SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you see the word effectively or essentially in there? No? Now, I've already demonstrated that this is not the case - you simply changed the premise.

And even if it said "effectively", I'd argue against the claim. (People making the claim that the law requires you buy insurance from a for-profit private company seem to jump back and forth between a letter-of-the-law claim and an "effectively" claim, when they're both wrong.)

Effectively, nearly 50% of Americans already satisfy the minimum essential coverage mandate by getting government-provided coverage. Most of the other half get their coverage because someone else provides it for them (mostly employers or parents). Some of the currently uninsured will qualify for help (depending on what state they live in) in getting coverage--some by government-provided or subsidized coverage, and some in other ways. Only very few who can afford minimum essential coverage but don't want to get it face the choice of the mandate--either get coverage or pay the tax penalty. And there is nothing in the law that says they must buy it from a for-profit company.

To use the pathetic fallacy, the law doesn't care if you get it from your state government, a non-profit coop, your rich uncle, or a for-profit private insurance company.

See my previous. If it's true that the fact that some people don't currently (even though, BTW, the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014) have any options other than a for-profit company or the tax penalty is "effectively" requiring them to buy from a non-profit, then isn't it valid to say that the Tax Code effectively requires people to buy TurboTax?

 

[IchabodPlain]

Exactly. Pedantry is largely pointless. There's nothing wrong with trying to ensure good communication but when the message is clear having a smarmy attitude and being condescending isn't very conducive to a discussion. I tire of that childish nonsense.

That you are proud of the fact that you misunderstood Muldur's claim is appalling. And while we're at it, let's go back and see where the condescention starts - ah, here it is - your second reply to me:

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.

And now you want to play the victim? Pathetic.

Asterisks are as effective as smug arrogance. Which is why I reserve them for those who are smugly arrogant.

Interesting. I find them used most often by anonymous posters on internet forums when they know their arguments have failed. You've already demonstrated poor reading comprehension and a failure to move goalposts. Now we see what's left.

A.) No apology was given as none was deserved. B.) I conceded that it I was wrong some posts back and I have conceded that point at least 3 times. Like I said, I'm not interested in your ego. People who are only here to stroke their ego are boorish.

Right, you conceded three (3!) times that I am semanticly correct on the eansy-weansy minor quibble that the law ditate nor implies what you (and Muldur) claimed. Glad we got that cleared up - now please, on to your next ill-thought out, factually incorrect post.

And really, debating people like you doesn't boost my ego; only reinforces the idea that those who know least, talk most (now away with you grasshopper).

 

[IchabodPlain]

And even if it said "effectively", I'd argue against the claim. (People making the claim that the law requires you buy insurance from a for-profit private company seem to jump back and forth between a letter-of-the-law claim and an "effectively" claim, when they're both wrong.)

Effectively, nearly 50% of Americans already satisfy the minimum essential coverage mandate by getting government-provided coverage. Most of the other half get their coverage because someone else provides it for them (mostly employers or parents). Some of the currently uninsured will qualify for help (depending on what state they live in) in getting coverage--some by government-provided or subsidized coverage, and some in other ways. Only very few who can afford minimum essential coverage but don't want to get it face the choice of the mandate--either get coverage or pay the tax penalty. And there is nothing in the law that says they must buy it from a for-profit company.

To use the pathetic fallacy, the law doesn't care if you get it from your state government, a non-profit coop, your rich uncle, or a for-profit private insurance company.

See my previous. If it's true that the fact that some people don't currently (even though, BTW, the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014) have any options other than a for-profit company or the tax penalty is "effectively" requiring them to buy from a non-profit, then isn't it valid to say that the Tax Code effectively requires people to buy TurboTax?

This was all covered some months back, and again when the initial challenges to the law were made, and again after that, and again, over and over. People see what they want. From the right, it's that now the government can make you buy broccolli or tax you for picking your kids up at school. For liberals, it's that because there isn't a public option, there are no choices at all!

 

[Puppycow]

Rep. Jean Schmidt Has Public Orgasm Over Incorrect CNN Health Care Scoop

 

[RandFan]

That you are proud of the fact that you misunderstood Muldur's claim is appalling.

I stand by the defense of the argument. Your straw man is wrong.

Right, you conceded three (3!) times that I am semanticly correct...

Yeah. You were technically correct. But Muldur was right that the change will put pressure on the market. Medicare and a few non-profits will do little to change that for now. That was his point. That's what I agreed with. That's what I defended.

And really, debating people like you doesn't boost my ego

Oh sure, you bet, your smarmy, arrogant and condescending manner are for a greater cause. If that's what helps you sleep at night.

 

[RandFan]

Rep. Jean Schmidt Has Public Orgasm Over Incorrect CNN Health Care Scoop

Oh yeah, the mandate, dream up by Conservatives was evil incarnate. What a dishonest *****.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh yeah, the mandate, dream up by Conservatives was evil incarnate. What a dishonest *****.

With respect, I'd wager heavily it had nothing to do with any provision or the act as a whole and everything to do with Obama losing big.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But Muldur was right that the change will put pressure on the market.

If that's what Muldur said, then fine.

But Muldur was flat out unequivocally wrong when he said that the ACA requires individuals to buy insurance from private for-profit companies.

ETA: I re-read it, and Muldur did not say what you're defending. He said:

Then I remembered why I didn't like the bill as formulated: it mandates that individuals buy private insurance from for-profit insurance companies, guaranteeing them a huge new captive market to extract premiums from.

ETA: And again, even for the claim you're defending, the change won't be nearly as great as you seem to think due to the individual mandate. It will only affect relatively few people (those who currently lack minimum essential coverage and who won't receive any help with Medicaid expansion and who in fact can afford to buy it themselves--that is, those who don't qualify for the financial hardship exemption). We're starting off with fewer than 10% of Americans, and then further reducing that number.

And remember, it doesn't take effect until 2014 anyway. The market will have time to make adjustments, and hopefully the states will all begin to do something to help those people who might get caught in the middle (like accept the Medicaid expansion and implement the insurance exchanges).

 

[RandFan]

With respect, I'd wager heavily it had nothing to do with any provision or the act as a whole and everything to do with Obama losing big.

Agreed.

 

[RandFan]

If that's what Muldur said, then fine.

But Muldur was flat out unequivocally wrong when he said that the ACA requires individuals to buy insurance from private for-profit companies.

ETA: I re-read it, and Muldur did not say what you're defending. He said:

ETA: And again, even for the claim you're defending, the change won't be nearly as great as you seem to think due to the individual mandate. It will only affect relatively few people (those who currently lack minimum essential coverage and who won't receive any help with Medicaid expansion and who in fact can afford to buy it themselves--that is, those who don't qualify for the financial hardship exemption). We're starting off with fewer than 10% of Americans, and then further reducing that number.

And remember, it doesn't take effect until 2014 anyway. The market will have time to make adjustments, and hopefully the states will all begin to do something to help those people who might get caught in the middle (like accept the Medicaid expansion and implement the insurance exchanges).

I've conceded to Muldur's technical error. And I can see how his categorical would put the emphasis on a requirement to purchase only from for-profit. However, IMO the spirit of the proposition was that this will put pressure on the market to increase prices. I was living in California when they mandated insurance. For a year or so Insurance was crazy expensive.

Otherwise, I understand your arguments and you may very well be right. I don't honestly know what the percentages of the uninsured were prior to the mandate for auto insurance to compare to the uninsured right now. Further, what would bring the cost down is increased competition. Perhaps more companies will come on line anticipating increased demand. I don't know. I honestly think the argument has merit, p1 the law will increase demand. p2 the increased demand will put pressure on the market.

 

[Gregoire]

The Johnson Administration: The Republicans tried to block all Civil Rights legislation.

Not sure where you are getting your info on this.

Check out this news article about the Senate from the Johnson years:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0619.html

Civil Rights Bill Passed, 73-27; Johnson Urges All To Comply…...

Voting for the bill were 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans. Voting against it were 21 Democrats and six Republicans.

My understanding is that House had similar proportions.


(bipartisanship…what a concept )

 

[Almo]

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?

It's become a game, with the sole goal of getting more seats in Congress. I'm not saying this is GOP-only behavior. But I feel the the well-being of the country is not what the politicians are thinking about. My perception is that the GOP is more guilty of this, but I would not say the others are blameless, either.

 

[Clayton Moore]

There are a number of analysts who are saying that Roberts is playing a longer game with this decision, that certain decisions over the recent past have played a role as well.

Win, win, win; win: win, win; win.


Let's see. The commies are killing the country and the Insurance Industry(big business?) which can't really lose money will be force fed, oh my, millions of new young adult customers.

A conservative SCOTUS justice jumps ship just before the POTUS election and Obamacare, that nobody thought was constitutional, becomes constitutional.

Obamacare becomes the issue that will likely get Mitt elected.

Who would have thunk?

Meanwhile back in the states a bipartisan Congress stands firm with its No New Jobs or Old Jobs For That Matter mantra.

 

[Border Reiver]

Win, win, win; win: win, win; win.


Let's see. The commies are killing the country and the Insurance Industry(big business?) which can't really lose money will be force fed, oh my, millions of new young adult customers.

Commies and big business together? Really?

A conservative SCOTUS justice jumps ship just before the POTUS election and Obamacare, that nobody thought was constitutional, becomes constitutional.

Obviously several people (at least the drafters, the legislators that voted for it, and the dude that signed it into law) felt it was constitutional prior to the case. And of course, now it is most definitely constitutional, until overturned or superceded.

Obamacare becomes the issue that will likely get Mitt elected.

Right up til someone points out the similarities to the MA plan that Mitt brought in and asks, "Why is the plan so bad for the nation, but good for Massachusetts?"

Who would have thunk?

Likely not the people that think that the "promote the general welfare" clause should not include making provision for the health of the nation.

Meanwhile back in the states a bipartisan Congress stands firm with its No New Jobs or Old Jobs For That Matter mantra.

My heavens, a bipartisan legislative body playing politics in an election year? And yourself ignoring awkward facts in favour of a partisan statement - who could ever have seen that coming?

 

[Kestrel]

ETA: And again, even for the claim you're defending, the change won't be nearly as great as you seem to think due to the individual mandate. It will only affect relatively few people (those who currently lack minimum essential coverage and who won't receive any help with Medicaid expansion and who in fact can afford to buy it themselves--that is, those who don't qualify for the financial hardship exemption). We're starting off with fewer than 10% of Americans, and then further reducing that number.

People who can't afford insurance on their own and don't qualify for medicare will get a subsidy that limits the cost to between 2% and 9.5% of household income.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Commies and big business together? Really?



Obviously several people (at least the drafters, the legislators that voted for it, and the dude that signed it into law) felt it was constitutional prior to the case. And of course, now it is most definitely constitutional, until overturned or superceded.



Right up til someone points out the similarities to the MA plan that Mitt brought in and asks, "Why is the plan so bad for the nation, but good for Massachusetts?"



Likely not the people that think that the "promote the general welfare" clause should not include making provision for the health of the nation.




My heavens, a bipartisan legislative body playing politics in an election year? And yourself ignoring awkward facts in favour of a partisan statement - who could ever have seen that coming?

You just don't get the one party predicament of the USA..

 

[Roadtoad]

Not sure where you are getting your info on this.

Check out this news article about the Senate from the Johnson years:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0619.html




My understanding is that House had similar proportions.


(bipartisanship…what a concept )

Bipartisanship would be a nice idea.

There were a number of Republicans who were actively against any and all Civil Rights legislation, per Joseph Califano. Many tried some rather nasty tactics to block the effort.

 

[BenBurch]

With respect, I'd wager heavily it had nothing to do with any provision or the act as a whole and everything to do with Obama losing big.

The last thing she says is "They took it away??? YES!!!!"

If I heard right that is.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yep their so busy creating gridlock by blocking anything being done that they effectively end up doing nothing.

I'm of the opinion that, in general, a "do-nothing Congress" is a lot like a "do-nothing arsonist."

I can't take credit for that gem, but I wish I could.

 

[Border Reiver]

You just don't get the one party predicament of the USA..

You mean the fact that you have more than one political party? Is that really a problem?

Or is it that you don't like either of the two main parties and the Bund is no longer a force?