SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[RandFan]

Your response is nonsensical. Muldur's point, which you called 'a reasonable argument' is factually incorrect because there is no requirement to purchase health insurance from a private, for-profit, insurance company.

Fine, they can buy from not-for profits and many can get medicare. The net effect will still be increased demand of private insurance companies, right? A.) Not everyone has medicare as an option, right? B.) There is a question as to whether or not, not-for profit companies will be able to service this increased need, right?

The point is increased pressure on the marketplace. But, you've made your pedantic argument and in all fairness to you, you are correct sir. Good for you. If you were here with me now I'd give you one of the gold stars my wife gives to kids when they've been extra special good to put on your forehead.

 

[Kopji]

Not often I see that the Planet X choice was the clear winner. Frogs it is.

The rulings of the past couple days have been startlingly reasonable. Roberts is a much more interesting judge than I thought. Between the reasoning on this and the Arizona SB1070 ruling, I see it being rather moderate and considered.

The discordant part of the ruling seems to be about not being able to force states to expand medicaid, and that they should be able to opt out if they want. A coverage hole could be created among the most poor, who had been assumed to be covered by states but not might not be.

 

[IchabodPlain]

The net effect will still be increased demand of private insurance companies, right?

That isn't the same claim, i.e. you're moving the goalposts. The law mandated coverage, not by whom.

The point is increased pressure on the marketplace. But, you've made your pedantic argument and in all fairness to you, you are correct sir. Good for you. If you were here with me now I'd give you one of the gold stars my wife gives to kids when they've been extra special good to put on your forehead.

Just get the basic facts of the legislation correct before spouting off. You'll save yourself the embarrassment and part with fewer stars (great value for money, really).

 

[RandFan]

That isn't the same claim, i.e. you're moving the goalposts. The law mandated coverage, not by whom.

No. The claim was made that the result of the decision would put pressure on the market. A supporting premise was technically incorrect. But effectively correct, IMO.

Just get the basic facts of the legislation correct before spouting off.

I was defending the argument, that argument is effectively correct in spite of your hyper technical point. The argument stands that medicare and current not-for profit companies won't do much if anything to mitigate the pressure on the market. I stand by that defense and don't care about your personal need to stroke your ego with a smarmy attitude and silly technical points. Trust me when I say your efforts are wasted. I'd be just as moved by a technical debate on the logic of whether a communion wafer is literally the body of Christ or only metaphorically the body of Christ. At the end of the day it's a circle jerk of one.

 

[Muldur]

Please provide proof that this bill require individuals to purchase private insurance.

The simple fact that if they do not they must pay a criminal penalty is all the proof you should need.

Also, do you think it would have been ruled unconstitutional if it was a single payer system? If so, why?

This bill is not "single-payer". If the government wished to do so, it could set up a single-payer system right now. All citizens are automatically enrolled and the government uses tax dollars to fund the system. It also uses governmental power to prevent price gouging on the part of doctors, hospitals and insurance companies (for those systems like Germany who still incorporate a "choice" element by allowing individuals to choose between approved insurers with slightly differing plans tailored to individual needs).

 

[Muldur]

I was defending the argument, that argument is effectively correct in spite of your hyper technical point. The argument stands that medicare and current not-for profit companies won't do much if anything to mitigate the pressure on the market. I stand by that defense and don't care about your personal need to stroke your ego with a smarmy attitude and silly technical points. Trust me when I say your efforts are wasted. I'd be just as moved by a technical debate on the logic of whether a communion wafer is literally the body of Christ or only metaphorically the body of Christ. At the end of the day it's a circle jerk of one.

And at the end of the day, the reforms we need (real price controls on all sectors of Big Medicine) are still not there.

The current bill as passed just shuffles the players and playing field around a little. It still does not get us to true UHC where people pay their HC tax and go to the doctor if and when needed and don't have to worry about it.

 

[Puppycow]

Freeper is mad:

Your health IS NOT MY PROBLEM. Can't afford to pay for care? Then STAY HEALTHY! It's not that hard! There are two primary sources of health care: Your OWN ACTIONS and your RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. I mean it. God heals illness when he chooses to. When he chooses not to, then nobody can help you anyway!

 

[marksman]

I can't afford God's premiums.

 

[Garrison]

Freeper is mad:

Your health IS NOT MY PROBLEM. Can't afford to pay for care? Then STAY HEALTHY! It's not that hard! There are two primary sources of health care: Your OWN ACTIONS and your RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. I mean it. God heals illness when he chooses to. When he chooses not to, then nobody can help you anyway!

I'd like to believe that's satire but I have the awful feeling that its real. Does seem to represent a distinct strand of political thinking; that if things go badly for you it must be your fault so you deserve neither sympathy nor assistance.

 

[RandFan]

And at the end of the day, the reforms we need (real price controls on all sectors of Big Medicine) are still not there.

The current bill as passed just shuffles the players and playing field around a little. It still does not get us to true UHC where people pay their HC tax and go to the doctor if and when needed and don't have to worry about it.

While your argument appeals to my intuitions I don't know that it is correct. If I were king I would pick a different system and perhaps this one will fail epically since it is federal and not state but we will see.

 

[easycruise]

I think on the surface that seems like a boon, the way that it might seem advantageous to kill Bill Gates and divide up his money. We'd all get a few bucks and it's unlikely that he was going to have any more billion dollar ideas anytime soon. But what about the next guy who has a billion dollar idea, or just the general idea of respecting people's basic human rights?

Sure, for the insurance company, or any other company out there, we could see a benefit in voting away their profit margin, or lowering their profit margin, but aren't you kinda screwing over those people who invested in the company and built it up, completely arbitrarily? Why not do that to anyone, and then why is anyone ever going to invest in building up services that people need and use? And what about the general idea that people have basic freedoms and human rights, and if two people agree that an arrangement is fair, than that is their business. It's not like the insurance companies are personally holding medical care hostage, sitting on top a pile of anti-biotics and band-aids. They're just mitigating risk, for a cost, and you either think that cost is worth it, and you buy into it or not, well until now...

Limiting marketing falls into the same kind of category. Couldn't we benefit by limiting the money *all* companies spend on marketing? Why stop at marketing? Why not legislate any expense we see as wasteful and run all companies in the public trust? Then every corner drug store and grocery store will function like the DMV, and Utopia will finally have been achieved.

Well said, and sadly that is the logic what the lefties can't seem to comprehend. They actually think that price controls are a good thing, and government control of large portions of the economy is a good thing. But I have never for a moment called the left wing in this country overly brilliant or too rational.

 

[Polaris]

Freeper is mad:

Ok GodAndCountryFirst (the poster who squeezed out that shart of a post), I just came out of an alley to steal your wallet, and in the process I stuck an ice pick into your kidney.

Guess you didn't pray hard enough. Too bad, because it's nobody's problem but yours now, scum-sucker.

I'd like to believe that's satire but I have the awful feeling that its real. Does seem to represent a distinct strand of political thinking; that if things go badly for you it must be your fault so you deserve neither sympathy nor assistance.

I'd hate to know what the kids with progeria or Taye-Sachs did to make God that mad at them.

 

[DavidJames]

Well said, and sadly that is the logic what the lefties can't seem to comprehend. They actually think that price controls are a good thing, and government control of large portions of the economy is a good thing. But I have never for a moment called the left wing in this country overly brilliant or too rational.

Considering what you're quoting and what you're claiming are nothing more then strawmen and unmitigated and unsupportable lies, I hope you'll understand if I simply laugh and shake my head at the projection displayed by your conclusion.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4qH7WJC7CI

The Supreme Court says the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. i.e. the government cannot force you to buy something. But then they go on to say that the government can enforce an individual mandate through taxes. You heard it through the horse's mouth. It is not a tax. The health care bill itself does not mention any tax. Congress voted on a bill that was not a tax. So it seems to me, that the only way for Obamacare to proceed is that if congress votes on it to allow it as a tax. Otherwise, wouldn't this be the first time in the history of the country that the Supreme Court has imposed a tax?

LOL.

No, they did not impose a tax, they recognized a disguised tax as what it is.

Huge difference!

 

[RandFan]

Well said, and sadly that is the logic what the lefties can't seem to comprehend. They actually think that price controls are a good thing, and government control of large portions of the economy is a good thing. But I have never for a moment called the left wing in this country overly brilliant or too rational.

The right never seems to care that the govt controls so much of the economy when it comes to the military industrial complex. Never mind Eisenhower's warning. I guess spending more than many other industrialized nations combined is rational because it's rational. Right? That's "overly brilliant". That's "too rational" (whatever the hell that means, is that like being too pregnant?).

 

[Mike!]

The right never seems to care that the govt controls so much of the economy when it comes to the military industrial complex. Never mind Eisenhower's warning. I guess spending more than many other industrialized nations combined is rational because it's rational. Right? That's "overly brilliant". That's "too rational" (whatever the hell that means, is that like being too pregnant?).

In the age of the Octomom, that logic no longer works.

 

[RandFan]

In the age of the Octomom, that logic no longer works.

Touche sir.

 

[Unabogie]

So I'm reading stories about how Republican governors are going to simply refuse to set up their state exchanges. But the law says that if they don't, the the Feds will have to come in and set them up, and in some cases, run them. So is that their new strategy? Simply fail to do what they law tells them to so they can run around screaming about the Feds taking over their exchanges?

Has the GOP fallen so low that all governance is about planning media freakouts?

 

[kookbreaker]

I'd like to believe that's satire but I have the awful feeling that its real. Does seem to represent a distinct strand of political thinking; that if things go badly for you it must be your fault so you deserve neither sympathy nor assistance.

With that logic, why have hospitals and doctors at all? Maybe he wants to knock down all the hospitals so they can build a non-stop car racin' and wrestling arena.

 

[I Ratant]

Let's get down to what's really important: What does the Supreme Court decision mean for your vagina?

.
Nothing.
I was born without one.
But got a jim-dandy thing to stick into one.