Long live Obamacare
06-28-2012, 09:58 PM
#163
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Yes yes, police are locally funded. But they're still "socialist".
How about an army? If someone doesn't support war, a big chunk of their paycheck still goes to pay for the cause. CIA? There are federally provided services we all enjoy. Ever drive to another state at greater than 35 mph? I do. I fucking love avocados. Federal highways bring them to me.
Turns out every citizen of the US has "being human" in common. No matter what state they live in. We live, die, vote, and get colds pretty equally.
Yes, you're right--ambulances are privately run. I'd still want my firehose policeman to have one though.
How about an army? If someone doesn't support war, a big chunk of their paycheck still goes to pay for the cause. CIA? There are federally provided services we all enjoy. Ever drive to another state at greater than 35 mph? I do. I fucking love avocados. Federal highways bring them to me.
Turns out every citizen of the US has "being human" in common. No matter what state they live in. We live, die, vote, and get colds pretty equally.
I played about 10 minutes with the idea of putting in "directly or indirectly" but "indirectly" is far too vague and open to debate... for instance, it's easily possible to argue that funding the college education of another person could indirectly improve the well-being of a person - but at the same time, essential services such as fire and police protection might not ever be directly used by an individual, but without public funding, they wouldn't exist. I was under the impression that the government does not provide ambulance services, and that those were private companies which directly billed the care recipient or his insurance for their services.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2012, 12:49 AM
#165
As a Massachusetts resident who voted Romney into governorship, it is quit enjoyable hearing him lay into 'obamacare'.
I look forward to the GOP arguments this campaign season:
1 - "obamacare needs to be repealed" : passed same ------- law at state level
2 - "Obama hasn't created jobs" : "the private sector is responsible for job creation"
-Zach
I look forward to the GOP arguments this campaign season:
1 - "obamacare needs to be repealed" : passed same ------- law at state level
2 - "Obama hasn't created jobs" : "the private sector is responsible for job creation"
-Zach
Reply
0
0
06-29-2012, 11:23 AM
#166
As a Massachusetts resident who voted Romney into governorship, it is quit enjoyable hearing him lay into 'obamacare'.
I look forward to the GOP arguments this campaign season:
1 - "obamacare needs to be repealed" : passed same ------- law at state level
2 - "Obama hasn't created jobs" : "the private sector is responsible for job creation"
-Zach
I look forward to the GOP arguments this campaign season:
1 - "obamacare needs to be repealed" : passed same ------- law at state level
2 - "Obama hasn't created jobs" : "the private sector is responsible for job creation"
-Zach
Obamacare was a Republican created and written plan, starting in '89 from the Heritage Foundation, and supported all the way up untill 2007 by the Republicans. The individual mandate was only added at extensive Republican whinge...
Then the Republicans run around and whine that the thing they insisted must be added and was their pet plan for decades is unconstitutional. It's insane - and hilarious.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2012, 12:34 PM
#169
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 491
Total Cats: 32
Ambulances are sometimes privately run, and only because there is a private work to support them. (Hospital transfers, Nursing home patients that need to be moved around and can't sit, dialysis, etc) You see private ambulances doing municipal 911 usually because you can't get enough volunteers M-F 9-5 to cover the town properly.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2012, 12:57 PM
#170
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
the federal government technically doesnt have the power to do this. the states do. see: US Constitution.
so no, it's no reasonable that this law be on the federal level.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2012, 01:13 PM
#173
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,651
Total Cats: 3,011
Cheif Justice Roberts is a Galldang Genious
Sumthin' I read:
Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted by I. M. Citizen on June 28, 2012 Healthcare.
June 28, 2012
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it's
important that you think carefully about the meaning - the true nature - of
his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care
was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous,
ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce
clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obama-care going
in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can't compel
American citizens to purchase anything.
Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it
should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate,
it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax.
Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also
critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats
called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently
soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty.
Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when
the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a
penalty or a tax, either way'. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the
official law of the land - beyond word-play and silly shenanigans.
Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax
increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the
federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing
medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states
- 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled
that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the
state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal
government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a
state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is
obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not
participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal
government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force
the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he
forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by
tax increases.
Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his
part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw
his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
--
Vaya con Dios,
Jackson
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and gospel of
envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery...Winston Churchill
Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted by I. M. Citizen on June 28, 2012 Healthcare.
June 28, 2012
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it's
important that you think carefully about the meaning - the true nature - of
his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care
was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous,
ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce
clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obama-care going
in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can't compel
American citizens to purchase anything.
Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it
should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate,
it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax.
Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also
critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats
called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently
soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty.
Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when
the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a
penalty or a tax, either way'. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the
official law of the land - beyond word-play and silly shenanigans.
Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax
increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the
federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing
medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states
- 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled
that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the
state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal
government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a
state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is
obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not
participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal
government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force
the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he
forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by
tax increases.
Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his
part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw
his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
--
Vaya con Dios,
Jackson
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and gospel of
envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery...Winston Churchill
Reply
0
0
06-29-2012, 02:14 PM
#174
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
Only possible response to you, Brainy-kins. <3
Only possible response to you, Brainy-kins. <3
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 12:09 PM
#176
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 428
Total Cats: 1
The first thing that has to happen is to define what healthcare is.
My current insurance covers back massages if I get sore from running too much. Is that healthcare? I could stop running and no longer have pain.
So we should define what we mean by "healthcare" first, then decide if it's something we want every citizen to have as a basic government service. Personally, I want to live in a society that helps those who can't help themselves. My challenge is that I can't see how we help those who can't help themselves, without also handing money to people who prefer not to work.
The system will not work at a state level based on demographics. For example, Arkansas has a higher concentration of older, lower income, obese people. Furthermore, that state appears to be a magnet for lower income retirees. This makes is impossible for them to create a state level support system.
The concept that a free market economy works in healthcare is also flawed. In the area I used to live, there were only enough people to support one level 1 trauma center and one hospital. There simply aren't enough people to support multiple competing facilities. Most economists say that you need more than four competitors in a market for competitive pricing to start to play.
Also, it's clear that most people don't understand how health insurers make money. Because our healthcare is fee-for-service, they make money when you aren't using healthcare. So their goal is push the people who are sick, or likely to get sick off of their plans. They do this through pre-existing condition and lifetime family cap rules. Put simply, you can have health insurance if you don't need it.
Obamacare sucks, doing nothing is worse.
My current insurance covers back massages if I get sore from running too much. Is that healthcare? I could stop running and no longer have pain.
So we should define what we mean by "healthcare" first, then decide if it's something we want every citizen to have as a basic government service. Personally, I want to live in a society that helps those who can't help themselves. My challenge is that I can't see how we help those who can't help themselves, without also handing money to people who prefer not to work.
The system will not work at a state level based on demographics. For example, Arkansas has a higher concentration of older, lower income, obese people. Furthermore, that state appears to be a magnet for lower income retirees. This makes is impossible for them to create a state level support system.
The concept that a free market economy works in healthcare is also flawed. In the area I used to live, there were only enough people to support one level 1 trauma center and one hospital. There simply aren't enough people to support multiple competing facilities. Most economists say that you need more than four competitors in a market for competitive pricing to start to play.
Also, it's clear that most people don't understand how health insurers make money. Because our healthcare is fee-for-service, they make money when you aren't using healthcare. So their goal is push the people who are sick, or likely to get sick off of their plans. They do this through pre-existing condition and lifetime family cap rules. Put simply, you can have health insurance if you don't need it.
Obamacare sucks, doing nothing is worse.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 12:37 PM
#177
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Health care is not the same as insurance.
Insurance is for preventing financial catastrophe when an unlikely event happens. e.g. your house burns down or you get hit by an SUV.
Health care is like brake pad changes. Can you imagine how much car insurance would cost if it included brake pad changes? And then there were gov't rules that said you could only use factory-approved pads which underwent gov't-required $2B worth of testing?
Pls. explain. How many pet emergency centers are there in the same area? Perhaps you are stuck with thinking of the business model of the huge hospital and trauma center. A few things I noticed about pet emergency centers around here, is that (1)they are much more numerous and smaller than people emergency centers and (2) they charge a heck of a lot less for similar work
The pet health care industry is much more free market driven (less regulated), and, it is exactly gov't regulation (written at the behest of the hospital industry), that has made hospitals huge, and has erected barriers to entry for smaller trauma centers and emergency clinics:
Magazine - How American Health Care Killed My Father - The Atlantic
Insurance is for preventing financial catastrophe when an unlikely event happens. e.g. your house burns down or you get hit by an SUV.
Health care is like brake pad changes. Can you imagine how much car insurance would cost if it included brake pad changes? And then there were gov't rules that said you could only use factory-approved pads which underwent gov't-required $2B worth of testing?
Originally Posted by jbresee
"The concept that a free market economy works in healthcare is also flawed. In the area I used to live, there were only enough people to support one level 1 trauma center and one hospital. There simply aren't enough people to support multiple competing facilities."
The pet health care industry is much more free market driven (less regulated), and, it is exactly gov't regulation (written at the behest of the hospital industry), that has made hospitals huge, and has erected barriers to entry for smaller trauma centers and emergency clinics:
Magazine - How American Health Care Killed My Father - The Atlantic
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 12:41 PM
#178
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
The concept that a free market economy works in healthcare is also flawed. In the area I used to live, there were only enough people to support one level 1 trauma center and one hospital. There simply aren't enough people to support multiple competing facilities. Most economists say that you need more than four competitors in a market for competitive pricing to start to play.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 12:48 PM
#180
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Health care is not the same as insurance.
Insurance is for preventing financial catastrophe when an unlikely event happens. e.g. your house burns down or you get hit by an SUV.
Health care is like brake pad changes. Can you imagine how much car insurance would cost if it included brake pad changes? And then there were gov't rules that said you could only use factory-approved pads which underwent gov't-required $2B worth of testing?
Insurance is for preventing financial catastrophe when an unlikely event happens. e.g. your house burns down or you get hit by an SUV.
Health care is like brake pad changes. Can you imagine how much car insurance would cost if it included brake pad changes? And then there were gov't rules that said you could only use factory-approved pads which underwent gov't-required $2B worth of testing?
Reply
0
0
