The free-markety side of me though still says that with the low-risk people being compelled to join the pool, they would intuitively seek the low premiums, which wouldn't really be gained by implementing your method. The flip-side to your argument though is that people with worse ailments will be in high demand so they can drive up the patient-cost side of things, permitting companies to make more profit... so pretty much the opposite of what the standard is now.

my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small c ...


I know where you're coming from, I used to do hospital consulting only dealing with mental health wings and mental hospitals... they're kind of the bastard children of the whole system, so I enjoyed the challenge for a good long while. I'm optimistic that the enhanced medicaid bloc grants (at standardized negotiated payment rates) can help some... and if you've read some of what I've written in the past, you know I'm not a fan of the ACA (in that I think it is missing several key aspects), but the last time we let the perfect be the enemy of mediocre progress, HillaryCare died and we got absolutely nothing in the decade and change that followed.
 
2012-06-25 02:44:56 AM  

firefly212: my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small c ...

I know where you're coming from, I used to do hospital consulting only dealing with mental health wings and mental hospitals... they're kind of the bastard children of the whole system, so I enjoyed the challenge for a good long while. I'm optimistic that the enhanced medicaid bloc grants (at standardized negotiated payment rates) can help some... and if you've read some of what I've written in the past, you know I'm not a fan of the ACA (in that I think it is missing several key aspects), but the last time we let the perfect be the enemy of mediocre progress, HillaryCare died and we got absolutely nothing in the decade and change that followed.


what is kind of ridiculous about the whole thing is from what I understand ACA with a public option wasn't foing to limit what providers could get out of the exisiting commercial side in any way. it was just going to limit what they could get out of the newly insured. it wasn't a threat. but that wasn't enough. they wanted and got the new customers that they could charge their best commercial rates (ignoring the medicaid expansion for a moment). why does every thing the governemnt does have to provide a sweet profit for everybody? efficient operations can actually make 2-3% off medicare rates, and they are much higher rates than the rest of the world gets to charge. wtf?
 
2012-06-25 03:22:39 AM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


I can give names of people who have done exactly that. Not just for HC, but to take advantage of any number of programs. Its messed up, and I freely admit that it sucks that the 'safety net' is set up like this. However, there is a uniform pattern of repeated shiatty choices in every case ive seen. I've got a co-worker right now who is pulling this shiat. Will not work more than 30 hours a week, wife doesnt work, has 4 kids. Works under the table to support his weed and booze habits, and has every subsidy he can possibly get. HC for the kids, food stamps, subsidized mortgage. State also paid for his wifes lap-band surgery, and helps cover the power bill. However, he cant stop spending money. fast food everyday for lunch and breakfast, a smart phone he cant use and a huge TV.
 
2012-06-25 04:10:24 AM  

abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)


Which means 61% oppose the massive premium hike that would be necessary to cover those that decline insurance until they need it.

Wait, everyone will decline health insurance until they need it because it will be free with no downside.

Somehow this isn't fixable and that 61% will grow to the 99%ers that actually have health insurance today.,
 
2012-06-25 04:18:03 AM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


Have you ever been presented with the choice between "you can work, but your 1k a month disqualifies you from getting help with buying your meds, which cost 3k a month" or "you can quit, be disabled, and you'll get the drugs you need to stay alive?" Let me assure you, regardless of your belief structure, it's a very counterintuitive thing to say "I want to work, even knowing that means I'm gambling on whether or not I'm picking the right 1 or 2 of the 4 drugs I've been prescribed." Ya, there are people (I know a few) who have drug costs that would exceed what they would make were they working 3 or 4 part time jobs... the choice for them is whether or not they want to live... I don't at all think they're bad people regardless of which side they land on.

As for the frauds and fakes... the system sucks... my grandmom had a double-hip, double-knee replacement and was denied disability on the first pass.... the system works in such an arduous, disjointed, and frustrating way that the only people it filters out are those who are actually disabled to the point they can't make 20 some odd meetings with every doctor the government wants to evaluate them, every paper pusher who wants to "review" documents in meeting form twice a week... basically, the anti-fraud system is so tough that it seems to filter out just about everyone but the frauds. Old ladies who can't stand get denied disability, farked up diaper fetishists who want to play baby all day get it. It's frustrating, from the legitimate side, to see these moochers getting money when so many far more deserving people can't... the worst part is, the more moochers and fraudsters get caught, the more people clamor for the anti-fraud measures that keep even more deserving people out... it's a terrible cycle.
 
2012-06-25 04:20:51 AM  

relcec: firefly212: my only real point was really that this bill doesn't contain costs. and the truth is insurance companies don't drive costs either. they don't encourage cost increases, and they can't contain them even if they wanted to. the scenario I provided won't happen, but it doesn't need to. providers are the ones who increase costs. not insurance companies. insurance don't need to collude with anybody if they want overall costs to increase. they really couldn't contain them if they tried.

I work for a small c ...

I know where you're coming from, I used to do hospital consulting only dealing with mental health wings and mental hospitals... they're kind of the bastard children of the whole system, so I enjoyed the challenge for a good long while. I'm optimistic that the enhanced medicaid bloc grants (at standardized negotiated payment rates) can help some... and if you've read some of what I've written in the past, you know I'm not a fan of the ACA (in that I think it is missing several key aspects), but the last time we let the perfect be the enemy of mediocre progress, HillaryCare died and we got absolutely nothing in the decade and change that followed.

what is kind of ridiculous about the whole thing is from what I understand ACA with a public option wasn't foing to limit what providers could get out of the exisiting commercial side in any way. it was just going to limit what they could get out of the newly insured. it wasn't a threat. but that wasn't enough. they wanted and got the new customers that they could charge their best commercial rates (ignoring the medicaid expansion for a moment). why does every thing the governemnt does have to provide a sweet profit for everybody? efficient operations can actually make 2-3% off medicare rates, and they are much higher rates than the rest of the world gets to charge. wtf?


Max Bauchus (a democrat) made a power play to get the public option taken out... he saw his chance to use the Republican goosestepping for his own political gain so he could be the guy who got rid of (what he thought conservatives would say was) the worst part of the ACA... he thought he could claim a place on the high, center ground... and for that, millions and millions of Americans will suffer.
 
2012-06-25 04:45:56 AM  

Chimperror2: abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)

Which means 61% oppose the massive premium hike that would be necessary to cover those that decline insurance until they need it.

Wait, everyone will decline health insurance until they need it because it will be free with no downside.

Somehow this isn't fixable and that 61% will grow to the 99%ers that actually have health insurance today.,



Your logic is sound. You should apply for a job as head of the CBO. They could use your knowledge since they obviously have it all wrong.
 
2012-06-25 05:08:54 AM  

namatad: but but obama is black


...and there is your answer.
 
2012-06-25 06:23:11 AM  

Botkin of the Yard: This is ridiculous. At this point, if I said Tom Seaver was a great pitcher


I've no idea who Tom Seaver is.

Botkin of the Yard: I might as well ask you to provide some evidence that this will control costs.


No, a rational argument doesn't work that way. You made the statements, so you've got to back them up. You can't wuss out and demand that prove the opposite of your statements; I'm not doing your homework for you.

Botkin of the Yard: You never addressed my main complaint about the ACA. It is not an improvement over the current system because keeps us tied to the employer paid model.


I did. Twice: We have no working system at the moment, so any reform which creates a universal system is a vast improvement.

And though you've made the claim a number of times, it does not 'keep us tied to the employer-paid model', as there is no requirement that employers provide insurance. They can continue to shift the costs of healthcare to their workers as they've been doing, but now there's actually going to be an affordable, workable system of insurance for those who are losing healthcare as a perk or benefit.

Banning employer-paid healthcare as part of the reform bill would have been a good way of forcing people to see their real healthcare costs, but there is no legal way it could have been done.
 
2012-06-25 07:19:45 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: And though you've made the claim a number of times, it does not 'keep us tied to the employer-paid model', as there is no requirement that employers provide insurance.


The lack of a requirement that employers provide insurance doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who have health insurance are provided it as an employment benefit, and that any other source of private health insurance is almost prohibitively expensive.
 
2012-06-25 07:32:11 AM  

GoldSpider: starsrift: Nothing else would help business, small and large alone, than having single payer.

Too bad we don't have a credible force backing single payer here.


We don't? What do you mean by 'credible'. I mean seriously, if a genuine Canadian-style single-payer plan were to cross his desk, do you think that Obama would:

a) hem and haw on it for a while
or
b) sign it immediately, hopefully before fainting from the shock?

Likewise, a classic single-payer bill would get at least 42 if not 45-46 votes in the Senate as it exists right now. There were very close to enough reps in the 2009 House. There are enough corporate rimjobbers in the Democratic party (Lieberman, Baucus, and Nelson being the primary Senators in 2009), though, it would take more than a simple majority to get there.

40-45% of the elected body is a minority, sure, but 'credible' as I see the word.
 
2012-06-25 08:08:23 AM  

mrjared: Has anyone mentioned that GOOD POLICY IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR OPINION?


yeah but a representative democracy is supposed to perform the will of the people.
 
2012-06-25 08:10:13 AM  
So if they uphold the law, are the derpers still going to call it unconsittutional?

Because on one hand, if they uphold it, it means it is constitutional

But on the other hand, the people screaming about how unconstitutional it is are mostly the same people who are staunch defenders of what they imagine the consitution to be
 
2012-06-25 08:12:24 AM  

coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.


You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?
 
2012-06-25 08:24:30 AM  

rev. dave: Once the law fails, then we can try again for single payer.


This is what I don't get about the "OBAMA SHOULDN'T HAVE BARGAINED AWAY SINGLE PAYER" crowd. You can't bargain away something you never had. The public option had only about 45 votes in the Senate, what makes you think Single Payer was *ever* in the cards?
 
2012-06-25 08:32:14 AM  

Hobodeluxe: mrjared: Has anyone mentioned that GOOD POLICY IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR OPINION?

yeah but a representative democracy is supposed to perform the will of the people.


...which is why we were set up as a democratic republic.

/I'm in the middle of reading Ron Chernow's excellent biography of Alexander Hamilton, and one of the things he points out is that Washington's experience dealing with the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War made him extremely wary of weak central government, as they're easily swayed by the will of the people and would rather not act than act as a means of self-protection.

Which of course is completely counter to what been claimed about the Founding Fathers for the last 30 years.

Washington also understood that a strong republican government was key, as the government frequently has to act against the popular will of the people for the common good.
 
2012-06-25 08:35:16 AM  

relcec: kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa

if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care




How much of the US health care spending is R&D and manufacturing costs?

www.ncpa.org

The US does most of the heavy lifting in medical R&D in the world as well as being the primary consumer of new medical technology. 32 out of 46 of the worlds top Medical R&D companies (having more than $1billion is R&D spending) are US companies, and the US market accounts for 40% of the consumption of medical devices worldwide. Once that engine turned off it's not coming back easily.

Medical technology doesn't change the laws of R&D and innovation. For the high tech innovation to be made there has to be a viable economic driver to warrant the huge expenditures. Reducing the US spending on health care is reducing that fuel for innovation and nothing else.
 
2012-06-25 08:36:54 AM  
Sane Person "What part of Obamacare do you not like?"

Conservative "The OBAMA part".
 
2012-06-25 08:39:51 AM  
If they strike it down a large number of "conservatives" will lose the following:

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.

New ways to stop fraud are created.

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.


Horrible, ain't it? Look at some of those policy changes and tell me where the fascism and/or SOCIZLIAMS are. Please, serious trolls, tell me, line by line, why this is such a terrible bill.
 
2012-06-25 08:49:03 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: They enslaved their doctors and nurses?!?! I'm shocked! Or do you think taxes aren't payments for government provided social services?


How much does a library book cost in the US?
 
2012-06-25 09:01:18 AM  

trotsky: Horrible, ain't it? Look at some of those policy changes and tell me where the fascism and/or SOCIZLIAMS are. Please, serious trolls, tell me, line by line, why this is such a terrible bill.




Yeah, it is pretty horrible. I don't have the time to go line-by-line, but take the last provision as an example. It's a fairy tale. The consumer will HAVE to pay for those preventative care procedures one way or another, or there will stop being providers of those services. The federal government could order that all TV manufacturers give away free TVs, and all that would end up doing is eliminating TV manufacturers.

In the end, procedures like colonoscopies are not a net cost saver since only 1% of the population contracts colon cancer, so the vast majority of the cost of funding colon cancer screenings is overhead/wasted. If a colonoscopy costs $1000 and treatment for colon cancer is $75,000 it is still cheaper to treat colon cancer than to screen for it.

In short, Obamacare in a catastrophically stupid solution to US Health care as it doesn't even take into account the economics of most of it's idiotic provisions.

Kill it with fire.
 
2012-06-25 09:06:50 AM  

RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,


And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.
 
2012-06-25 09:08:35 AM  

RolandGunner: trotsky: Horrible, ain't it? Look at some of those policy changes and tell me where the fascism and/or SOCIZLIAMS are. Please, serious trolls, tell me, line by line, why this is such a terrible bill.



Yeah, it is pretty horrible. I don't have the time to go line-by-line, but take the last provision as an example. It's a fairy tale. The consumer will HAVE to pay for those preventative care procedures one way or another, or there will stop being providers of those services. The federal government could order that all TV manufacturers give away free TVs, and all that would end up doing is eliminating TV manufacturers.

In the end, procedures like colonoscopies are not a net cost saver since only 1% of the population contracts colon cancer, so the vast majority of the cost of funding colon cancer screenings is overhead/wasted. If a colonoscopy costs $1000 and treatment for colon cancer is $75,000 it is still cheaper to treat colon cancer than to screen for it.

In short, Obamacare in a catastrophically stupid solution to US Health care as it doesn't even take into account the economics of most of it's idiotic provisions.

Kill it with fire.


Bull-farking-shiat. Like the current system is any good? OH NOES, MY 26 YEAR OLD KID IS STILL COVERED.

It's not the best. Single payer is. But is fixes a precious few elements that have contributed to the train wreck that is the American health care system. I suspect you're full of shiat. In fact, I am pretty sure you are. Might want to turn off the "right wing ideologue" button.
 
2012-06-25 09:09:53 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,

And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.



And a ham and crap sandwich has some good stuff in it and some bad stuff in it... so you should eat it.
 
2012-06-25 09:12:15 AM  

RolandGunner: LeoffDaGrate: RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,

And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.


And a ham and crap sandwich has some good stuff in it and some bad stuff in it... so you should eat it.


OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?
 
2012-06-25 09:12:32 AM  
i wonder what popular opinion was on civil rights in the south in the early 1960s...
 
2012-06-25 09:15:58 AM  

RolandGunner: LeoffDaGrate: RolandGunner: I don't have the time to go line-by-line,

And that right there is the main problem with people who are both for and against Obamacare. They pick out only those bits that will defend their position, ignoring or just plain not reading the rest because it doesn't help their case.

It is not the greatest plan in the world, but it's certainly not the worst, and it has some good points to it.


And a ham and crap sandwich has some good stuff in it and some bad stuff in it... so you should eat it.


That depends. Are you starving to death?
 
2012-06-25 09:18:42 AM  

trotsky: Bull-farking-shiat. Like the current system is any good? OH NOES, MY 26 YEAR OLD KID IS STILL COVERED.

It's not the best. Single payer is. But is fixes a precious few elements that have contributed to the train wreck that is the American health care system. I suspect you're full of shiat. In fact, I am pretty sure you are. Might want to turn off the "right wing ideologue" button.




Well, there is a well reasoned response!

And yes, the reason the 26 year olds are on their parents plan is because they would not pay for their own health care coverage otherwise. Health insurers like having young people with health insurance because they also don't tend to use health insurance so the money they spend now is funding the program for the old an infirm (the way medicare works now).

By switching to allowing 26 year olds to stay on their parents plan the insurer actually sees little added income to cover those "children". For the system to actually have a net funding benefit for the insurance programs then the 19-26 year olds should cost significantly more to insure on their parents plan than they did when they were 18... but then we can't do that because big mean insurance companies and blah blah emotional bullcrap.

Single payer is crap too, they usually solve the colonoscopy conundrum by making then almost impossible to schedule one.
 
2012-06-25 09:24:02 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?


How do I know you don't understand how the ACA works...?
 
2012-06-25 09:29:00 AM  

trotsky: RolandGunner: trotsky: Horrible, ain't it? Look at some of those policy changes and tell me where the fascism and/or SOCIZLIAMS are. Please, serious trolls, tell me, line by line, why this is such a terrible bill.



Yeah, it is pretty horrible. I don't have the time to go line-by-line, but take the last provision as an example. It's a fairy tale. The consumer will HAVE to pay for those preventative care procedures one way or another, or there will stop being providers of those services. The federal government could order that all TV manufacturers give away free TVs, and all that would end up doing is eliminating TV manufacturers.


Great Buddha's ghost, you're an idiot! Requiring preventative care (which many insurers already provide) will lead to a net savings for insurers, as it's better to spend a little money today to catch something like breast cancer early, rather than spend a huge sum later on trying to keep someone alive as they die from breast cancer.
 
2012-06-25 09:31:03 AM  
The level of misinformation about the ACA is sickening. I literally cannot have an intelligent conversation with my family about it because all they know is OMG THE SOCIALIZMMM, and no amount of reasoning can dissuade them. When asked what parts make them feel that way, they can't articulate why, just that it is.

The GOP should be ashamed to peddle ignorance in their own self-interest. Its almost treason.
 
2012-06-25 09:39:40 AM  

GoldSpider: LeoffDaGrate: OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?

How do I know you don't understand how the ACA works...?


What, I was simply replying to a crappy analogy. You can do better I'm guessing?
 
2012-06-25 09:56:18 AM  

Madbassist1: The level of misinformation about the ACA is sickening. I literally cannot have an intelligent conversation with my family about it because all they know is OMG THE SOCIALIZMMM, and no amount of reasoning can dissuade them. When asked what parts make them feel that way, they can't articulate why, just that it is.

The GOP should be ashamed to peddle ignorance in their own self-interest. Its almost treason.


THIS. I have the same problem with my parents. They're convinced Obamacare will destroy their own current health care coverage. They hate the idea of poor people leeching off of the system. Somehow the current system of uninsured people getting emergency care doesn't leech off the taxpayers.

Also, neither of my parents could tell me any details about Obamacare beyond "the mandate" and "all of the prices are going to go up".
 
2012-06-25 10:02:18 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: OR, you could, you know, remove the crap. Or is that concept too hard for you to comprehend?




I'd rather a fresh ham sandwich, thanks.
 
2012-06-25 10:20:03 AM  

RolandGunner: relcec: kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa

if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care



How much of the US health care spending is R&D and manufacturing costs?

[www.ncpa.org image 595x463]

The US does most of the heavy lifting in medical R&D in the world as well as being the primary consumer of new medical technology. 32 out of 46 of the worlds top Medical R&D companies (having more than $1billion is R&D spending) are US companies, and the US market accounts for 40% of the consumption of medical devices worldwide. Once that engine turned off it's not coming back easily.

Medical technology doesn't change the laws of R&D and innovation. For the high tech innovation to be made there has to be a viable economic driver to warrant the huge expenditures. Reducing the US spending on health care is reducing that fuel for innovation and nothing else.


How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?
 
2012-06-25 10:23:33 AM  

CPennypacker: That depends. Are you starving to death?



No.

NeoCortex42: Also, neither of my parents could tell me any details about Obamacare beyond "the mandate" and "all of the prices are going to go up".



Prices are going up and the mandate is likely to be shot down. You should listen to your parents.
 
2012-06-25 10:33:43 AM  
well since our insurance company jacked rates 25% when this all started last year, I'm sure if it gets struck down the rates will go back down, right?
 
2012-06-25 10:37:38 AM  

Serious Black: How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?



Yeah, nobody really wants those new cures anyway.
 
2012-06-25 10:40:10 AM  

Serious Black: How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?



Follow-up: Also, since R&D is all overhead expense the answer is "none of it".
 
2012-06-25 10:47:50 AM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: How much does all of that R&D actually improve our health versus funneling money into Big Pharma's pockets?


Yeah, nobody really wants those new cures anyway.


It's a serious question. For just one example that your chart pointed out, the use of MRIs and CTs has exploded in recent years. These scans are commonly used to diagnose people with cancer. You would expect that if people are getting scanned more frequently, doctors would detect more cancer cases, and this detection would allow them to combat those cancer cases and reduce the death rate. There's just one problem with this: the death rate to cancer is not meaningfully decreasing.

theincidentaleconomist.com

Overdiagnosis is a HUGE problem with our health care system because the treatment is often worse than the cure. Did you know that iatrogenic medicine, i.e. cases caused by the intervention of a health care professional, kill the equivalent of a fully-loaded Boeing 747 crashing into a mountain every day for an entire year?
 
2012-06-25 11:00:16 AM  

RolandGunner: relcec: kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa

if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care



How much of the US health care spending is R&D and manufacturing costs?

[www.ncpa.org image 595x463]

The US does most of the heavy lifting in medical R&D in the world as well as being the primary consumer of new medical technology. 32 out of 46 of the worlds top Medical R&D companies (having more than $1billion is R&D spending) are US companies, and the US market accounts for 40% of the consumption of medical devices worldwide. Once that engine turned off it's not coming back easily.

Medical technology doesn't change the laws of R&D and innovation. For the high tech innovation to be made there has to be a viable economic driver to warrant the huge expenditures. Reducing the US spending on health care is reducing that fuel for innovation and nothing else.


US government funds most of the R&D. You could continue doing that or cut back on it. Either way it has nothing to do with single-payer versus private insurance.
 
2012-06-25 11:14:32 AM  

mrshowrules: RolandGunner: relcec: kkinnison: how about we have a poll that tests people's knowledge of what Obamacare really does, and could do for them. Some people still think it includes death panels for Grandma and Grandpa

if it had decent death panels, I'd actually be more apt to support it.


Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care



How much of the US health care spending is R&D and manufacturing costs?

[www.ncpa.org image 595x463]

The US does most of the heavy lifting in medical R&D in the world as well as being the primary consumer of new medical technology. 32 out of 46 of the worlds top Medical R&D companies (having more than $1billion is R&D spending) are US companies, and the US market accounts for 40% of the consumption of medical devices worldwide. Once that engine turned off it's not coming back easily.

Medical technology doesn't change the laws of R&D and innovation. For the high tech innovation to be made there has to be a viable economic driver to warrant the huge expenditures. Reducing the US spending on health care is reducing that fuel for innovation and nothing else.

US government funds most of the R&D. You could continue doing that or cut back on it. Either way it has nothing to do with single-payer versus private insurance.


Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?
 
2012-06-25 11:20:47 AM  

RolandGunner: trotsky: Bull-farking-shiat. Like the current system is any good? OH NOES, MY 26 YEAR OLD KID IS STILL COVERED.

It's not the best. Single payer is. But is fixes a precious few elements that have contributed to the train wreck that is the American health care system. I suspect you're full of shiat. In fact, I am pretty sure you are. Might want to turn off the "right wing ideologue" button.



Well, there is a well reasoned response!

And yes, the reason the 26 year olds are on their parents plan is because they would not pay for their own health care coverage otherwise. Health insurers like having young people with health insurance because they also don't tend to use health insurance so the money they spend now is funding the program for the old an infirm (the way medicare works now).

By switching to allowing 26 year olds to stay on their parents plan the insurer actually sees little added income to cover those "children". For the system to actually have a net funding benefit for the insurance programs then the 19-26 year olds should cost significantly more to insure on their parents plan than they did when they were 18... but then we can't do that because big mean insurance companies and blah blah emotional bullcrap.

Single payer is crap too, they usually solve the colonoscopy conundrum by making then almost impossible to schedule one.


LOL, SIngle payer is miles ahead of the shiat we Americans have to deal with. There's a reason the number one cause of bankruptcy is Medical in this country. It would also be a big boon for small businesses. But us fark libtards know damn well the GOP could give a shiat about small businesses in this country anymore. If it ain't worth a billion, it ain't worth talking about. Ask the average Middle Class Canadian or German: they like it. And for the most part the same issues exist but at least they don't drive themselves to the poor house everytime they need a medical procedure done. While your R&D argument does hold some water, at the same time the overall positive a single payer system I think outweighs it.

And my response is right on, you need to be called on the bullshiat you spew.
 
2012-06-25 11:22:23 AM  

Serious Black: It's a serious question. For just one example that your chart pointed out, the use of MRIs and CTs has exploded in recent years. These scans are commonly used to diagnose people with cancer. You would expect that if people are getting scanned more frequently, doctors would detect more cancer cases, and this detection would allow them to combat those cancer cases and reduce the death rate. There's just one problem with this: the death rate to cancer is not meaningfully decreasing.



Well sure, that goes back to my point about colonoscopies and mammograms which the insurance companies are now forced to give away for free when there is little benefit to the health care system as a whole. All the provision does is ensure that costs go up.
 
2012-06-25 11:25:43 AM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: It's a serious question. For just one example that your chart pointed out, the use of MRIs and CTs has exploded in recent years. These scans are commonly used to diagnose people with cancer. You would expect that if people are getting scanned more frequently, doctors would detect more cancer cases, and this detection would allow them to combat those cancer cases and reduce the death rate. There's just one problem with this: the death rate to cancer is not meaningfully decreasing.


Well sure, that goes back to my point about colonoscopies and mammograms which the insurance companies are now forced to give away for free when there is little benefit to the health care system as a whole. All the provision does is ensure that costs go up.


Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?
 
2012-06-25 11:34:16 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?


I remember several years ago when IBD (a Conservative web-site) reported that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the US health care system.

Hawking then released a statement saying that he was alive today because of the UK NHS (a socialized health care system).

IBD walked back that statement saying that Hawking's wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the US R&D creating the drugs saving his life.

Then a French company spoke up saying that the were in fact the ones developing the ALS drugs Hawking was taking.

I shiat you not. This type of retardation is typical of Conservatives fighting to protect private insurance companies and resisting single-payer and the only obvious course of action.
 
2012-06-25 11:43:01 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Botkin of the Yard: This is ridiculous. At this point, if I said Tom Seaver was a great pitcher

I've no idea who Tom Seaver is.


I don't even watch baseball and I know who Tom Seaver is. Did you know baseball is the American National sport? Why do you hate America, Dwight Yeast???
 
2012-06-25 11:54:13 AM  

ghare: GhostFish: Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

I don't care if the poll showed the opposite, citing an online poll is idiotic. They're not scientific, and their only valid use is for entertainment purposes.

You may as well toss a bunch of numbered oranges in a dryer and cite the one that you pull out first. It would be as useful and meaningful of a result.

In other words, it's GOP SOP.


GOP SOP is what you do after a particularly bad case of santorum, I've heard...
 
2012-06-25 11:59:45 AM  

mrshowrules: Mrtraveler01: Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?

I remember several years ago when IBD (a Conservative web-site) reported that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the US health care system.

Hawking then released a statement saying that he was alive today because of the UK NHS (a socialized health care system).

IBD walked back that statement saying that Hawking's wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the US R&D creating the drugs saving his life.

Then a French company spoke up saying that the were in fact the ones developing the ALS drugs Hawking was taking.

I shiat you not. This type of retardation is typical of Conservatives fighting to protect private insurance companies and resisting single-payer and the only obvious course of action.


I remember this. Also, how come so many retirees have to go on "Medical Holidays" in order to get procedures done in third world countries? Also, how come so many retirees have to travel to Canada to buy cheap yet lifesaving drugs that are cost prohibitive in the land of the free?

RolandGunner won't answer that. Nor can he. The American system is borked pretty badly. It offers no advantages over the single payer systems in the rest of the world and comes with many of the same problems. In essence he's defending the middle man, the insurance company that has proven to be the biggest road block to true first world medical care in the US. Not doctors, not researchers, insurance men.
 
2012-06-25 12:07:14 PM  

trotsky: mrshowrules: Mrtraveler01: Do we actually do any research in the states anymore? I work at a pharmacy and all the drugs I've seen are either made in Europe for the most part or India.

What is the standard right-wing answer for that?

I remember several years ago when IBD (a Conservative web-site) reported that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the US health care system.

Hawking then released a statement saying that he was alive today because of the UK NHS (a socialized health care system).

IBD walked back that statement saying that Hawking's wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the US R&D creating the drugs saving his life.

Then a French company spoke up saying that the were in fact the ones developing the ALS drugs Hawking was taking.

I shiat you not. This type of retardation is typical of Conservatives fighting to protect private insurance companies and resisting single-payer and the only obvious course of action.

I remember this. Also, how come so many retirees have to go on "Medical Holidays" in order to get procedures done in third world countries? Also, how come so many retirees have to travel to Canada to buy cheap yet lifesaving drugs that are cost prohibitive in the land of the free?

RolandGunner won't answer that. Nor can he. The American system is borked pretty badly. It offers no advantages over the single payer systems in the rest of the world and comes with many of the same problems. In essence he's defending the middle man, the insurance company that has proven to be the biggest road block to true first world medical care in the US. Not doctors, not researchers, insurance men.


The really sad part is the the US system would actually be much better than Canada's if they just dealt with insurance side.
 
2012-06-25 12:50:49 PM  

mrshowrules: Arthur Jumbles: They enslaved their doctors and nurses?!?! I'm shocked! Or do you think taxes aren't payments for government provided social services?

How much does a library book cost in the US?


Depends on a lot of factors but it ultimately comes down to the budget of the library, the cost of any outstanding bonds the city used to build the library, and the property tax the city charges its citizens to pay for the costs of the library's budget and bonds.
 
2012-06-25 01:51:57 PM  

trotsky: If they strike it down a large number of "conservatives" will lose the following:

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
Unintended side effect is that patent clock starts earlier than medical trials. Drug development for promising drugs will be stopped before completion of trials if the developing company cannot make a profit before generics come into effect. New drugs that would have been a good addition simply will never have their trials completed as the company evaluates it's profitability to continue development. They won't just continue to develop because "they are so close." They will stop once the profitability evaporates. Generic companies can't/won't complete the clinical trials.

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
Drugs cost the same. Someone else pays the rebate. Who?

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
And what is impact of not following PCORI protocols? Denial of coverage? It's either toothless or it's a way to keep costs down by stopping treatment for certain conditions (or stopping expensive protocols). They don't decide individual cases but they could easily decide that "palliative care" is preferred to "chemotherapy" for certain incurable conditions and if the insurance companies can reject a chemo claim based on a PCORI directive, that can be life-altering. (I have a friend with incurable stomach cancer and will die. She would have died a year ago without chemo but chose to live with the effects of chemo simply to prolong her life as chemo only slows her death, doesn't eliminate it. If these PCORI studies influence the insurable options, that is going to suck. If they don't then they are a pointless bureaucracy.)

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
Did anyone really walk into a McDonalds thinking they needed a healthy choice? Diet Coke to go with their Big Mac and fries? The information has entertainment value but people have already made a decision when they a) choose what to eat and b) choose where to get it. No one walks into McDonalds as the "healthy alternative." This mandate will do nothing but increase food prices. It won't cure or reduce obesity or any other related disorder. Maybe the sugar information can be used by diabetics to see what size soda they need for their shot.

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
And premiums/taxes will rise to cover/subsidize this new actuarial reality

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
I guess I can't argue against the creation of new unnamed bureaucrats. I'm betting the new positions aren't health care workers so we can just tack it on to direct overhead expense.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
Why? Isn't orange already enough of a penalty? How much revenue is the Orange Tax? But really, this is just a door opener for taxing activities the government doesn't like. Pick small, then incrementally increase. Next tax will be on golfers that use golf carts instead of walking.

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
And premiums will rise to cover this new actuarial reality.

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
Perhaps the largest increase in premiums. 18-26 y/o women of child bearing age will have their kids under a plan designed for children. This will increase family premiums substantially. In my company, employees can opt out and receive a credit (i.e. bonus) for being covered under someone elses plan. When these child-bearing age women start opting out to be covered by daddy/mommies plan, the family plan premium will explode.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
And premiums will rise to account for this new actuarial reality

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
And premiums will rise to create reserves that will be necessary to have this flexibility in place (unless you want to see catastrophic insurance company failures that will be deemed "too big to fail.")

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Who pays for that? Oh, Tax increase

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
And premiums will rise to account for this new actuarial reality

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
overhead is added to the premium

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
Overhead is added to the premium

New ways to stop fraud are created.
Wasn't there an article recently that the new computer to find this fraud cost billions and has found thousands? Genius

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Is that more or less expensive to the taxpayer?

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Either this is way to keep medicare patients from getting care for chronic illnesses by making it cumbersome and bureaucratic or the new bureaucracy will cost more (I'd bet tax money, the government can't make care for chronic illnesses less expensive with red tape. Won't happen.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
How exactly? Must be subsidy from taxpayers. Or less elderly under the plan?

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
More bureaucracy and spending with no discernible or measurable benefit.

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
Solyndra Solar Powered medicine?

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
Law of unintended consequences. This will squeeze out competition and create mergers. Limiting profit does not in itself stop price gouging. In fact, if it's actually profit they measure, expenses such as salary and bonuses and dividends and stock buy back can all affect it. Companies that have the resources to do this will destroy smaller companies and create substantial payouts to avoid "profit." How much did GE pay in taxes on their profit? Exxon?

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
So this is increasing costs for prescription drugs by essentially eliminating prescriptions and coverage. If a Dr. prescribes you a medication and it's not covered by insurance, this is a reduction in benefits. Basically the insurance company lobby will put pressure on the FDA to make a lot more medications OTC so the peoples out-of-pocket expenses go up. This reduces premiums, though.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
In anticipation of taxing them. There is no longer a lifetime limit, but there will be a tax on whatever benefit you got. In addition, your treatment will be shared with other government agencies (this has already started with things like the VA hospital sharing medical records with the FAA about treatment that military veteran pilots receive.)

8/1/2012

Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
and premiums will rise to reflect this new reality.


Basically, people want all the "good stuff" for free. They won't like paying for it though and that is what is insidious. Playing it off as "the people like what's in it" without a word on the cost and price increases for it is disingenuous. What's sad is that when the insurance companies do increase prices to cover these things, the left will cry about how the cost of health care premiums is rising faster than the actual cost of health care and not take any responsibility that the role of these mandates has.

The overall effect will be less R&D, more routine care from less competent sources (PA's, NP's, etc). Less procedures that are covered when the PCORI crap kicks in. Less covered medications when the FDA starts making more medications available OTC. Higher premiums to cover kids to 26 (especially the impact this will have on family plans that triple the time that child-bearing age women are on family plans). And giant multinational insurance conglomerates to shell game the profits. Sign me up.
 
2012-06-25 02:52:15 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: mrshowrules: Arthur Jumbles: They enslaved their doctors and nurses?!?! I'm shocked! Or do you think taxes aren't payments for government provided social services?

How much does a library book cost in the US?

Depends on a lot of factors but it ultimately comes down to the budget of the library, the cost of any outstanding bonds the city used to build the library, and the property tax the city charges its citizens to pay for the costs of the library's budget and bonds.


A library book doesn't cost anything. It is free. No charge to you. If you want to argue that nothing is free. Technically there is a cost to walking in a park or even the air we breath. Health care is Canada is free in the same sense that it is "provided without charge" which is one of the definitions of free.

I don't know why Conservatives always get so bent out of shape when I tell them that we have free health care in Canada. It is a social program provided at not cost to users. The cost in terms of tax is less than the US but completely independent to how much you use the service as an individual. That book in the Library that sits on shelf will cost you just as much if you read it not.
 
2012-06-25 03:41:36 PM  

Altair: People hated Social Security when it was first implemented. Now, you can't even get a Tea Bagger to want to cut it.


Uuuuuuhhhhhh, that's because we've all been forced to pay into it. If i didn't have 10% of my hard earned salary raped to cover some dusty old fart's retirement villa in God's waiting room, I'd want none of it either, but since they're taking it now, I want it back later!
 
2012-06-25 04:02:42 PM  

Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?


No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.
 
2012-06-25 04:03:22 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?


It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.
 
2012-06-25 04:33:28 PM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?

No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.


So you'd rather people have cut-rate insurance that only allows them to be seen by butchers who moonlight as surgeons? Making sure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care costs money, but it also shouldn't cost nearly as much as we spend on health care today.
 
2012-06-25 06:19:56 PM  

Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.


Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?
 
2012-06-25 07:36:30 PM  

Serious Black: RolandGunner: Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?

No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.

So you'd rather people have cut-rate insurance that only allows them to be seen by butchers who moonlight as surgeons? Making sure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care costs money, but it also shouldn't cost nearly as much as we spend on health care today.




Who says? The Health care economy isn't just money spent by us on our health, it is also money spent by companies and individuals on research and development and elective treatments and so on. Private expenditure in health care is 55% of the total expenditure on health care, and that includes R&D and manufacturing expenses.

US federal spending on healthcare per capita is already fifth in the world... in theory they already spend enough in Medicaid and Medicare dollars to cover everyone in the country just like any European city and leave the private sector alone, that would include running government hospitals and clinics only for people who chose the government program... why don't we just do that?
 
2012-06-25 08:23:37 PM  

RolandGunner: Serious Black: RolandGunner: Serious Black: Insurance companies have been forced to give all of those things to people for free since the mid-80's?

No, but a bill touted to reduce cost has simply added a myriad of policies that ensure that costs will not be reduced.

So you'd rather people have cut-rate insurance that only allows them to be seen by butchers who moonlight as surgeons? Making sure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care costs money, but it also shouldn't cost nearly as much as we spend on health care today.



Who says? The Health care economy isn't just money spent by us on our health, it is also money spent by companies and individuals on research and development and elective treatments and so on. Private expenditure in health care is 55% of the total expenditure on health care, and that includes R&D and manufacturing expenses.

US federal spending on healthcare per capita is already fifth in the world... in theory they already spend enough in Medicaid and Medicare dollars to cover everyone in the country just like any European city and leave the private sector alone, that would include running government hospitals and clinics only for people who chose the government program... why don't we just do that?


Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that. If you include that those costs, the US would be paying even more for a shiatty system.
 
2012-06-25 08:54:15 PM  

mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.



Do you have a citation?
 
2012-06-25 09:14:42 PM  

RolandGunner: mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.


Do you have a citation?


not the primary source but the definition is at the top.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
 
2012-06-25 09:28:05 PM  

mrshowrules: Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.

Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?


No, not OK with that either. Why reward people for something that they should not be "required" to have in the first place??? Really, I mean what's next, mandatory life insurance??? One could make the claim that leaving your wife and kids with no means and destitute puts the same strain on the local and Federal government but honestly, do we really have to become a total nanny state?? If people want to get sick and die, let them.
 
2012-06-25 09:33:12 PM  

Momjong: mrshowrules: Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.

Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?

No, not OK with that either. Why reward people for something that they should not be "required" to have in the first place??? Really, I mean what's next, mandatory life insurance??? One could make the claim that leaving your wife and kids with no means and destitute puts the same strain on the local and Federal government but honestly, do we really have to become a total nanny state? ...


When Dubya was giving a tax credit for people buying SUV's, I don't remember all you Conservatives shiatting your pants.
 
2012-06-25 09:47:12 PM  

mrshowrules: RolandGunner: mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.


Do you have a citation?

not the primary source but the definition is at the top.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html




Thank you for the citation, but that isn't any clearer than the WHO stats. It doesn't expressly state is excludes R&D, and it expressly excludes is water and sanitation. I've heard your claim a few times over the years, but nobody seems to have a solid source that that is the actual case.
 
2012-06-25 09:50:20 PM  

RolandGunner: mrshowrules: RolandGunner: mrshowrules: Those studies that show that the US pays twice as much as 1st world health care systems, doesn't include R&D, so there's that.


Do you have a citation?

not the primary source but the definition is at the top.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html



Thank you for the citation, but that isn't any clearer than the WHO stats. It doesn't expressly state is excludes R&D, and it expressly excludes is water and sanitation. I've heard your claim a few times over the years, but nobody seems to have a solid source that that is the actual case.


It lists what it includes because a list of what it didn't include would be nearly infinite.
 
2012-06-26 12:17:54 AM  

mrshowrules: It lists what it includes because a list of what it didn't include would be nearly infinite.


Yes, but the cost of medication and services is directly affected by the providing companies costs which include provider salaries and R&D. To exclude the huge amount of R&D you would have to somehow find the root cost of all medication minus the cost to produce it so since they don't appear to have done that the costs are baked into the final tally.

And once you realize that the US consumes 40% of the world health services and products it's easy to see that we aren't suffering for lack of health care services from the government or the private sector. The issue is that the government apparently has enough per capita dollars to be the UK or France or Japan without even touching the private sector but they wade in to the private sector rather than clean up the shiat they already have control over.
 
2012-06-26 05:08:05 AM  
I love everything in a McLaren F1. Every single part of it.

I'm not going to buy one, because to do so would put my children and grandchildren into a hole of debt from which they could never escape.

/ why do you think its okay for your children's children to pay for my health care? If this country had and character, we would admit that it isn't.
 
2012-06-26 07:41:58 AM  

I sound fat: why do you think its okay for your children's children to pay for my health care?


Why do you think they won't be without this bill?
 
2012-06-26 08:01:30 AM  

mrshowrules: Momjong: mrshowrules: Momjong: Arthur Jumbles: coral85: How is this not like car insurance? You choose to drive, you have to pay for car insurance. You choose to go to the hospital, you have to pay for health insurance.

You choose to live, you choose to die. Isn't it great to live in a country that allows choice?

It's NOT like car insurance. First off, auto insurance in not Federally mandated, it's left to the states to deal with. Too small an issue to create a whole Federal Agency for, thank God.

More importantly, if I don't want to pay for the auto insurance, I simply either choose not to own or drive a car or move to a state that doesn't require it and eat it if I kill someone.

Telling an entire population that they must pay for a service that they may or may not participate in or telling those that CAN afford PRIVATE care they must pay for the next guy is WRONG. It's forced altruism and a tax covered in lies.

I don't want to pay for the next guy, I want to pay for myself and my family, which I and my employer do as per our professional contract for MY services given to the organization. I can choose not to participate in the healthcare plan at work and they wouldn't blink, wouldn't force me to.

Bottom line though is that most Americans don't want to be told to do something by Uncle Sam. It's bad enough I have to support old people with money I'll never see because it's a bankrupt system or Medicare because it's also running out of cash. It makes no sense to do this to Americans.

Would you be OK with a tax credit being issued for people responsible enough to maintain health insurance?

No, not OK with that either. Why reward people for something that they should not be "required" to have in the first place??? Really, I mean what's next, mandatory life insurance??? One could make the claim that leaving your wife and kids with no means and destitute puts the same strain on the local and Federal government but honestly, do we really have to become a total nan ...


Don't lump all conservatives together and don't think for a second we all agree to half the shiat he did while in office. A SMART Republican picks the gems out of the bullshiat regardless of the POTUS' party affiliation. That being said, I don't like tax credits for bullshiat things like buying green vehicles, etc. A true tax cut is across the board, not a thank you for doing what most people don't.
 
2012-06-26 11:23:46 AM  
I think what we have today is a perfect storm of multiple generations of Americans who all have one thing in common - a huge entitlement mentality - from the boomers to Generation Y.

Everyone wants low taxes, and a lot of government services/mandates. They all like things that benefit themselves, and dislike things that they don't perceive to get any benefit from.

And we are getting the government we want. For all the talk about "personal responsibility" nowadays, how about having "personal responsibility" towards the good of society?

Hell, when we go to war we can't have a draft, because it would cause public opinion to come out massively against the war. You can't give the people what they want and then ask them to sacrifice for it. People want their wars like they want their medicare and tax cuts -- without making any sacrifices. Hell, the American people insisted on keeping tax cuts in place while the country fought two extremely expensive wars -- one of which was started for no good reason.

So I think the thing that defines the current generation of Americans - from young folks through the boomers -- the most is this sense of wanting it all without having any regard for the responsibilities and sacrifices that go along with it.
 
2012-06-27 06:08:15 AM  

I sound fat: I love everything in a McLaren F1. Every single part of it.

I'm not going to buy one, because to do so would put my children and grandchildren into a hole of debt from which they could never escape.

/ why do you think its okay for your children's children to pay for my health care? If this country had and character, we would admit that it isn't.



American health care already is the most expensive by far, for the least amount of care.

So right now before Obamacare you seem to have been perfectly okay with paying for a MacLaren.

But now a darkie Democrat dares tell you the best solution? OVER MY DEAD BODY
 
2012-06-27 06:10:38 PM  

Serious Black: Making sure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care costs money, but it also shouldn't cost nearly as much as we spend on health care today.



You realize that the only measurable quantity is "access". Affordable and quality are relative and the cost is not comparable when you move the goal posts.

So in reality, the goal will be to make sure that everyone has equal access to whatever crap exists since there will be no comparative metric. As long as someone else has better health care access and coverage, there will be fight from the left to make sure that everyone gets the same. It's the opposite of progess.
 
Displayed 352 of 352 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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