jimmyego: I understand some of the arguments against it, but immoral? Really?

It's immoral for people with pre-existing conditions to have access to health care. Why waste health care on the sick?

Ahh the question headline, invented by hack sports journalists and perfected by butthurt right wingers.

Tebow to the Pats?
Will one word beat Obama?

Corvus: TheAlternator: I'm a libertarian, and I don't like the Affordable Health Care Act. I'm practical enough to know that SOMETHING is going to happen, though, so my biggest complaint is that what we got is a steaming pile.

So you are a libertarian but you are against having a healthcare system letting private companies compete and everyone actually needs to try to pay for their own healthcare at least as much as they can afford?

What system would you be for more exactly?

Under the assumption that there is GOING to be some type of government-mandated or government-run plan, I'd rather just have Medicare extended to all Americans and shifted into a "provide basic care" concept. Wouldn't cover the exceptionally expensive stuff (quadruple bypass surgery, transplants), but would handle normal hospital bills, immunizations, and the like.

If you wanted coverage for the expensive procedures that Medicare wouldn't cover, private insurance fills the bill. It serves much the same goal as a lifetime cap--preventing a small number of people from threatening the system with ruinous expenses--but isn't as harsh and would be more 'fair'.

Ideally, of course, I wouldn't have any such thing--but if there is going to be a plan regardless, that's what I'd want to see.

pippi longstocking: I can't believe how farking low they will go.

Really? After holding the entire country hostage on the debt ceiling episode we had a while back, I have a pretty damn good idea how low they'll go. They'll drag this country so low we'll have to look up with a telescope to see Satan's hooves if it means keeping a Democrat out of office.

Read the stupid paper. It fell apart for me at the part where they said the IRS rule couldn't interpret that the intent of the legislation to allow the distribution of tax credits though state or federally established exchanges. For a bunch of guys who seem to understand how the implementation of the ACA is supposed to work, they do seem awfully concerned that it won't.

Gyrfalcon: Since the intent was CLEARLY that insurance subsidies go to all states, the fact that a word got dropped in the drafting is probably irrelevant.

Not to Scalia, a selective absolutist who (when it suits him) abhors legislative history.

bdub77: Oh FFS it's law, stop. Just stop. And with luck it'll eventually be single payer.

This, and this again.

jimmyego: [i.imgur.com image 606x434]

I understand some of the arguments against it, but immoral? Really?

/Brain hurty.

It's bad for freedom and liberty and stuff.


Corvus: free market

Yeah, the free market has worked so well regarding health care up to this point.

Obama will just go back and fix this - retroactively.

Kuroshin: 1311 says exchanges can be established by "a state"

1321 says the feds can also establish exchanges in states where lacking

1401 says credits are only available to exchanges set up by the State

"The State" does not mean any individual state. It refers to all government. 1401 refers directly to 1311, which is modified by 1321. This discussion is dildoes.

missiv: bdub77: Oh FFS it's law, stop. Just stop. And with luck it'll eventually be single payer.

This, and this again.

"with luck"

That's so cute, you are just so precious.

Go have a popsicle, the adults (more or less but more than you) are talking.

Sabyen91: Shostie: jimmyego: [i.imgur.com image 606x434]

I understand some of the arguments against it, but immoral? Really?

/Brain hurty.

I'll see your immorality and raise you Destro Skeletor.

[i29.photobucket.com image 600x400]

Crap, if I only had to wait in my doctor's office for as long as I have to wait at the DMV I would be thrilled.

For real, the DMV I last went to was nice, fast, totally accomodating in every way. The only time I ever recall having to wait a long time was to take my driving test when I was like 17. Maybe the DMV sucks in conservative states because conservatives suck at self-government and need to be ruled.

Sen. Make Baucus. Sure

Tickle Mittens: Maybe the DMV sucks in conservative states because conservatives suck at self-government and need to be ruled.

+1

"Oh geez, we can't counter Romney's Bain Scandal! What can we do to deflect?"

"Obamacare??"

"Really? Oh well, try it. The teabaggers believe anything."

TheAlternator: Corvus: TheAlternator: I'm a libertarian, and I don't like the Affordable Health Care Act. I'm practical enough to know that SOMETHING is going to happen, though, so my biggest complaint is that what we got is a steaming pile.

So you are a libertarian but you are against having a healthcare system letting private companies compete and everyone actually needs to try to pay for their own healthcare at least as much as they can afford?

What system would you be for more exactly?

Under the assumption that there is GOING to be some type of government-mandated or government-run plan, I'd rather just have Medicare extended to all Americans and shifted into a "provide basic care" concept. Wouldn't cover the exceptionally expensive stuff (quadruple bypass surgery, transplants), but would handle normal hospital bills, immunizations, and the like.

If you wanted coverage for the expensive procedures that Medicare wouldn't cover, private insurance fills the bill. It serves much the same goal as a lifetime cap--preventing a small number of people from threatening the system with ruinous expenses--but isn't as harsh and would be more 'fair'.

Ideally, of course, I wouldn't have any such thing--but if there is going to be a plan regardless, that's what I'd want to see.

The ugly fact is that *everyone* eventually has a hellishly expensive health episode when they're on their deathbed. Unless you croak it in an accident at an early age you're going to be costing someone huge amounts of money for your last days. More than one half of all healthcare expenses are from the last six months of "life". W00t for death panels, biatches

Also, even routine vaginal childbirth costs a shiatton of cash, and last I checked new people are being born every day.

cman: I dont know much about how laws are executed when they come upon issues such as this, but I do hope that intention of the original law would be apparent so that they would know what to do

One would think, but then there's that whole "what does that comma in the Second Amendment mean?" thing.

You guys remember that one time when that Obama fellow thought he was President but missed a word in the Oath of Office and President Palin had to take over?

I guess we really did need to pass it to know what's in it. Thanks Nancy you incredibly ignorant slut.

wedun: Read the stupid paper. It fell apart for me at the part where they said the IRS rule couldn't interpret that the intent of the legislation to allow the distribution of tax credits though state or federally established exchanges. For a bunch of guys who seem to understand how the implementation of the ACA is supposed to work, they do seem awfully concerned that it won't.

lolwut... the law was badly written and exclude federal exchanges. This has been a known issue for a few months now. You can't have legislators doing taksie backsies. They wrote the law, the law gets implemented as written. You do not get to go whoops and make changes with white out once passed. That's now how the legal system works. The ACA was sloppy work, and it's showing.

PanicMan: You know what's missing? The freaking word. What is it? Where does it go?

Yeah... Did I miss the bit in the article where they actually told us what that one missing word that could undercut the Affordable Care Act's promise of affordable health insurance actually is? Seems to me that it should be in there, somewhere, seein's how it's the subject of the story and all.

Ooohh... I see now. They forgot to say "please."

a state.
the State.

not same.

Tickle Mittens: Sabyen91: Shostie: jimmyego: [i.imgur.com image 606x434]

I understand some of the arguments against it, but immoral? Really?

/Brain hurty.

I'll see your immorality and raise you Destro Skeletor.

[i29.photobucket.com image 600x400]

Crap, if I only had to wait in my doctor's office for as long as I have to wait at the DMV I would be thrilled.

For real, the DMV I last went to was nice, fast, totally accomodating in every way. The only time I ever recall having to wait a long time was to take my driving test when I was like 17. Maybe the DMV sucks in conservative states because conservatives suck at self-government and need to be ruled.

I am old enough to remember when the DMV was a nightmare. I don't know what changed but I don't think I am the only one who knows it was around 1992-94 when it improved greatly.

zerkalo: Sen. Make Baucus. Sure

Ugh.

Gyrfalcon: cman: I dont know much about how laws are executed when they come upon issues such as this, but I do hope that intention of the original law would be apparent so that they would know what to do

This cannot possibly be the first 10,000 page law that has passed with a missing word.

Since the intent was CLEARLY that insurance subsidies go to all states, the fact that a word got dropped in the drafting is probably irrelevant.

However, if they do go forward with this nonsense, I'd recommend combing through, oh, the Citizens United rule or similar contested legislation with an equally fine instrument, and seeing what nits drop out.

LOL, there is no clear intent. Both sides have statements that contradict intent. Sorry, but you don't get to decide what clear intent was. When it's not clear the judges will default to the legislation as passed. There is not a white out for passed legislation no matter how much you want there to be.

As for your CU derp, that law was overturned, there is no legislation to interpret and execute. So it's just that, derp.

NemoD: According to what I just read, even if the argument made by the two conservative lawyers is valid, it would mean that only the people in states that implement Obamacare and set up state exchanges would qualify for Federal subsidies.

Basically it would mean the liberal states would have federally assisted health insurance while conservative states would get nothing while also still being subject to the new health insurance tax.

For once, conservative states subsidizing liberal states ... sounds good to me. (Well, except for the part where the conservative states are the ones with the highest percentage of uninsured poor.)


The feds will set up exchanges in the non-complying states and the low-income people will have to buy the unsubsidized insurance or pay the penalties taxes. They won't be able to do either and so the IRS will come after them. Yay, break out the champagne.

Bonzo_1116: TheAlternator: Corvus: TheAlternator: I'm a libertarian, and I don't like the Affordable Health Care Act. I'm practical enough to know that SOMETHING is going to happen, though, so my biggest complaint is that what we got is a steaming pile.

So you are a libertarian but you are against having a healthcare system letting private companies compete and everyone actually needs to try to pay for their own healthcare at least as much as they can afford?

What system would you be for more exactly?

Under the assumption that there is GOING to be some type of government-mandated or government-run plan, I'd rather just have Medicare extended to all Americans and shifted into a "provide basic care" concept. Wouldn't cover the exceptionally expensive stuff (quadruple bypass surgery, transplants), but would handle normal hospital bills, immunizations, and the like.

If you wanted coverage for the expensive procedures that Medicare wouldn't cover, private insurance fills the bill. It serves much the same goal as a lifetime cap--preventing a small number of people from threatening the system with ruinous expenses--but isn't as harsh and would be more 'fair'.

Ideally, of course, I wouldn't have any such thing--but if there is going to be a plan regardless, that's what I'd want to see.

The ugly fact is that *everyone* eventually has a hellishly expensive health episode when they're on their deathbed. Unless you croak it in an accident at an early age you're going to be costing someone huge amounts of money for your last days.



Shut up! You could die of a massive coronary and die before you get to the hospital! Nice and cheap.

Boxcutta: You guys remember that one time when that Obama fellow thought he was President but missed a word in the Oath of Office and President Palin had to take over?

John Roberts! You bastard!

jjorsett: The feds will set up exchanges in the non-complying states and the low-income people will have to buy the unsubsidized insurance or pay the penalties taxes. They won't be able to do either and so the IRS will come after them. Yay, break out the champagne.

Whoops, I forgot the part where all the low-income people move to the subsidized states because they can't afford to have the IRS hounding them. Sounds like a way for a state to get rid of one of its bigger cost burdens.

Corvus: Sabyen91: I am old enough to remember when the DMV was a nightmare. I don't know what changed but I don't think I am the only one who knows it was around 1992-94 when it improved greatly.

They made it so you can do 80% of the shiat online or sending something in the mail.

Ooo, good point. I hadn't thought of that.

jjorsett: jjorsett: The feds will set up exchanges in the non-complying states and the low-income people will have to buy the unsubsidized insurance or pay the penalties taxes. They won't be able to do either and so the IRS will come after them. Yay, break out the champagne.

Whoops, I forgot the part where all the low-income people move to the subsidized states because they can't afford to have the IRS hounding them. Sounds like a way for a state to get rid of one of its bigger cost burdens.

Yes, low-income people can afford to uproot and move to other states.

Corvus: Sabyen91: I am old enough to remember when the DMV was a nightmare. I don't know what changed but I don't think I am the only one who knows it was around 1992-94 when it improved greatly.

They made it so you can do 80% of the shiat online or sending something in the mail.

I don't know when it started, but here in California you can do all the vehicle registration and transfer stuff at AAA. It's an easy process, and I bet that it offloads a lot of work from the DMV.

Sabyen91: jjorsett: jjorsett: The feds will set up exchanges in the non-complying states and the low-income people will have to buy the unsubsidized insurance or pay the penalties taxes. They won't be able to do either and so the IRS will come after them. Yay, break out the champagne.

Whoops, I forgot the part where all the low-income people move to the subsidized states because they can't afford to have the IRS hounding them. Sounds like a way for a state to get rid of one of its bigger cost burdens.

Yes, low-income people can afford to uproot and move to other states.

Yep, they can. Especially when the alternative is owing the IRS a ton of money if they don't.

jjorsett: Corvus: Sabyen91: I am old enough to remember when the DMV was a nightmare. I don't know what changed but I don't think I am the only one who knows it was around 1992-94 when it improved greatly.

They made it so you can do 80% of the shiat online or sending something in the mail.

I don't know when it started, but here in California you can do all the vehicle registration and transfer stuff at AAA. It's an easy process, and I bet that it offloads a lot of work from the DMV.

Whatever it is going to the DMV is like floating on a cloud with a celestial choir playing in the background compared to when I was a beginning driver.

jjorsett: Sabyen91: jjorsett: jjorsett: The feds will set up exchanges in the non-complying states and the low-income people will have to buy the unsubsidized insurance or pay the penalties taxes. They won't be able to do either and so the IRS will come after them. Yay, break out the champagne.

Whoops, I forgot the part where all the low-income people move to the subsidized states because they can't afford to have the IRS hounding them. Sounds like a way for a state to get rid of one of its bigger cost burdens.

Yes, low-income people can afford to uproot and move to other states.

Yep, they can. Especially when the alternative is owing the IRS a ton of money if they don't.

I don't believe you know bout being poor.

jjorsett: Sabyen91: jjorsett: jjorsett: The feds will set up exchanges in the non-complying states and the low-income people will have to buy the unsubsidized insurance or pay the penalties taxes. They won't be able to do either and so the IRS will come after them. Yay, break out the champagne.

Whoops, I forgot the part where all the low-income people move to the subsidized states because they can't afford to have the IRS hounding them. Sounds like a way for a state to get rid of one of its bigger cost burdens.

Yes, low-income people can afford to uproot and move to other states.

Yep, they can. Especially when the alternative is owing the IRS a ton of money if they don't.

Oh, and why would the IRS be after people that are exempt from the penalty?