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.

(MSNBC)   Republicans still doing their best to thwart healthcare, this time by trying to get states to ignore federal law   (msnbc.msn.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, federal law, Lee University  
•       •       •

4167 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jul 2012 at 10:27 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2012-07-08 09:45:58 AM  
8 votes:

foo monkey: Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.


The Constitution is not a death pact. We, as a nation, have the right to a healthy population and a health care system that does not bankrupt individuals, states, or the federal government.

Health care may not be enumerated in the Constitution, but neither is the internet, cell phones, stem cell research. It was written 300 f*cking years ago! It's a good guide of how to govern ourselves. It passed the only test of constitutionality it had to pass... the United States Supreme Court.

It's not even socialized health care, because private companies will still manage it and profit from it. We're also expanding a current program to cover more people.

Why on earth anyone would ever fight to deny people the access to affordable health care is beyond me. We are already paying a significant cost for those that use the ER as their primary care facility. If we can get someone in the early stages of diabetes to regularly take insulin/metformin etc... we can save thousands of dollars over that person not knowing, or waiting until they need amputations to deal with the disease.

The Air Force is not enumerated in the constitution. Can we sell their planes to pay for health care?
2012-07-08 10:51:40 AM  
5 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese:

Yes, 0bama taught us that you can ignore the laws that you don't like or don't make you feeeeeel good.


Actually, we learned that lesson from St. Reagan. Remember Iran-Contra? if laws get in your way, just route around 'em!

or did you think that people just forgot inconvenient historical facts?

And what's with this '0' stuff? I thought Republicans like yourself 'respected the office of the President of the United States of America' no matter who was in the big chair?
2012-07-08 10:50:39 AM  
5 votes:

cman: /Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.


Honestly, so would the libs, myself included. But don't forget that by 2018, if a state has come up with a plan that provides better coverage to its residents than the Federal plan, they can apply for and get permission to go with their plan. This is similar to how universal health care came about in Canada - they were able to do it in 1940's Saskatchewan, where there really were just beavers and igloos and lumberjacks, and the rest of Canada looked and said, 'why can't we just do that here'?

The main problem with going straight to universal care would be all of the people thrown out of work and the investors left holding worthless stock in outdated companies. Insurance companies are actually a significant percentage of GDP, and effectively running them out of business overnight would do no small amount of harm to the economy as a whole. As Obama said in his interview with Jon Stewart back in 2010, "Baby steps, Jon."
2012-07-08 10:11:20 AM  
5 votes:

cman: For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.


Wait... what? You don't want to give the government power to compel, but you'd prefer single-payer which is a government program that would compel everyone to have health care through taxes either on income or some other way.

Either way, the government is compelling the citizen to have health care. The savings to the program by having single-payer would be by swapping the executive compensation, bonuses, and dividends paid to shareholders directly back into the health care system. Not to mention the reduced overhead of having a single, unified billing structure.

You can't let fear of what the other political party will do with power stop you from trying to improve the lives of citizens today. If the Republicans want to mandate gun ownership for all or something equally stupid, we will fight that battle when it comes. For now, we will focus on hos to implement this half-ass program and see if we can get something positive out of it. So far, increasing coverage of 20-somethings is a start. They already have student loan debt they can barely pay, no need to add a catastrophic hospital bill onto that debt burden.

We didn't get single-payer, but we got expanded coverage which is a start. We're not going to get the same cost savings as single-payer, not even close, but it is a fiscally responsible step to lower the cost burden by increasing the pool of people paying into the system. It's a tax, but like all taxes, we're getting something for it. A healthier population that does not have to fear seeking treatment and incurring massive debt. Parent's should not have to sit and pray and hope that people donate to St. Jude's so their kid can get an operation. To me, a society as advanced as our is capable of more than that.

My bottom line is financial. A healthier population with less chance of being wiped out financially by a single medical incident is a net-plus for the economy and our country as a whole.
2012-07-08 05:02:32 AM  
5 votes:
Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.
2012-07-08 12:26:31 PM  
3 votes:

SunsetLament: The biggest problem with our healthcare system is that rest of the world is not proportionately participating in research and development ... and has no incentive to do so because we give them access to what we are paying to develop.


Oh, you poor, poor conservative. Those talking points really wear on you after a while, don't they?


blokeshealth.com

Developed in England - single payer health care

upload.wikimedia.org

HPV Vaccine - partially developed in Australia - single payer health care

www.nature.com

PSD95 inhibitor, currently being developed by lumberjacks in igloos in Canada - single payer health care



Stop repeating talking points until you analyze them. It makes you look silly.
2012-07-08 11:19:28 AM  
3 votes:

Mrtraveler01: StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent

It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.


Funny that.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare" should be a Conservative's wet dream.

The very idea for the individual mandate was cooked up by a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation), it was put forth by Congressional Republicans in the 90's as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's failed healthcare reform program.

When Mitt Romney implemented it in Massachusetts, it was upheld as the Conservative way of doing healthcare reform.

So, when a Democrat president is so desperate for some kind, ANY kind of healthcare reform for our hideously broken system he's willing to endorse a Republican plan just to make some kind of progress, their response? The only real change he wanted was the "public option" of letting people buy insurance directly from the government, which Republicans refused to support and didn't make it into the final bill.

Now they scream about it being liberal and overreaching and invasive. . .when their own party had been supporting that idea for well over a decade.

A Conservative SCOTUS Justice tips the balance on the court to uphold it, response of Republicant's like RON PAUL: to say that SCOTUS doesn't decide what is or isn't constitutional. Most modern Republicans don't care what is or isn't constitutional, they just want things to fit with their ideology, which is: Democrats/Liberals are bad and anything the support is unconstitutional and bad.

At this point, I think the Republican Party has no platform whatsoever other than to diametrically oppose whatever the Democrats support, oh and Jesus too.
2012-07-08 10:39:28 AM  
3 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: How does 0bamacare make healthcare more affordable?


People can stay on their parent's plan at an affordable add-on rate rather than trying to pay for health care on their own at twice the cost or higher? That's making it more affordable. Getting people who are under the income gap for care into medicaid? That's more affordable for them. By creating high-risk pools to get people even some kind of discount on care and access to it? that's making it more affordable. Though, you do realize that this doesn't go into effect until 2014 and we won't be able to do cost analysis for a few years after, right? That's kind of how it works.

tenpoundsofcheese: Are premiums going down?


Nope, and they probably won't go down because we don't have single-payer. The challenge is to keep them from rising in the double digits as they have been for years. The goal is to reduce catastrophic care expenses by getting people seen earlier on in the process to avoid costly surgeries and medical stays. If you have a heart condition that can be dealt with via medication and diet, that will save us a lot more than the guy waiting until he needs open heart surgery once or even multiple times.

If you'd like to see premiums go down or stay static for a few years, you'll have to cut out all the middle-men who take a piece of the health care dollar without providing any actual care to the patient. Go down to a hospital billing department sometime and look at how each HMO has a NYC phone book of rules and how much they will pay for each procedure. Each company has a different set of rules, fees and paperwork to fill out.

Also, if you don't like the premium hikes, write to your state PUC who handles rates for insurance. They have consistently allowed premium hikes above inflation even when a company is making millions in profit. So, is the goal care for the injured and sick, or profit?

You want to talk about premiums, you have to talk about where those premiums go. Go grab a 10-K from Blue Cross for your state and read it. That fancy building they have that you drive by, there are no doctors in there. Just lawyers and executives finding loopholes and investing their premiums looking for a solid return on their money.

But, by all means. Argue for the status quo. Argue that limiting a guy who got the wrong foot amputated to a $10,000 payout will magically reduce health care premiums to $10 per month. I'm sure that will work out for you. Good luck!
2012-07-08 10:37:02 AM  
3 votes:

StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent


It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.
2012-07-08 09:06:53 AM  
3 votes:

ginandbacon: My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?


Because you consider the harm of some laws greater than than the harm to the rule of law from their being disregarded?

(As I understand, the supremacy clause means such state laws don't "overturn" federal law as present a conflict with it for the judiciary to straighten out... despite the wishful thinking of nullificationists.)
2012-07-08 08:21:12 AM  
3 votes:
These Teapublican governors have been showing their true asshole colors for years now. No reason to expect them to change anytime soon.
2012-07-08 01:09:18 PM  
2 votes:

gimmegimme: Chummer45: gimmegimme: Brostorm: gimmegimme: Brostorm: gimmegimme: Brostorm: They come here and have children with the express purpose of creating a loophole for them not to be deported. The 14th amendment isnt bad, but its not reason for the parents not to be sent packing.

Who is "they"? And are you psychic? I'm not quite sure what you mean because of the double negative in your second sentence. Are you suggesting that non-citizen parents of citizens be deported? That would cost the government a lot of money, as the taxpayer would have to pay for the child's care.

We already do pay for their children. That argument does not help you.

"Pay for their children" is an extremely vague term. If you deport the parents, who will care for the citizens when they are children? How much will that cost?

Less than paying for th and their parents.

Do you have any proof for your assertion? It doesn't make sense. According to you, we're paying for health care and schooling. Why would you want to add an additional cost when we pay a foster parent?


My favorite thing is this notion on the right that immigrants are just "leeching" off the American system. Yes, those guys picking tomatoes for $3 an hour, or those maids cleaning hotel rooms for minimum wage, are totally contributing nothing to the economy.

Many of them pay taxes on fake social security numbers. So the government gets their money and doesn't have to pay out.

Brostorm: gimmegimme: Brostorm: gimmegimme: Brostorm: gimmegimme: Brostorm: They come here and have children with the express purpose of creating a loophole for them not to be deported. The 14th amendment isnt bad, but its not reason for the parents not to be sent packing.

Who is "they"? And are you psychic? I'm not quite sure what you mean because of the double negative in your second sentence. Are you suggesting that non-citizen parents of citizens be deported? That would cost the government a lot of money, as the taxpayer would have to pa ...



It boggles my mind that someone looks at a group of illegal immigrants from mexico who working long hours doing menial jobs for very low pay, and concludes "oh my god, look at those good-for-nothing freeloaders!"

Illegal immigration in this country is the way the rich convince poor white folks to blame their problems onto other poor folks, with a nice dash of racism mixed in. You want to know why the GOP did nothing to reform immigration during the Bush years? Because immigrants are cheap labor for the wealthy to exploit, while providing a convenient scapegoat.

I'd like one person to provide me with a better explanation than that.
2012-07-08 11:49:35 AM  
2 votes:

Brostorm: And Obama has decided to ignore it based on his ideology. He has also decided to ignore people that broke the law illegally coming into the country.

My friend just got deported from Canada for going their to take pictures for a friends wedding for free. You pick and chose what laws you want to enforce based on idealogy, laws mean nothing to you.


See, that's just sad. The main point of his Executive Statement was to provide for those who didn't break the law - their parents did. Are you telling me that a 6-year old should have been responsible for putting in applications and getting on the waiting list? That the child should have refused to go with his mother and/or father when they moved to another country, because they were doing so illegally?

Try examining talking points before repeating them, you might actually learn something.
2012-07-08 11:11:21 AM  
2 votes:
I have to say...i'm really enjoying the spectacle of our local GOP authoritarian shills bend over backwards to somehow justify their civil disobedience to Obamacare. this has to be ripping 'em up inside - they WORSHIP laws and follow them blindly, now they're trying to NOT follow the law and it's really messing with their heads.
2012-07-08 11:10:49 AM  
2 votes:

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent

It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.

A) Heritage described catastrophic care much like Al Gore's Plan, and not the comprehensive expensive plans Sebelius and HHS are requiring, a LARGE difference.

B) It was never a highly observed platform of the GOP but written by a few members in opposition to Hillarycare. This is like saying Eugenics is a DNC platform because a few Democrats once held that position.

C) Wyland (D) proposed a Mandate as recently as 2006 and 2007, before Obama, and plans were struck down by Congress both times.

So your talking point is farking stupid.


ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I'm just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn't true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That's what I'm saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

Are you sure the insurance mandate wasn't a Republican idea?
2012-07-08 10:56:49 AM  
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: uhh, I thought was the same thing...that the state law that permits someone to do something that doesn't hurt society was referring to "medical" marijuana.

What does Obama have to do with medical marijuana laws?


not a gotdamn thing...but tenpoundsofcheese is desperate for an out. he's painted himself into a corner again and even HE realizes he's screwed up.
2012-07-08 10:48:42 AM  
2 votes:
Pretty much this from the GOP. Can't imagine why.

Link
2012-07-08 10:41:22 AM  
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent

It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.

Funny, if it was considered such a great idea then, why didn't the dems join in?


Because the Dems had HillaryCare.

The point is that Obama copied the GOP plans for health care reform verbatim and NOW the GOP doesn't like them.

A bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. Sorry if you're too blind to see that.
2012-07-08 09:39:47 AM  
2 votes:

cman: Its time for the people on the right to stop biatching and deal with the situation as best as we can. Sure, this is not what we wanted, but if we are gonna have to do it, we might as well do it right


Afarkingman brother.

Not really what the left wanted either, but better than nothing(which is what a LOT of us have now)
2012-07-08 09:33:22 AM  
2 votes:
Its time for the people on the right to stop biatching and deal with the situation as best as we can. Sure, this is not what we wanted, but if we are gonna have to do it, we might as well do it right.
2012-07-08 08:23:52 AM  
2 votes:
Whether it's the Nullificiation Crisis, healthcare, voting rights, or what-have-you, there's always been this kind of drama. Conservatives lost the initial fight. Now they'll nitpick it to death all the way to 2014 and beyond.

What does it mean? They shoot themselves in the foot and have an ironically federal-run healthcare exchange copy/pasted from a template where if they had just gone ahead with their own exchange, they'd have something more tailored to their state.

Oh well.
2012-07-08 07:32:07 AM  
2 votes:

Frederick: TV's Vinnie: I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Interesting you mention this, because I was recently in a conversation where federal enforcement of anti-segregation came up. Relating to state legalized marijuana (hypothetical).

If a state were to legalize pot (see Oregon's coming attempt) how would the Feds react?

In one example (segregation) you have Feds enforcing a persons right against the State; and in the other (marijuana) you would have the Feds enforcing a taking away of one's rights against the State.


This is always my wall when it comes to states' rights. My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

I guess I'm a hypocrite. I would like to think that I could tease out some kind of coherent and rational reasoning for my positions, but I think that would be a justification on my part for my biases.

It is, and I imagine will always be, one of the greatest sources of tension in our system.
2012-07-08 05:59:31 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: I think that's exactly right. The Republican strategy from the beginning was to poison this thing and to produce a bill that Obama wouldn't be able to sign. It became a game of chicken. Obama signed it anyway, and won the political battle. I just don't think that's the same thing as a good health care reform solution.


The things that ACA does do are good things for the most part.

The things ACA doesn't do (isn't single payer, is still tied to employment) simply weren't doable with the current crop of GOPers.

Pretty sure nobody is viewing this as a be all and end all solution to the problem of spiraling health care costs and limited access but more as a necessary interim step on the path towards true single payer/universal health care. Pretty sure that's a solid majority opinion among the left. Which makes any assertions that the left are incapable of criticizing Obama and the Dems on this issue a little puzzling
2012-07-08 03:52:32 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: Sabyen91: It seems you just have a stick up your ass about Obama and that informs your feelings about ACA.

You're making a great case for my point that any dissent in regards to the Obama administration will not be tolerated. Even if it's nothing more than the idea that we could have done better.


do you remember back in the day when Bush was president? if you so much as whispered a dissenting opinion about GWB, you got called a traitor to your country. I mention this because the exact attitude you are describing is the attitude that many Republicans had during those days. I'm wondering where that no holds barred/support the president always/no exceptions ever attitude went.

I dunno. I just find it curious to see Republicans ripping into the president and saying they're oppressed when a few short years ago they had the attitude of 'support the president or you are a traitor'.
2012-07-08 03:52:10 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: Sabyen91: It seems you just have a stick up your ass about Obama and that informs your feelings about ACA.

You're making a great case for my point that any dissent in regards to the Obama administration will not be tolerated. Even if it's nothing more than the idea that we could have done better.


No, most people talk about the bill itself. You are the one that immediately accuses people for only liking it because Obama signed it. Even though you admit it is better than nothing. It makes me think the reason you bash it is BECAUSE Obama signed it. All the liberals I know are not enamored with the result but the pragmatic ones know it is not likely a final result.
2012-07-08 03:45:48 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: I'm sure there will be a lot of pissing and moaning here if it happens too, not because single payer was finally implemented somewhere, but because it will mean a political loss for the left.


I think the difference is that most people just really won't care. And the Democrats in that state's legislature will probably support it wholeheartedly because it's the right thing to do, politics be damned. And then a (hopefully Democratic) President can hold that state up to the nation, and say, "look, these uneducated, inbred rednecks can get healthcare for all of their citizens, can't the rest of the country?"

Because that's pretty much how it happened in Canada. The lumberjacks and igloo dwellers in Saskatchewan were the first to get universal health care. Not the city-dwelling liberals in Ontario, or the Frenchies in Quebec, it was the backwards libertarian lumberjacks in Saskatchewan that did good to get their kids any education at all. They made it happen, and then they held themselves up as an example to the rest of the country.
2012-07-08 03:45:19 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: Sabyen91: And if we got rid of Obamacare we would pass another health care reform bill? How about when Republicans take the Senate?

I'm not proposing we get rid of it. I'm only saying the cheerleading for this turd is politically motivated and not because of the substance of the law.

I am proposing that aiming one notch above the Republicans and then cheering when that's accomplished is a pretty damn sorry thing to do. But, since it's not unadulterated praise for the Obama administration I guess that's just not enough.


And you will still bash people for supporting the bill? Because it isn't as good as it could be if the Dems had 300 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate? Social Security and Medicare started out modestly but they became more popular and were expanded. It is a first step (I feel I am repeating myself). It seems you just have a stick up your ass about Obama and that informs your feelings about ACA.
2012-07-08 03:15:36 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: Sabyen91: Except you don't think it is a good idea so...

I don't. As I understand it, Heritage is a conservative think tank type organization, which is another way of saying "I say whatever the bible or the guy with the most money tells me to."

Which means that the left supports this because Obama signed it, and the right opposes it because Obama signed it.


I disagree, but I could see where someone on the right would make that mistake. The left supports it for no other reason than it's better than what we have now. No one on the left thinks that the layers of bureaucracy and middlemen that are currently a part of the health care system in this country are a Good Thing. It's silly, really. But the right won't allow us to go even farther and provide for universal health care, so this is the best we can get. Most of us on the left hope that this will one day lead to Single Payer.

The right just hates the fact that a black guy Democrat made it happen. If this had been McCain, the right would have passed it with fewer insurance company regulations and been all over the left with the "Democrats hate health care!" nonsense.
2012-07-08 03:10:10 PM  
1 vote:

paygun: Sabyen91: Except you don't think it is a good idea so...

I don't. As I understand it, Heritage is a conservative think tank type organization, which is another way of saying "I say whatever the bible or the guy with the most money tells me to."

Which means that the left supports this because Obama signed it, and the right opposes it because Obama signed it.


No, the left supports it because it is a step in the right direction. I predict it will take the same course as the Canadian system. Some New England states and Pacific NW states will decide to go with a single payer system and eventually all the blue states will follow. The red states? fark em.
2012-07-08 02:42:09 PM  
1 vote:

coyo: TheBigJerk: urban.derelict: foo monkey: Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.

Public welfare isn't constitutional?

/who'd have thunk the SCOTUS would have favored the US gov taking care of its own citizens?
//we have the means to treat everyone
/so why not?
//you want patients dying in the street thrown out of the ER? You know they used to dump buckets of piss and sh*t into the alleys back when churches ran Europe?

We don't have the means to treat everyone. The aging boomers who need more and more care and overall population growth are the biggest part of why the system is so expensive in the first place.


How is that we, the richest country in the world, don't have the means yet less wealthy countries do have the means to treat all their citizens?
The numbers say that their outcomes are better - they live longer and have less health problems.


because none of the richest corporations or wealth holders carry their share of the tax burden?
also have you taken a look at the defense budget lately?
we can't do for ourselves because we're too busy doing for others.
like Israel.
2012-07-08 01:52:08 PM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament: relcec: give me medical technology that is a decade behind in adoption and that is affordable even by the lower middle class over this shait every day of the weak.

Who's stopping you? If you prefer paying less for shiattier care, go for it. Just don't tell me that I have to accept the same shiattier care.


I already told you, accepting less advanced care isn't a necessary condition of paying less for healthcare.
the japanese only pay $98 bucks a pop for MRIs and that has limited their access to that technology even slightly compared to us.

this argument is your bullshiat device that is designed to avoid broaching the subject of reform at all by making people fear substandard care.
all I am saying is even if your imagenary scenario was true scenario it would still be a horrible f*cking trade off.
2012-07-08 01:49:49 PM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament:
But how does this force other countries to pay higher prices.

Because your hypothesis is flawed because Generic Producing German Company X will not be able to afford to sell at Exceptionally Low Price Y in Germany without charging ridiculous rates somewhere else ... and that "somewhere else" doesn't exist anymore because they can't sell higher in the United States.


You are assuming the drugs are expensive to manufacture. They are not. They are expensive to develop, and, no, the US is not the only place in the world that does drugs development. The costs to develop drugs are going down due to technological advances but you're not likely to see prices drop while a company holds a patent.
2012-07-08 01:42:40 PM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament: Chummer45: How has it made everything worse or failed? It hasn't even been fully implemented yet.

I was referring to other things liberals have tried to fix - like poverty, unemployment and out-of-wedlock children in the black community.


Chummer45: Your idea regarding R&D is a good one, but I don't think that tackles the whole problem. What about pre-existing conditions? What about poor folks without insurance? Do you just let hospitals refuse to treat them when they come to the emergency room?

Anyone who complains about insurance and pre-existing conditions simply doesn't understand the concept of insurance. But my to answer your last question ... if it's not a medical "emergency", then yes I'd let hospitals refuse treatment. Some medical services are simply too expensive to give to everyone for free - the country as a whole can not afford it.

/Doesn't have medical insurance


Thank god freeloaders like you are going to be taxed.
2012-07-08 01:27:23 PM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: ghare: Who cares? Blue states will finally be getting something for their tax money other than subsidizing idiots who want to be poor, stupid and unhealthy. Blue states will continue to enjoy even better jobs, education, standard of living and health.

... and people fleeing their states like a prison break.

Because they're offering health care to its citizens.


Be realistic. A lot of people are older and don't want to live in a state in which socialized medicine gets in the way of their Medicare.

blueollie.files.wordpress.com
2012-07-08 01:21:58 PM  
1 vote:

Aexia: We already compel people to take out a mortgage. If you don't have a mortgage, you will pay higher taxes.

We already compel people to have kids. If you don't have kids, you will pay higher taxes.

So why is health insurance different?


Because soshulizm baby jesus crying bald eagle.
2012-07-08 01:19:04 PM  
1 vote:

andersoncouncil42: cman: For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.

How is single payer not giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce? It would be in the form of that three letter word, a tax (buga buga) but it would be the same semantical argument over whether the mandate is a penalty or a tax. Single payer is money out of your pocket for healthcare and you don't get a say in the matter.

Single payer is the way to go of course. The ACA is a small step in the right direction but there's a long way to go. A profit motive in healthcare is totally immoral.


I guarantee that, had Obama enacted single payer, the GOP would be fighting tooth and nail to "repeal and replace" it, and would probably suggest "replacing" it with a mandate-type solution like the ACA. I don't understand why people are suddenly so worried that the federal government is going to force people to buy things:

1. Nobody has proposed new laws forcing people to buy things like broccoli
2. SCOTUS just ruled that Congress can't force people to buy things, and
3. The federal government has always been able to "force" people to buy things, through its tax and spend power. And the tax and spend power, as was pointed out, was the reason the ACA was held constitutional.

I didn't like being "forced" to pay for the Iraq war, but guess what? Forcing me to pay for it is within the power of the federal government. I had to pay my share of trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. My money has blood on its hands, but now right wingers are FURIOUS that their money will be used to save the lives of their fellow citizens?

Heaven forbid, the government wants every person to pitch in to pay for health care that they'll inevitably use. The GOP faithful are happy to spend trillions on unnecessary wars, but today are acting like Hitler is rolling "obamacare" tanks down main street. For Christ's sake, get a little perspective people.
2012-07-08 01:03:28 PM  
1 vote:

cman: For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.


How is single payer not giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce? It would be in the form of that three letter word, a tax (buga buga) but it would be the same semantical argument over whether the mandate is a penalty or a tax. Single payer is money out of your pocket for healthcare and you don't get a say in the matter.

Single payer is the way to go of course. The ACA is a small step in the right direction but there's a long way to go. A profit motive in healthcare is totally immoral.
2012-07-08 12:53:59 PM  
1 vote:
StopLurkListen:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"Welfare" in that sense isn't identical to today's "welfare." Welfare then meant well-being of the nation, now it means safety net for the least well-off among us. But yeah, splitting hairs and all.

But considering Scalito&Thomas hate the idea of a dynamic, changing nation and refuse to accept that the Constitution is a framework instead of a nearly-Biblical absolute truth handed down from on high... They *do* decide cases based on language as defined in the 18th Century.



Never said welfare has the same meaning. Healthcare does fall under their meaning of the welfare of the union in the same way the post office does.

The spirit of the document is that people come together and have a voice in the direction of the country without trampling on the rights of the minority. It's carefully written to avoid concentrations of power. It is *not* a capitalist manifesto and nor is it a socialist one.

Scalia and Thomas would have been laughed out of Philadelphia for thinking the framers were united in absolute meaning. There is a reason the document and its clauses appear vague. The missing instruction manual would say "THINK", not, "TRY TO GUESS WHAT WE WERE THINKING".
2012-07-08 12:49:30 PM  
1 vote:
24.media.tumblr.com
2012-07-08 12:46:48 PM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament: Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: Chummer45: And why is it ok to severely restrict the "free market" for pharmaceuticals, but not regulate health insurance? I don't understand why one is ok, but the other is a huge problem.

Because you're not severely restricting the free market. They can still sell everything in the USA for whatever price they want; it just limits their rights to set low prices outside the country. We shouldn't restrict the free market within the country, but I have no issues with making companies choose between us or the rest of the world.

You know your plan isn't going to accomplish other countries in raising their prices right?

Of course it would.



So in your view, the only reason Americans spend so much money on health care (desipte the lack of universal coverage) is because the rest of the world is leeching off our success?

It's much easier to blame the rest of the world for our own failings, while ignoring all of the rest of the underlying problems on the domestic front. I'm done arguing with you on this, because the premise of your argument is that we repeal the ACA, force pharmaceutical countries to charge "everyone the same" (which is a vastly oversimplified and nonsensical approach), and presto, our health care costs will be reigned in?

The health care market is a profoundly domestically-oriented market. You really think that restricting pharmaceutical exports (which is what you are proposing), will fix soaring domestic costs?

I bet you think our taxes are "too high" because we spend way too much on "foreign aid" too. It's a classic GOP approach - blame everyone else for the problems in our system, while acting like there's nothing wrong with what we're doing domestically. Instead of considering the other problems, you just keep saying "get rid of international freeloaders," which sounds ok, but in reality is not any real solution for fixing our health care system.
2012-07-08 12:31:45 PM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament: Chummer45: How has it made everything worse or failed? It hasn't even been fully implemented yet.

I was referring to other things liberals have tried to fix - like poverty, unemployment and out-of-wedlock children in the black community.


Chummer45: Your idea regarding R&D is a good one, but I don't think that tackles the whole problem. What about pre-existing conditions? What about poor folks without insurance? Do you just let hospitals refuse to treat them when they come to the emergency room?

Anyone who complains about insurance and pre-existing conditions simply doesn't understand the concept of insurance. But my to answer your last question ... if it's not a medical "emergency", then yes I'd let hospitals refuse treatment. Some medical services are simply too expensive to give to everyone for free - the country as a whole can not afford it.

/Doesn't have medical insurance


I feel like your attitude would do an about-face if you were suddenly diagnosed with a terminal illness that was treatable. Or better yet, you had an uninsured loved one who was diagnosed with a terminal illness.

The "personal responsibility" cop-out is just that - a cop-out attitude that an uninsured person with no current major medical problems invokes as a matter of convenience.
2012-07-08 12:17:40 PM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: The biggest problem with our healthcare system is that rest of the world is not proportionately participating in research and development ... and has no incentive to do so because we give them access to what we are paying to develop.

Actually it's because in most places, the government sets the prices but go on...


That's a good point. Most developed countries acknowledge that the health care "business" is no ordinary "business" and shouldn't be treated as such. It's a public good in a unique market that requires substantial regulation for it to work properly. Otherwise, you get spiraling health care costs like we have right now in this country.
2012-07-08 12:06:00 PM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: But I'm a "bleedin' heart liberal" because I don't think deporting him would be a wise use of our limited resources.


I agree with you. It's common sense really. Kids that came here through no fault of their own are now contributing to our society and conservatives want to boot them out. One would think they would want them to become citizens at least for the tax revenue let alone because it is the right thing to do.
2012-07-08 11:57:39 AM  
1 vote:

Brostorm: ox45tallboy: Brostorm: And Obama has decided to ignore it based on his ideology. He has also decided to ignore people that broke the law illegally coming into the country.

My friend just got deported from Canada for going their to take pictures for a friends wedding for free. You pick and chose what laws you want to enforce based on idealogy, laws mean nothing to you.

See, that's just sad. The main point of his Executive Statement was to provide for those who didn't break the law - their parents did. Are you telling me that a 6-year old should have been responsible for putting in applications and getting on the waiting list? That the child should have refused to go with his mother and/or father when they moved to another country, because they were doing so illegally?

Try examining talking points before repeating them, you might actually learn something.


their EXISTENCE is breaking the law. All tax dollars they use for public schools, welfare, food stamps, INCARCERATION costs, EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS are theft and just in addition to them already breaking the law. You chose to ignore it based on ideology.


If you want to reduce incarceration costs and emergency room visits, just fund education. You save several dollars for every dollar you spend on education.
2012-07-08 11:53:58 AM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: gimmegimme: I agree. Single-payer health care is a necessity.

So why can't the Congress critters sell it like that? We have to do this in order to remain competitive in the global economy?


That one's easy. The Republicans have literally admitted they don't want to do anything to help the President or to take profits away from private corporations and their death panels.
2012-07-08 11:53:57 AM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: Brostorm: And Obama has decided to ignore it based on his ideology. He has also decided to ignore people that broke the law illegally coming into the country.

My friend just got deported from Canada for going their to take pictures for a friends wedding for free. You pick and chose what laws you want to enforce based on idealogy, laws mean nothing to you.

See, that's just sad. The main point of his Executive Statement was to provide for those who didn't break the law - their parents did. Are you telling me that a 6-year old should have been responsible for putting in applications and getting on the waiting list? That the child should have refused to go with his mother and/or father when they moved to another country, because they were doing so illegally?

Try examining talking points before repeating them, you might actually learn something.


Republicans don't give a shiat if a six year old was brought into this country, as long as we kick his ass out at 25 and throw him back to the country he came from, they are happy.

There is no heart in these people, this is why I have them on par with child molesters and rapists.

/Conservatism is a mental illness
2012-07-08 11:53:28 AM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament: This is cute ... the liberals have been reduced to shouting "troll!" at everyone pointing out their hypocrisy because, apparently, they've got nothing left. You're all hypocrites; it's okay - just embrace it.


No, they're shouting "troll" at the mouth breathers that keep posting already-debunked talking points, especially when the debunking has already been done in the same thread. What would you call someone that does this?
2012-07-08 11:50:24 AM  
1 vote:

Brostorm: gimmegimme: Brostorm: Aar1012: Brostorm: But you are ok with them ignoring federal law with regard to illegals and DOMA right? Hypocrites all of you.

You do know what is actually in the wording of DOMA right? It defines marriage on the FEDERAL level and does not force states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

So please take that orange out of the apple pile, please.

And Obama has decided to ignore it based on his ideology. He has also decided to ignore people that broke the law illegally coming into the country.

My friend just got deported from Canada for going their to take pictures for a friends wedding for free. You pick and chose what laws you want to enforce based on idealogy, laws mean nothing to you.

How do you "break the law illegally"? Is there a way to break the law legally?

I guess it depends on if said breaking of the law will be enforced, based on the idealogy of the current executive.


Whether or not the law will be enforced has no effect on the "legality" of a said action. For instance, Bush ordered Americans to torture people. These actions were illegal and meant the folks who did it inherently broke the law.

Your sentences are confusing.
2012-07-08 11:47:40 AM  
1 vote:

gimmegimme: Is there a way to break the law legally?


By being rich
2012-07-08 11:46:36 AM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: LarryDan43: Companies are also afraid they will lose their best talent if we went to universal health care. Think of how many people are holding on to a particular job because of the healthcare benefits they couldn't afford as an independent contractor/consultant/etc. Companies would have to raise salaries or risk losing their better bootstrappy workers.

I would think companies in this economy should worry more about being competitive internationally. Look at the crap Detroit produced in the 70's and 80's to stay competitive with Japanese auto makers, who were actually paying their employees pretty good. The difference was that the employees at the auto plants in America were unionized, and they demanded health care benefits, which had to be paid for out of the cost of the cars. The Japanese auto workers already had universal health care, so they didn't have to charge extra for their cars. They could build a better car for the same money and pay their employees just as good as the Americans were being paid.

This is another reason tech employees are being outsourced - it's not the salary as much as the health care employers are expected to provide.


I agree. Single-payer health care is a necessity.
2012-07-08 11:39:05 AM  
1 vote:

Brostorm: But you are ok with them ignoring federal law with regard to illegals and DOMA right? Hypocrites all of you.


You do know what is actually in the wording of DOMA right? It defines marriage on the FEDERAL level and does not force states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

So please take that orange out of the apple pile, please.
2012-07-08 11:38:47 AM  
1 vote:

PanicMan: I'm just waiting for republicans to propose a tax penalty for not owning a gun.


So your state is in favor of drug testing for welfare recipients? How about drug testing for gun licenses?
2012-07-08 11:29:56 AM  
1 vote:

MyRandomName: How is not expanding Medicaid or providing health exchanges not following the law? IT IS IN THE farkING LAW you dimwit.


i47.tinypic.com



You seem really strung up by specific numbers. Here's a hint: HHS, CBO, Obama, Luke Skywalker, and The Hulk are wrong. We won't be able to accurately cost-project this thing until it's fully implemented. You did admit the one thing that this will do is bend the cost curve. That's really the only thing that matters because if we can bend the cost-curve downwards, that will represent significant savings to the individual, the states and the federal government. That's the theory. We have to see if we can do that. If it doesn't work, we have to retool and find out where we went wrong and how do we correct it going forward.

This is the road we're going down and you're not going to change it. Better to get on board and try to modify it from the inside and make it better because you're never going to repeal it. that will just never happen.
2012-07-08 11:29:41 AM  
1 vote:

relcec: this law is such a f*cking mess because obama tried to go for what he saw as the path of least resistance and offered the most political benefit for himself, not the best plan for america.


actually the GOP and the Blue Dogs in the pockets of the insurance companies made this a mess.
2012-07-08 11:29:24 AM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: cman: /Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.

Honestly, so would the libs, myself included. But don't forget that by 2018, if a state has come up with a plan that provides better coverage to its residents than the Federal plan, they can apply for and get permission to go with their plan. This is similar to how universal health care came about in Canada - they were able to do it in 1940's Saskatchewan, where there really were just beavers and igloos and lumberjacks, and the rest of Canada looked and said, 'why can't we just do that here'?

The main problem with going straight to universal care would be all of the people thrown out of work and the investors left holding worthless stock in outdated companies. Insurance companies are actually a significant percentage of GDP, and effectively running them out of business overnight would do no small amount of harm to the economy as a whole. As Obama said in his interview with Jon Stewart back in 2010, "Baby steps, Jon."


Companies are also afraid they will lose their best talent if we went to universal health care. Think of how many people are holding on to a particular job because of the healthcare benefits they couldn't afford as an independent contractor/consultant/etc. Companies would have to raise salaries or risk losing their better bootstrappy workers.
2012-07-08 11:26:51 AM  
1 vote:

Brostorm: But you are ok with them ignoring federal law with regard to illegals and DOMA right? Hypocrites all of you.


concerning illegals it's a matter of resources and prioritizing. the DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional outright.
2012-07-08 11:26:23 AM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: So what is he? A random talking point generator? He does at least try to justify his position sometimes, although the cognitive dissonance necessary to do so I personally believe cannot be held within a mortal mind.


Am I allowed to answer this? The mods aren't keen on troll-outing, but I'm sick of TPoC.

/Found the thread, though.
2012-07-08 11:25:14 AM  
1 vote:

MyRandomName: The minimum requirements HHS requires is a far cry from what the Heritage wanted. It was the difference of a $5000 floor plan (HHS and Sebelius) and a $1000 catastrophic care plan. There is a huge difference. Are you not competent enough to understand the two varying levels of mandates?


So now that we've established you're a whore we're just haggling over price?
2012-07-08 11:24:01 AM  
1 vote:

SunsetLament: I thought liberals love when we ignore federal law? I haven't heard much complaining about the "Don't call us, we'll call you" ICE policy towards Arizona from you libs. And I haven't heard any complaining about Commissar Obama's decision to ignore federal marijuana laws in California.



if you read the article, you will see the democrats are the ones actually ignoring the law by pretending that subsidies are available for for those who are not enrolled through state exchanges:


James F. Blumstein, a professor of constitutional and health law at Vanderbilt University, said the dispute over subsidies involved a serious legal issue.
"The language of the statute is explicit," Mr. Blumstein said. "Subsidies accrue to people who obtain coverage through state-run exchanges. The I.R.S. tries to get around that by providing subsidies for all insurance exchanges. That interpretation will almost certainly be challenged by someone."
The most likely challenger, Mr. Blumstein said, is an employer penalized because one or more of its employees receive subsidies through a federal exchange. Employers may be subject to financial penalties if they offer no coverage or inadequate coverage and at least one of their full-time employees receives subsidies.
Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the link between subsidies and penalties was a crucial part of the law.
"Those tax credits trigger the penalties against employers," Mr. Cannon said. If workers cannot receive subsidies in states with a federal exchange, their employers cannot be penalized, he said. That, in turn, would hobble federal efforts to get employers to offer coverage in those states, Mr. Cannon said.


this law is such a f*cking mess because obama tried to go for what he saw as the path of least resistance and offered the most political benefit for himself, not the best plan for america.
not something that could ever possibly hold down costs, or in the alternative just make basic f*cking sense.

obama agreed to kill the public option because he didn't want any resistance from the hospital and doctor lobbies.
he created the mandate because he didn't want to be accused of levying a tax. he prohibits people from buying catastrophic coverage to attempt to funnel more money to the insurance companies.

once he ruled out doing anything that made sense as the political payback for doing something right was less than doing something that made providers and insurance companies richer, the stupid insurance exchanges became a necessary half assed work around for compliance.

unfortunately for obama, he doesn't have the big stick to smack the states around with now (medicaid dollars being dependent on participation in his program by the states) so his administration literally has to ignore their own law and do something it says something that in plain language that is reserved for the states to implement.
2012-07-08 11:20:14 AM  
1 vote:
Offical GOP platform: "N****r can't tell me what to do!"
2012-07-08 11:19:01 AM  
1 vote:

HeartBurnKid: /"Commissar Obama"... that's new


I guess the main talking point this week is the 'Obama has become a tyrannical dictator" schtick. Next week will involve the Empty Suit talking point

/Barrack Obama - The Biggest, Emptiest Empty Suit that could destroy the foundation of America
2012-07-08 11:18:53 AM  
1 vote:

Hobodeluxe: Nemo's Brother: Obama taught us you can simply ignore federal laws you don't like.

yeah because Bush never signed any executive orders or signing statements saying he wouldn't execute the law as written right?


Stop mentioning ancient history. Besides, Fox News threw that stuff down the memory hole long ago.
2012-07-08 11:16:51 AM  
1 vote:

Nemo's Brother: Obama taught us you can simply ignore federal laws you don't like.


yeah because Bush never signed any executive orders or signing statements saying he wouldn't execute the law as written right?
2012-07-08 11:09:35 AM  
1 vote:
There hasn't been an organization like the republican party that has been more harmful to our society. Al Qaeda is wishing they could cause this much terror and grief to the American public like the republicans.

Terrorist cells should take notes from the GOP on how to effectively destroy a country.
2012-07-08 11:08:45 AM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: Have the Republicans ever came up with an alternative that wasn't full of BS and platitudes?


Obama's health care law is the Republican alternative. That's why they have nothing to replace it with.
2012-07-08 11:08:11 AM  
1 vote:

tenpoundsofcheese: okay, but the states then ignored that ruling...same difference.


No they didn't, the MJ stores got raided by the Feds. In what way is that the states ignoring rulings? The Feds overrode state sanctioned laws using the position that Feds trump state laws.

States are always passings laws voted in by the citizens that are not always in line with Federal Law. (Roe v. Wade- Miss.) Sometimes the Feds step in sometimes they don't.
2012-07-08 11:06:55 AM  
1 vote:

NewportBarGuy: Outstanding point and entirely accurate. Hopefully, we can continue on the path we're on, tweak things, and move toward single-payer in 20-30 years.


As best I can tell, that's the plan. I think it likely there will be at least one state that goes for it in the next 5 years. I'm actually predicting it will be a red state, that sells it to the public as the "anti-Obamacare".
2012-07-08 11:05:42 AM  
1 vote:
2012-07-08 11:05:33 AM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama taught us we can ignore laws we don't like.
States can ignore laws they don't like ( "medical" marijuana laws and sanctuary cities) but can't ignore laws that 0bama likes (0bamacare...yes, I know that isn't a law) because that would be bad.

9Bama didn't teach us that. States have being doing it forever.


10bama?
2012-07-08 11:04:32 AM  
1 vote:

tenpoundsofcheese:

0bama taught us we can ignore laws we don't like.
States can ignore laws they don't like ( "medical" marijuana laws and sanctuary cities) but can't ignore laws that 0bama likes (0bamacare...yes, I know that isn't a law) because that would be bad.


But historically speaking, quite a few presidents before Obama ignored laws that they didn't like. Lincoln, Reagan, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Clinton, ALL the Bush presidents...its happened quite a lot down through history.

i'm wondering what point it is you think you're making...? 'OMG! US presidents sometimes do things the law doesn't allow!' well...yeah. they do, in fact, do that from time to time. what this has to do with Obamacare is beyond me, and that's what i'm having difficulty understanding. could you maybe try speaking in plain english rather than freeper shorthand? that might help.
2012-07-08 11:04:32 AM  
1 vote:

MyRandomName: Are you arguing there was no healthcare just like there was no internet during the time of the Constitution being written? Healthcare is a right, forcing others to provide you healthcare is not. It is a benefit the government can choose to bestow through funding, but it can not force through criminal action. The Federal Government can not force a doctor to provide benefits for free, but only through just compensation. So Healthcare being provided is not a right.


I hate to disagree with you here, but I offer this as evidence:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

Of course, this law is a major, perhaps the major reason for exploding health care costs. Well, other than corporate greed being good, of course.
2012-07-08 11:01:33 AM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: The main problem with going straight to universal care would be all of the people thrown out of work and the investors left holding worthless stock in outdated companies. Insurance companies are actually a significant percentage of GDP, and effectively running them out of business overnight would do no small amount of harm to the economy as a whole. As Obama said in his interview with Jon Stewart back in 2010, "Baby steps, Jon."


Outstanding point and entirely accurate. Hopefully, we can continue on the path we're on, tweak things, and move toward single-payer in 20-30 years.
2012-07-08 10:58:53 AM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.

Funny, if it was considered such a great idea then, why didn't the dems join in?

I can ask the same question as to why the GOP isn't joining in with the Dems today on THEIR OWN IDEA!


My favorite, thus far, has to be former Senator Robert Bennett of Utah. Bennett was the lead Republican cosponsor of the Health Americans Act in 2007 and 2009 - an act that had an individual mandate. Bennett voted with every GOP senator to call the individual mandate unconstitutional.

His response, when asked why he now calls it unconstitutional, is pricessless.

"I didn't focus on the particulars of the amendment as closely as I should have, and probably would have voted the other way if I had understood that the individual mandate was at its core. I just wanted to express my opposition to the Obama proposal at every opportunity."

Coincidentally, Bennett was facing a tough primary challenge against two Tea Party candidates. He lost his primary challenge.
2012-07-08 10:57:58 AM  
1 vote:

Brick-House: So, it's OK for Obama to ignore federal laws, but not the states???


Obama is the head of the branch that enforces the laws. He's merely enforcing immigration laws in a more efficient manner, rather than wasting resources on illegals who didn't have a choice in coming here, and/or aren't causing trouble.

As for the states...Supremacy clause, motherfarker.
2012-07-08 10:57:40 AM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: Mrtraveler01: Have the Republicans ever came up with an alternative that wasn't full of BS and platitudes?

nope. they're going to fight tooth and claw to prevent/delay implementation of a health care reform plan that was mostly their idea to begin with. it'd be funny if it wasn't going to hurt so many people.


The ability of insurance companies to refuse coverage based on preexisting conditions, or to drop people at the time they need affordable healthcare the most, is a death sentence. THAT was the "death panels". That people lack the empathy or understanding to fathom this makes me sick.

It has come to the point that any thinking, rational person can just assume that they are opposed to the Republican platform, without even having to hear their plan.

/Oh, they don't have a plan? How unlike them.
2012-07-08 10:57:37 AM  
1 vote:

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: Name_Omitted: It was sold in a dishonest manner, but at it's heart, it is Constitutionally solid.

Just like the Iraq War.

/ducks

okay, now that was funny.

and unlike 0bamacare, it was approved by many people on both sides of the aisle.


Well if you include the Republican Congress from the 1990's and Mitt Romney when he was governor...

/ducks again
2012-07-08 10:57:35 AM  
1 vote:

tenpoundsofcheese:

and unlike 0bamacare, it was approved by many people on both sides of the aisle.


this is really bothering you, isn't it?
2012-07-08 10:57:19 AM  
1 vote:
Is this going to be like the civil war, where they are unable to accept that they were wrong and they lost?
2012-07-08 10:55:56 AM  
1 vote:

foo monkey: Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.


Public welfare isn't constitutional?

/who'd have thunk the SCOTUS would have favored the US gov taking care of its own citizens?
//we have the means to treat everyone
/so why not?
//you want patients dying in the street thrown out of the ER? You know they used to dump buckets of piss and sh*t into the alleys back when churches ran Europe?
2012-07-08 10:55:11 AM  
1 vote:

tenpoundsofcheese: uhh, I thought was the same thing...that the state law that permits someone to do something that doesn't hurt society was referring to "medical" marijuana.


What does Obama have to do with medical marijuana laws?
2012-07-08 10:54:01 AM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: Have the Republicans ever came up with an alternative that wasn't full of BS and platitudes?


nope. they're going to fight tooth and claw to prevent/delay implementation of a health care reform plan that was mostly their idea to begin with. it'd be funny if it wasn't going to hurt so many people.
2012-07-08 10:53:54 AM  
1 vote:

Name_Omitted: It was sold in a dishonest manner, but at it's heart, it is Constitutionally solid.


Just like the Iraq War.

/ducks
2012-07-08 10:52:56 AM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese:

Yes, 0bama taught us that you can ignore the laws that you don't like or don't make you feeeeeel good.

Actually, we learned that lesson from St. Reagan. Remember Iran-Contra? if laws get in your way, just route around 'em!

or did you think that people just forgot inconvenient historical facts?

And what's with this '0' stuff? I thought Republicans like yourself 'respected the office of the President of the United States of America' no matter who was in the big chair?


Silly Weaver, that rule is only effective when it's a Republican president.

And don't dare point out the GOP's hypocrisy because that means that you're a hypocrite too!

/rolls eyes at conservatives
2012-07-08 10:51:34 AM  
1 vote:

rjakobi: Dear GOP,

Continue this malarkey and Obama will have universal health care provided upon political affiliation.

It's done. Get over it.

Love,
Independent Voters


I know, most polls have shown that everyone except dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters are sick of this and just want to move on already.

And what does the GOP do? They keep farking the chicken that everyone keeps pleading the GOP to stop farking.
2012-07-08 10:50:23 AM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: I can ask the same question as to why the GOP isn't joining in with the Dems today on THEIR OWN IDEA!


Because if Obama came out against cancer, the GOP would fight for the rights of cancer cells.

Oh and also FARK YOU, I GOT MINE.
2012-07-08 10:49:54 AM  
1 vote:
Dear GOP,

Continue this malarkey and Obama will have universal health care provided upon political affiliation.

It's done. Get over it.

Love,
Independent Voters
2012-07-08 10:47:10 AM  
1 vote:

tenpoundsofcheese: It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.

Funny, if it was considered such a great idea then, why didn't the dems join in?


I can ask the same question as to why the GOP isn't joining in with the Dems today on THEIR OWN IDEA!
2012-07-08 10:44:10 AM  
1 vote:
Yes, we're aware that Obama is trying to save the country from RepublicanDon'tCare.
2012-07-08 10:43:23 AM  
1 vote:

StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent


Actually they mostly have the problem with the fact Obama proposed it, as the entire ACA is based on past Republican plans that failed for one reason or another (except in MA, where a similar plan was pushed through by Romney)

I have argued with a Republican friend of mine extensively on this subject, and his arguments shift oddly depending on the position I take. He can simultaneously say that this is a government takeover that will bankrupt all the health insurance companies in America while also saying that it is a huge handout to them and they'll just eat it up while still letting costs soar. It's truly remarkable doublethink.
2012-07-08 10:41:07 AM  
1 vote:
The single most important sentence in that entire article:

For one thing, few if any will remember what any of them wrote months before the election

This right here is the only reason the Republican Party continues to exist: They have the combined attention span of an adult mayfly.
=Smidge=
2012-07-08 10:40:16 AM  
1 vote:

cman: For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?


Justice Ginsberg did a pretty good job of destroying this argument. Basically she reasoned that there is no such thing as a person being "compelled into" interstate commerce. Health insurance is a unique market because it is something virtually everyone will use at some point in their lives, whether they are insured or not. And more to the point, insurers and health care providers factor these "free riders" into their costs, because these people for the most part will end up consuming health care at some point and leave the rest of us with the bill.

The point is, we all pay for free riders right now. So by the mere virtue of existing in society, free riders actually do impact interstate commerce; to the tune of billions per year.

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.
2012-07-08 10:37:51 AM  
1 vote:

randomjsa: Yes, we're aware that the Republicans are trying to save the country from ObamaCare.


Funny'd
2012-07-08 10:34:14 AM  
1 vote:
From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent
2012-07-08 10:22:17 AM  
1 vote:

ginandbacon: foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.

But it is a federal benefit. Like education and SS and Medicaid. What if governors decided to stop processing Medicaid applications? Would that be okay?


Healthcare is not a federal benefit since unlike SS and Medicaid it is not a service or payment provided by the government.
2012-07-08 10:13:12 AM  
1 vote:
Doesn't "medical" marijuana go against federal law?
Okay, so now we don't like states ignoring federal laws?
2012-07-08 09:50:03 AM  
1 vote:

NewportBarGuy: foo monkey: Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.

The Constitution is not a death pact. We, as a nation, have the right to a healthy population and a health care system that does not bankrupt individuals, states, or the federal government.

Health care may not be enumerated in the Constitution, but neither is the internet, cell phones, stem cell research. It was written 300 f*cking years ago! It's a good guide of how to govern ourselves. It passed the only test of constitutionality it had to pass... the United States Supreme Court.

It's not even socialized health care, because private companies will still manage it and profit from it. We're also expanding a current program to cover more people.

Why on earth anyone would ever fight to deny people the access to affordable health care is beyond me. We are already paying a significant cost for those that use the ER as their primary care facility. If we can get someone in the early stages of diabetes to regularly take insulin/metformin etc... we can save thousands of dollars over that person not knowing, or waiting until they need amputations to deal with the disease.

The Air Force is not enumerated in the constitution. Can we sell their planes to pay for health care?


I will field this one.

For a lot of people, it is pure partisan bullshiat. No matter what, cannot let the other team score a goal.

For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.
2012-07-08 09:30:14 AM  
1 vote:

foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.


But it is a federal benefit. Like education and SS and Medicaid. What if governors decided to stop processing Medicaid applications? Would that be okay?
2012-07-08 09:20:10 AM  
1 vote:

abb3w: ginandbacon: My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

Because you consider the harm of some laws greater than than the harm to the rule of law from their being disregarded?

(As I understand, the supremacy clause means such state laws don't "overturn" federal law as present a conflict with it for the judiciary to straighten out... despite the wishful thinking of nullificationists.)


I suppose? It still seems very intellectually dishonest to me. I mean for me, personally. I struggle with this one.

I feel like I hold a position I would loathe in an opponent.
2012-07-08 05:30:54 AM  
1 vote:

TV's Vinnie: I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.


Interesting you mention this, because I was recently in a conversation where federal enforcement of anti-segregation came up. Relating to state legalized marijuana (hypothetical).

If a state were to legalize pot (see Oregon's coming attempt) how would the Feds react?

In one example (segregation) you have Feds enforcing a persons right against the State; and in the other (marijuana) you would have the Feds enforcing a taking away of one's rights against the State.
 
Displayed 99 of 99 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report