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 35
    More: Stupid, Americans, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, Ipsos, political independents, health care law, Americans oppose, individual mandate  
•       •       •

2799 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2012 at 7:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-24 05:40:22 PM
8 votes:

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 08:55:19 PM
5 votes:

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 07:50:09 PM
4 votes:
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 07:39:59 PM
3 votes:
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 05:54:34 PM
3 votes:

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?
2012-06-25 01:11:23 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-06-24 09:42:14 PM
2 votes:
This is quite possibly the stupidest first-world country on Earth.
2012-06-24 08:11:51 PM
2 votes:
Can we stop all this petty bickering and just get on with UHC already?
2012-06-24 07:45:16 PM
2 votes:

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 07:12:15 PM
2 votes:
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 12:41:24 PM
2 votes:
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.
2012-06-25 08:39:51 AM
1 votes:
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 08:36:54 AM
1 votes:
Sane Person "What part of Obamacare do you not like?"

Conservative "The OBAMA part".
2012-06-25 01:16:18 AM
1 votes:
Has anyone mentioned that GOOD POLICY IS NOT DETERMINED BY POPULAR OPINION?
2012-06-25 12:47:50 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-06-24 10:49:18 PM
1 votes:
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 09:07:40 PM
1 votes:
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 08:56:39 PM
1 votes:
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 08:37:28 PM
1 votes:

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 08:22:55 PM
1 votes:

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 08:22:00 PM
1 votes:

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 08:16:42 PM
1 votes:

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 08:01:59 PM
1 votes:

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 07:56:34 PM
1 votes:
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 07:52:41 PM
1 votes:

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 07:51:01 PM
1 votes:
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 07:41:39 PM
1 votes:

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 07:33:20 PM
1 votes:
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 07:15:19 PM
1 votes:

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 06:44:21 PM
1 votes:

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 06:42:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:22:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:55:48 PM
1 votes:
but but obama is black
2012-06-24 05:46:05 PM
1 votes:
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 12:32:23 PM
1 votes:
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.)
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report