# Republicans and the Affordable Care Act



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).

What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



The Republicans are already worried about the mid-term elections.  They can't be seen as working WITH the President....


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 12, 2012)

There are PROBLEMS with the ACA? 

You all were jumping for joy when it passed. Tell us what's wrong with it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> 
> You all were jumping for joy when it passed. Tell us what's wrong with it.



It doesn't do enough to bring down costs.

So let's revisit the idea of a public option.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> ...


That's not what Obama said. That's not what Nancy Pelosi said.

Are you calling them liars?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



Don't expect to hear much in the way of honest feedback. All you'll get from the herd on this site is that the mandate is unconstitutional and needs to go. The rest of it.......they like but would never admit it because their overlords wont allow them to say it.


----------



## SniperFire (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> *Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay.* I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?




The laws can be repealed in '16.   

Your man Harry Reid will hopefully do us the favor of changing filibuster procedure so we don't have to. 

You see, he would get away with changing the filibuster without the media blinking an eye. When the Republicans do it, you will be outraged.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

The government shoul just take the industry over completely, conscript doctors and give all forms of healthcare for free.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



That's rich.... I thought it was a brilliant, masterful piece of legislation?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



It's bringing down costs, just not nearly enough. 

And if it makes you feel better to call Pelosi or Obama or anyone else a liar to prove some sort of point that makes you feel better than that's fine. 

Let me know when you're ready to talk about the issues and not focus on trying to make the other team look stupid.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2012)

What we need to do is just get rid of private insurance industry and replace it with government insurance like what most of Europe has to put up with.  Obama has said that is what he would rather have anyways...having a single payer program.  Why wait?  Let's just feel the pain all at once instead of the 10-20 years of agony going a little at a time.  I know, I know, it will be increasing taxes for all  considerably.....but how else will we get to be a socialized nation like so many near bankrupt nations?


----------



## Glensather (Nov 12, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> The laws can be repealed in '16.



Unless Republicans can gain control of the Senate in 2016, I think it's here to stay.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> ...



So that costs can explode even more?

The problem with ACA is that it is a top down approach that tramples on the needs of various segments.  And that's just the beginning.
The law is a disaster.  It is what happens when one party shoves through Congress by hook and by crook a poorly conceived poorly executed piece of legislation because they have convinced themselves that they are the ones we've been waiting for.
There is no fixing the bill.  It is fundamentally flawed.  Nothing could fix it besides repeal.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



Democrats wasted taxpayer money pushing it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



LOL, a whole lot of text that actually says nothing. Shocking!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 12, 2012)

Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog said that the ACA *will* bring down costs. Is HE lying too?:
CBO: Obamacare still cuts deficit - The Maddow Blog


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Gee, my health insurance premiums went up 20% this last renewal.  Where are the cost savings?  Obama promised reductions in premiums.  No one has seen their premiums go down.  No one.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog said that the ACA *will* bring down costs. Is HE lying too?:
> CBO: Obamacare still cuts deficit - The Maddow Blog



Yes.  Anyone who thinks giving stuff for free results in lower costs is an ignoramus.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog said that the ACA *will* bring down costs. Is HE lying too?:
> CBO: Obamacare still cuts deficit - The Maddow Blog



Which part of it does bring down costs but not enough is too tough for you to grasp?

Do you need a picture drawn for you?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Weird, I didn't realize the program was fully implemented. You must be on the fast track.


----------



## SniperFire (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog said that the ACA *will* bring down costs. Is HE lying too?:
> ...



That is freaking hilarious, really.

Next you will probably tell us Obamacare reduces the family health insurance premium by $2500 a year.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2012)

I think the government should take over the energy industry and auto industry, also.  Government Motors is just flush with cash now that the government has a stake in it.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



When do you think the Democrats will stop lying to the American people about Obamacare and acknowledge how deeply, how unsustainably flawed it is and begin to ask the Republicans for help in fixing these flaws other than more new taxes?


----------



## SniperFire (Nov 12, 2012)

'Wal-Mart Stores' U.S. employees will pay between 8 percent and 36 percent more in premiums for its medical coverage in 2013, prompting some of the 1.4 million workers at the nation's largest private employer to say they will forego coverage altogether.'


Wal-Mart Employees to Pay More for Health-Care Plans - US Business News - CNBC


Barry be bringin down that cost of healthcare!

ROTF


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

2 pages now and not one actual thing listed about what they would change with the ACA. It's because they like it, but aren't allowed to like anything that Obama does. 

Every time they post without listing even a single issue they have with the program only reinforces how right I am.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Mine went up 14% this year. Including a drop int he amount of flex spend I can have annuallly. Thanks, AHCA.


----------



## syrenn (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



Getting rid of the ponzi scheme system it is set up to be..... would be a good start.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog said that the ACA *will* bring down costs. Is HE lying too?:
> ...


Yes, draw a picture of YOU saying "I want Free Health Care!" and that would be descriptive AND accurate.

ACA doesn't bring down costs for anyone. You just *THINK* that *someone else* will pay for your healthcare. The worst part is that you want to use the power of the US Gov't to *force* others to pay for it.

That makes you a Lazy, Freedom Hating, Totalitarian Socialist.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Don't forget Nazi and Communist.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> 
> You all were jumping for joy when it passed. Tell us what's wrong with it.



I assume you mean "you" as in "dem dirty liberals" and not me specifically?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



I have no problem with the GOP repealing the ACA and replacing it with a single-payer system, in essence Medicare for all. 

But of course they lack the wisdom to do that. 

Otherwise just leaving it alone for the time-being is fine; besides, it was a republican plan to begin with, their opposition to it is thus mystifying  or more likely purely partisan.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...



Where I have ever said that?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> ...



Feeling shy about telling us what you think is wrong with Obamacare?


----------



## SniperFire (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> ...



You won.  No need to keep up pretenses.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...


I wonder how much we would have to borrow from China to get that accomplished?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Nov 12, 2012)

Page 3....still not one reason.


----------



## GWV5903 (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



You want constructive criticism? Then no one, I mean no one, including ALL government employees can be waived from it...

Next, get rid of the Pre Existing Exception rule, make it what it is today, No Insurance, then they can not gain coverage for pre existing until they have been insured for one year...

Really the best thing to do is scrap it and start over, it's a colossal mess, I'll stop there...


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...




Not at all.

 I don't think the mandate will persuade people to purchase insruance, because more than likely the tax will be much lower than the cost of insurance. There are serious flaws in the rebate/price regulation portion of the bill, which worries me. The massive list of people and companies eligible for waivers unsettles me, again cost is to go down because so many will opt in but I think the opt in will be far less than anticipated. I also think as a whole we should be willing to admend it when issues arise, like the issue of insurance companies not selling child only polices because of the ACA. If we can't move quickly( by government standards) to amend the bill to the many problems that will naturally occur when you restructure an industry as large as insurance then Americans will suffer huge burdens.

My biggest problem is that the GOP want it to fail, I can understand that. However I worry that dems won't want to admit it needs amended and republicans would rather let Americans suffer in the hope that, if it gets really bad, they will get to finally repeal the thing.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> 2 pages now and not one actual thing listed about what they would change with the ACA. It's because they like it, but aren't allowed to like anything that Obama does.
> 
> Every time they post without listing even a single issue they have with the program only reinforces how right I am.



i'd change it all by getting rid of the whole bill......but you want some specific examples.....

get rid of the 20 new taxes created by Obamacare....
get rid of the IRS agents that are going to hunt down people....
get rid of the "Board" that will promote rationing to curb costs...
get rid of the long lines that are coming because doctors/hospitals are disappearing...
get rid of free life-ending drugs and costly life-promoting drugs...
get rid of the excessive paperwork burdens....
get rid of the excessive burden on small companies to provide it or pay a fine....
get rid of people being forced to join Medicaid...
get rid of the whole nanny-state mentality....

is that enough for you.....?


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Page 3....still not one reason.



I'll bite.

I'm an either/or kind of guy when it comes to healthcare. Either we need full blown socialist/communist universal healthcare, or government needs to get completely out of it and back the fuck off. These half assed measures they keep vomiting out are only making the situation worse.

Personally, I support universal healthcare. I think it's bullshit that some one who plays by the rules, works hard, stays healthy, and pays for their own health insurance, can come down with a horribly debilitating disease and they loose everything.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Glensather said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > The laws can be repealed in '16.
> ...



Exactly.


Perhaps any question about fixing the ACA need to wait until after 2016, when the GOP's last hope of repealing it finally dies.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



1. To opt into it. Where people who agree to fund it are free to do so. And people who believe in other options are free to fund that.

2. To give exemptions and tax breaks to business leaders for going after misspending on contracts by corporations including Iraq war. Where money collected on behalf of taxpayers can fund alternatives to the plans supported by Democrat Party leaders and members. Let GOP leaders take charge of administration over restitution programs for immigation and other criminal violations per state, to pay for health care and programs on either state or federal levels as appropriate.

3. have party leaders agree on an overall plan to work toward getting each state equally stable and independent of federal govt; and agree any steps taken in the meantime, including either the ACA or alternatives, are temporary for the purpose of working toward independence, not more dependence on federal govt to fix social problems and services.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



I'd say the odds are about 0%.  Opposing Obamacare is political lipservice, akin to Republican opposition to Abortion, a political tool they're loathe to let go of.  Great for winning elections and getting out the vote.  Then once in office ... [crickets chirpping]

Obamacare will be the same, plus one other aspect: the mandate, which was orginally concieved by the conservative Enterprise Institute, and then made a key component of Romney's/Ted Kennedy's MA law (Romneycare of you will) is exactly what the GOP loves.  It gets tax-payer dollars, and individuals, by mandate, buying insurance from the same folks who poured all the many Millions into buying Congress while the Public Option was being debated. It's a GOP and Insurance Lobby wet dream, and was only opposed because the GOP was against anything and everything Obama wanted, reflexively.

So bad-mouthing it on the campaign trail, I suspect, will continue.  But actually do anything to repeal it?  No chance.  Just not seeing them actually doing anything on it, besides lipservice.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 12, 2012)

Make health insurance portable rather than tied to your employer so if you lose your job you don't lose your insurance too.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > 2 pages now and not one actual thing listed about what they would change with the ACA. It's because they like it, but aren't allowed to like anything that Obama does.
> ...



All this can be fixed by requiring people who voted for and support this program to fund it themselves and take responsibility for it; while others who prefer to take responsibility for health care in other ways are free to fund that instead.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



I don't expect them to work with democraps.. democraps demonized the Republicans and called them every single vile name under the book. Let the ACA alone. let's see it in all it's evil glory. But thanks for your admission that the democraps passed a bill they had not read and are now at the ready to "mend their idiocy" no.. you own it wear it with pride. it is the one thing that will bring this nation down. let's go.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> ...



public option won't work, you cannot afford it because 47% of this nation leech and do not pay a share.


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2012)

I think that this will prove to be a big mess with the people when all the taxes are realized starting next year and the following year.  People have forgotten that little bit of the ACA.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Wacky Quacky said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Page 3....still not one reason.
> ...


I'm an either or person myself.

I think we need to either repeal the law Reagan passed that forces hospitals to care for the sick, even if they can't pay, and accept that if you get sick and can't pay you either die, or seek help from a charity.

Or we demand that every American buy their own insurance and be responsible for their own healthcare costs.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Zoom-boing said:


> Make health insurance portable rather than tied to your employer so if you lose your job you don't lose your insurance too.



This needs repeated.

I could not agree more.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2012)

Meister said:


> I think that this will prove to be a big mess with the people when all the taxes are realized starting next year and the following year.  People have forgotten that little bit of the ACA.



The first casualties will be the medical device companies. They are going to be taxed an extra 2.3% which will add a hundred million dollars to their operating costs, a representative of these companies was just on Fox their plans are to lay off employees, put some on part time, and to move some jobs overseas.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> I'd say the odds are about 0%.  Opposing Obamacare is political lipservice, akin to Republican opposition to Abortion, a political tool they're loathe to let go of.  Great for winning elections and getting out the vote.  Then once in office ... [crickets chirpping]...
> So bad-mouthing it on the campaign trail, I suspect, will continue.  But actually do anything to repeal it?  No chance.  Just not seeing them actually doing anything on it, besides lipservice.



Dear Koios: Yes and no.
1. I agree that GOP exploits the prolife vote and cannot really repeal prochoice. But the reason is because prochoice is constitutionally protected. You cannot impose arguments that depend on religious beliefs; the legislation would have to be independent of that, plus it also cannot penalize or burden the women more than the men responsible for the pregnancy.
So for Constitutional reasons, that is why we are left with crickets chirping as to what to replace Roe v Wade with which would be Constitutional instead of just banning bans.

2. As for the health care bill, the opposite is going on. The bill is not constitutional so it cannot stand unamended. The same problem exists as to what to replace it with, or how to amend it to get rid of the problem (same with amending the AZ bill that went too far).

The difference is that the prochoice position is constitutional and that is why it cannot be repealed. it is just as challenging to issue corrective legislation, but the health care bill is unconstitutional on its face; the lack of repeal is due to complications alone. The fastest way to fix it is to make it optional, so people have a free choice without fear of fines or penalties.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 12, 2012)

The bill is a clusterfuck and needs fixing.  Anyone counting on it being repealed in 2016 IF the R's get back in are fooling themselves.  By then the tentacles will be so far reaching there will be no repealing ... if they were ever going to repeal it to begin with.

2014 is when this thing kicks into high gear.  What an interesting year that will be.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2012)

I am proud to remember that not a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for this monstrosity and it intensely amuses me to see demoncraps begging Republicans to "fix it." Bake crow.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



i think being "either or" is being pretty shortsighted.....all one really needs to do is look at Universal healthcare history in other countries similar to the U.S......Great Britain for example....

the U.S. has always taken care of the poor and sick....it is only since we have taken on the poor of the whole world we are having problems....and Obamacare is not going to solve that...



> Great Britain represents all that is good and bad with centralized, single-payer health care systems. Health care spending is fairly low (7.5% of GDP) and very equitable. Long wait lists for treatment, however are endemic and rationing pervades the system. Patients have little choice of provider and little access to specialists.
> 
> Percent Insured. ~100%
> 
> ...


----------



## peach174 (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



Even if they did, Sen. Reid will not allow the bills to come up for a vote in the Senate, just like he has been doing for the last two years.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



It would actually save tax-payers, from a cost standpoint, for those whose policies will now be paid by the government, since they (we) have to buy insurance from the for profit sector.  For those who would not qualify for government-paid insurance, it would merely be an option.


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Both of your options are the same thing. 

So you support the option of: If you can't afford it and a charity won't help, you die.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



bull malarkey


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 12, 2012)

The ONLY part work keeping is legislation revolving around pre-existing conditions and covering those with pre-existing conditions... all else is something I will never stand for.. and I will not vote for anyone that supports Obamacare.. no compromise...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



? ObamaCare IS RomneyCare!


----------



## Meister (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...



It's a fed Vs state thing.....not a one size fits all.  The states have input....as it should be


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...



no it isn't.....if you didn't like RomneyCare you could move to another state and not buy health insurance....


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...



Best thing about Britain's healthcare though, you can opt out if you want private insurance instead of government healthcare.

Every program needs to be like that, from healthcare to social security. You should have the ability to opt out.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



I'm not a Republican, but I can't really think of any small changes that would matter much. It's the core of it, the fundamental assumptions it relies on, that I'm opposed to. 

If you want a list:

1. Get rid of the mandate on individuals to give insurance companies their money.

2. Get rid of the mandate on employers to give insurance companies their money. 

3. Get rid of the government subsidies that will give insurance companies our money.

4. Make participation voluntary.

Once we've take care of those, we can start coming up with something sane.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...



Romney care did not steal 716 billion dollars from the old people. Now go pat you ass somewhere else.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Huh uh, WillowTree, it's not.  *So there*.

Wow; the rousing debate here is so cerebral I'm in utter awe.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> ...


Oh now yer' trying to backpedal? And now that you mention it, you ARE one of "dem dirty liberals"

You gonna' say you voted for Romney?

You can't weasel out of this.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 12, 2012)

Wacky Quacky said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Only the rich in Britain can afford private health care insurance.


----------



## Trajan (Nov 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The government shoul just take the industry over completely, conscript doctors and give all forms of healthcare for free.



have you ever heard the saying;  if the government managed a desert there would be a shortage of sand?


----------



## Avorysuds (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Glad to see we agree on what the 2,000 pages that made up Obamacare was.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

Wacky Quacky said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



the result being a two-tier system.....a good one and a bad one....

i'd like to know why the Amish are exempt from Obamacare.....but not other religions like the Catholics who protest paying for abortion....?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> It would actually *save tax-payers, from a cost standpoint, for those whose policies will now be paid by the government,* since they (we) have to buy insurance from the for profit sector.


Wow; the rousing debate from you is so cerebral I'm in utter awe.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

Meister said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...


We aren't talking about T-shirts. The respective legislative bodies in both Mass. and the U.S. as a whole each decided that RomneyCare was the best way.


Mitt Romney obviously thought Romney was a good idea for the nation before he flip flopped:

07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central


> The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.
> 
> ....
> This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his states citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans



Guess what the Bob Bennet plan had in it? A PERSONAL FUCKING MANDATE.


----------



## syrenn (Nov 12, 2012)

Meister said:


> I think that this will prove to be a big mess with the people when all the taxes are realized starting next year and the following year.  People have forgotten that little bit of the ACA.




You mean the for the people _who PAY_ federal taxes need to worry about it. The ones who just suck off the system and not pay a cent will be laughing their asses off while they take advantage of their new perks.


----------



## syrenn (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...




and they are both fucked in the head wrong.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > It would actually *save tax-payers, from a cost standpoint, for those whose policies will now be paid by the government,* since they (we) have to buy insurance from the for profit sector.
> ...



I'm sure I've read that somewhere before.  

Now then, we know that insurance is merely a rent-seeking entity, as is said in economics. (the study) So by eliminating it, savings is a virtual given, inasmuch as less than 70 cent of every dollar Health Inurance Providers collect ultimately goes to paying for meds, doc visits, hospitals, etc.  Further, we know from our own single-payer system (Medicare) that a) overhead is far less as a percentage, than private insurance; more therefore of the money pays for care, not overhead / ret-seeking, and; b) satifaction polling shows Medicare is far more liked on average than private insurance among younger of our people.

Ergo, it's thus highly likely that the Public Option would save money and be far better-liked, paving the way for single-payer since insurance would simply not be able to compete ... in case you're wondering why Health Insurance Lobbying was in the 100s of millions fighting the Public Option, which if their service were better, they'd need not fear, obviously, since folks tend to choose the best option, when given a choice.

Does that help; or need I go deeper for you?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

syrenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...




Much better to have taxpayers foot the bill when people can't pay their emergency room bills.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



If you don't like the law the Congress of the United States passed you can move to another country.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Agreed. It would be better. It's still wrong, and we should work together to repeal it, but it's better than enslaving us to the insurance industry in perpetuity. 

EMTALA was a solution looking for a problem. We were fine before it, and we'll be fine after it's repealed.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Further, we know from our own single-payer system (Medicare) that a) overhead is far less as a percentage, than private insurance;


Good thing that Medicare costs are ten times less than they were claimed to be, back when the program was started!

Oh yeah....Never mind.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




So you're OK with people dying on emergency room tables because of a paperwork glitch.

Because under your way of doing things, that's exactly what would have happened to my _insured_ 4 month old son if he had a serious emergency during the couple months or so I was paying for his health insurance but it wasn't actually there because of a paper work glitch.

Sorry I don't wanna live in that world.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

Trajan said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The government shoul just take the industry over completely, conscript doctors and give all forms of healthcare for free.
> ...



Yes, but apparently a good portion of the countries population can not look around and see what others areas of govt. management makes such a  saying ring true. instead, they want to try anyway and perhaps see it for themselves. In this instance, like many, many others; healthcare.

I say go for it. Have the gubmint provide it for "free" and then we can move on to the next item of management for the govt.

Just cant get enough government!


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



if anyone needs to leave it's grubby infecting socialists like you...and your Destructive Party...


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



Personally I think the GOP should totally leave Obamacare alone. Let them own this newest entitlement. 

It's obvious to me that the American majority wants it just like it was written. No input from other side.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



There's no reason for me to leave, I love my country.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> If you don't like the law the Congress of the United States passed you can move to another country.


Never thought I'd see the day where the socialists became the party of "Amurrica, love it 'er leave it".


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

Annie said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...



 The Republicans are the ones who thought of the individual mandate. Its their idea.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...


So devoid of ideas that they have to blame republicans for the shitty ideas that they stole from them.


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Obamacare is Obama's, full and clear. He passed it and was re-elected because of its wild popularity. Republicans and conservatives should not impede this in any way.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

Then when it comes off the rails, and it will, they will be saying it was a republican idea and therefore, it's their fault.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



more people die BEFORE they even get to the emergency room tables under Universal care...

in Great Britain ambulances wait in lines....
Ambulances 'used as waiting rooms' | Metro.co.uk


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Further, we know from our own single-payer system (Medicare) that a) overhead is far less as a percentage, than private insurance;
> ...



Attaboy, Oddball.  Let's relive the 60s, shall we?

Now then, whoduh ever thunk that healthcare costs, driven largely by insurance costs, would outpace inflation by a factor of two, and approach nearly 20 cents of every dollar in our economy?  Not me.  And seemingly, not folks in LBJ's Admin.  Go figure.

Meanwhile, in other of them commie-lefty regimes, like France, Switzerland, etc., who have single-payer and lack all the terrific cost saving / service improving benefits of a for-profit market, they pay about half and live longer while also having about half as many still-born little miracle, on average, as we do.

Go figure.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



The critical flaw is the mandate, but it much more serious than you indicate.  The mandate was intended not to lower costs but to try to offset significant increases in cost produced by insuring people with pre existing conditions at standard rates and banning lifetime limits on coverage by coercing healthy people to buy insurance they don't want.  The problem with the mandate is not only that the penalty is too small to motivate most of those who choose not to buy health insurance, but as written, it is unenforcible.  Under the current law the IRS can only attempt to assess the penalty by taking it out of your income tax refund, but by adjusting your withholding, you can avoid having any refund due at the end of the year and so pay no penalty.  

So there is no effective penalty for refusing to buy health insurance, and instead of lowering health insurance costs, Obamacare will substantially increase them, and since all the CBO estimates of the cost of Obamacare were based on the assumption that the mandate would result in nearly 100% of those who don't want to buy health insurance being coerced to do so anyway, the cost to the government of the premium subsidies will be many billions of dollars a year higher than any of those estimates.  

Unless not just Democrats but liberal Democrats win super majorities in both Houses of Congress, there is no fix for the mandate.  The Democratic leadership, of course, will want to increase the penalty and to allow the IRS to go after it just as it goes after delinquent taxes, with liens against salaries, seizures of property and civil and criminal actions in court, and this is how the mandate provision was originally written, but it was so unpopular that moderate Democrats joined with Republicans in opposing the Democratic leadership and Pelosi and Reid were faced with the choice of either weakening the mandate until it was effectively gone or failing to pass any bill at all.  

The individual mandate is an ideological red line for most Republican voters and they will refuse to reelect any member of Congress who votes to strengthen it, so the only way to keep Obamacare from causing health insurance rates from skyrocketing is to find some other mechanism for dealing with the needs of people with pre existing condition and to continue to allow people to choose to pay less for insurance with limited coverage or to pay more for insurance with no lifetime limits.  Of course, this means two of the key selling points for Obamacare will be gone and it will make it much easier for its critics to modify much of the rest of it out of existence.

In 2016, Democratic candidates will be asked why they passed a bill with an individual mandate they knew wouldn't work and that would cause health insurance rates to go up even more rapidly.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

C'mon, man! It's good for the planet!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> So you're OK with people dying on emergency room tables because of a paperwork glitch.
> 
> Because under your way of doing things, that's exactly what would have happened to my _insured_ 4 month old son if he had a serious emergency during the couple months or so I was paying for his health insurance but it wasn't actually there because of a paper work glitch.
> 
> Sorry I don't wanna live in that world.


If it's one thing that gubmint is renowned for, it's total absence of paperwork glitches!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





I'm not surprised that you would be OK with children dying on the emergency room table because their parents could not afford health insurance, but I am a bit surprised you would have been OK with my _insured_ son dying because some grown-ups messed up some paperwork.  

If you are ever in a life critical emergency and unable to provide proof of your own health insurance - will you be OK with dying? A simple yes or no will be fine.


And as to the Great Britain comment which is of limited relevance considering we don't have socialized medicine like they do and its probably a half bullshit story anyway - I'd far rather my son be in a ambulance in a life critical emergency than set on the side of the road to expire.


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Agreed. No more discussion of what might have been, such as a discussion of ending 'insurance' for routine healthcare and addressing the issues of catastrophic healthcare. That is out the door. 

Nope, Obama got this plan through, with no help from Republicans/conservatives. It's his and he gets all the credit. Over the next for years, conservatives should be a rubber stamp for his ideas, making clear that they are following the advice of this election, to not obstruct any and all ideas from the administration.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)




----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


Oh, suuuuuure...The fact that a gubmint program costs more than 10 times more than it was claimed to (counting inflation, BTW), it's all the fault of the marketplace!

Goddamn, are you Marxist stooges a hoot!


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Bwhahaha!

I have not back peddled on this, at all. Perhaps you have me confused with a different poster.

Did I vote for Romney? Hell. No.
Did I vote for Obama? Hell. No.

Neither one of those men earned my vote.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you're OK with people dying on emergency room tables because of a paperwork glitch.
> ...



The law which requires hospitals to stabilize life threatened patients regardless of ability to pay cuts out the requirement to provide the proper paperwork - government or otherwise - before the patient is stabilized.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Actually just abot anyone can obtain a waiver on "religious grounds". Yet another flaw of the ACA.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

We need a law requiring doctors to stabilize life threatened patients regardless of ability based on trauma/condition.

Maybe a loss of medical license for any patient not saved, or maybe send them to the clink.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Yeah, and how does that translate that gubmint bureaucrats producing any fewer of these "paperwork glitches"?...If performance to date is any indicator, we can expect such "glitches" to skyrocket.

But I guess if it's all free, it's all good.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> We need a law requiring doctors to stabilize life threatened patients regardless of ability based on trauma/condition.
> 
> Maybe a loss of medical license for any patient not saved, or maybe send them to the clink.


It's called the Hippocratic Oath...Everyone down to EMT-B students take it.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


You mean to say, the highest tax increase on the Middle Class in US history have not kicked in yet and won't until January? Oh, yeah. Doh. Of course it hasn't kicked in yet with Obama waiting until after his reelection to stab taxpayers in the middle class in their backs with a tax he's been just waiting to pass against Americans.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > We need a law requiring doctors to stabilize life threatened patients regardless of ability based on trauma/condition.
> ...



I'm aware. But what im saying is that we need to require patient stabilization. Not a decree on integrity of trying. But a law that means if you fail, you go to jail.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Annie said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...



There is no "I didn't agree to this" waiver in the ACA. 

I want the people I voted for in congress to be actually helping me, not acting like 5 year olds who were forced to share a toy. The ACA as it is, has serious flaws and when those flaws hurt Americans, I expect my congressman to work to fix it. Not say "well I didn't write this".


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Actually, healthcare is in many ways, monopolized, and not governed by market forces.  An example is the little (oops, huge) gift to Big Pharma we've come to know and love as Medicare Part D, or the Prescription Drug Bill ... oft sighted as the worst piece of legislation ever passed, fiscally speaking.  No bidding on prescription drugs, as all other countries can, so we pay their asking price, whatever it is.  And that's not a marketplace. It's a legislated monopoly, in effect.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> So you're OK with people dying on emergency room tables because of a paperwork glitch.
> 
> Because under your way of doing things, that's exactly what would have happened to my _insured_ 4 month old son if he had a serious emergency during the couple months or so I was paying for his health insurance but it wasn't actually there because of a paper work glitch.
> 
> Sorry I don't wanna live in that world.



You already live in that world, and still do.
the health care bill does not fix these things, as private insurance can still limit coverage and is no guarantee you can get everything you need and/or afford it at whatever rates will be.

Just because things you envision will not happen to you now, doesn't mean other people aren't still suffering. So what you are saying, as long as YOU are protected from the things you envision going wrong, you don't care that other people may still be affected? Or the things opponents protest as going wrong that affect them don't count equally in your eyes?

If this bill solves your problems, then great, you pay for it and be under it.
As for those whose problems it doesn't solve, or have new problems that it causes or can't fix, let us be equally free as you to be under and fund the programs we want to make work.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> So you're OK with people dying on emergency room tables because of a paperwork glitch.



Heh.. no. That's why I didn't say that. 



> Because under your way of doing things, that's exactly what would have happened to my _insured_ 4 month old son if he had a serious emergency during the couple months or so I was paying for his health insurance but it wasn't actually there because of a paper work glitch.



No, I don't believe that. I've looked into this  (though, of course I wouldn't want to do any of your research for you ) Hospitals never practiced the kind of draconian nonsense you want to scare us with. Which is why EMTALA was, and is, unnecessary. But even if we leave it in place, it's not a significant driver of inflation because - as pretty much any doctor or hospital will tell you - it hasn't changed their practices. They didn't turn people away before, and they wouldn't afterward.

Let's be clear here. You don't give a rat's ass about fiscal responsibility (frankly, you don't even comprehend its meaning). You want the opposite. You want everyone to be alleviated of the responsibility of paying for their own health care. That's not a bad motivation, in and of itself. And if it really were simply a matter of waving a wand and making all the unfortunate realities of living go away, I'd be all over it.

But it's not that simple. And what you, and others, are advocating is the classic tradeoff of giving up liberty for promises of security. Worse yet, you're not even promoting a simple tax-supported safety net - which we'd at least have nominal control over as voters. You want to sell us out to the insurance industry as modern serfs.

BTW: you having any luck with documentation of the "fact" emily was wanting to confirm? Just wondered.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> The problem with the mandate is not only that the penalty is too small to motivate most of those who choose not to buy health insurance,



I already knew the right wing maintained that what is the best health care program in Mass. Isnt' the same as the rest of the country, but now you are claiming the laws of economics are different in Mass. as well? Because RomneyCare in Mass. has about the same divide between the penalty and the cost of health insurance - yet almost everyone has chosen the insurance over the penalty. Maybe its because health insurance has actual economic value to a person - but a tax penalty does not? Gee whiz, maybe so.



> but as written, it is unenforcible. Under the current law the IRS can only attempt to assess the penalty by taking it out of your income tax refund, but by adjusting your withholding, you can avoid having any refund due at the end of the year and so pay no penalty.



You aren't allowed to adjust your withholding willy nilly. Its perjury to lie on your withholding form.

At any rate - you are mistaken. The law only prohibits CRIMINAL penalties for failure to pay the penalty. The IRS may still garnish your wages and seize your bank assets. These are not criminal penalties. You will not go to prison nor have a criminal record - but your property will be seized in order to pay for it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Actually, healthcare is in many ways, monopolized, and not governed by market forces.  An example is the little (oops, huge) gift to Big Pharma we've come to know and love as Medicare Part D, or the Prescription Drug Bill ... oft sighted as the worst piece of legislation ever passed, fiscally speaking.  No bidding on prescription drugs, as all other countries can, so we pay their asking price, whatever it is.  And that's not a marketplace. It's a legislated monopoly, in effect.



Exactly. We need to bust up the monopoly, not turn it into a government sponsored cartel.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Of course! Too much government involvement? Then we need more government involvement.

Problem
Reaction
Solution
Problem 
reaction
solution


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


Medicare D was the idea of socialist stooges like you....It only became a "giveaway to BigPharma" when a guy with an (R) by his name passed it.

Fact remains that the feds have_* never ever*_ contained the costs of anything....In fact, the costs of everything they touch go through the roof.

Yet, somehow or another, we're supposed to believe that _*this time*_ it's going to be different.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



Defund it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> You aren't allowed to adjust your withholding willy nilly. Its perjury to lie on your withholding form.
> 
> At any rate - you are mistaken. The law only prohibits CRIMINAL penalties for failure to pay the penalty. The IRS may still garnish your wages and seize your bank assets. These are not criminal penalties. You will not go to prison nor have a criminal record - but your property will be seized in order to pay for it.



Are these just bad lies, or simple idiocy? Tell me, if you refuse to let them seize your property or garnish your wages or seize your bank account... hmmm, think they'll be any criminal charges then?


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, healthcare is in many ways, monopolized, and not governed by market forces.  An example is the little (oops, huge) gift to Big Pharma we've come to know and love as Medicare Part D, or the Prescription Drug Bill ... oft sighted as the worst piece of legislation ever passed, fiscally speaking.  No bidding on prescription drugs, as all other countries can, so we pay their asking price, whatever it is.  And that's not a marketplace. It's a legislated monopoly, in effect.
> ...



Nah; just do what every other country is doing successfully: bid on prescription drugs, for Medicare recipients.  They'd (Big Pharma) bend over backwards getting after that market, were it a market and not merely an asking-price monopoly, by law.  Old folks are heavy users, and growing in numbers faster than I can type these letters and spaces. So Big Pharma would cut prices to the quick, saving the American People billions, of Dollars.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > We need a law requiring doctors to stabilize life threatened patients regardless of ability based on trauma/condition.
> ...



Add to that: we also need both govt and citizens to sign agreements to pay the costs of any violations or abuses that otherwise put a burden on other taxpayers. In other words a "non-hypocrite" oath. So if you want the privileges of rights and freedoms as a US citizen, you cannot abuse law or due process to violate the same rights/freedoms of others. If you use a gun, by the Second Amendment you respect the same rules as a "well-regulated militia" and go through the same training and oath as a police or military officer defending Constitutional law and never abusing firearms or authority to commit crimes. If you use the legal system, you respect the equal due process of others, and never abuse it to obstruct justice and defy equal protections of the law for others; especially if you want the state to pay for your defense and the taxpayers to pay for the costs of prosecution, courts or prison.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, healthcare is in many ways, monopolized, and not governed by market forces.  An example is the little (oops, huge) gift to Big Pharma we've come to know and love as Medicare Part D, or the Prescription Drug Bill ... oft sighted as the worst piece of legislation ever passed, fiscally speaking.  No bidding on prescription drugs, as all other countries can, so we pay their asking price, whatever it is.  And that's not a marketplace. It's a legislated monopoly, in effect.
> ...


No, no, no, no, nonononono!

To the committed progressive socialist, failure of authoritarian central control is evidence that more authoritarian central control is called for!

Get with the program!


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 12, 2012)

Why the Right Turned Its Back on the Individual Mandate - The Daily Beast


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

^ Damn right. You can never have enough central planning/control!


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


Violent antisocial acts perpetrated with firearms are still illegal and subject to loss of one's freedom....Nothing further is called for from the law abiding.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> ...



I don't see that happening.

I guess I am at a point other posters clearly aren't. I accept that there is no way for the GOP to repeal the ACA. It is law, and by the time they may have enough votes, it will be too late.

I like the idea of everyone paying for their own damn healthcare, instead of soaking up my tax dollars visiting the ER whenever they have a problem. I like parts of the ACA, but I also dislike parts. 


I want a bipartisan effort to fix it, but I'm seeing I might as well be asking for the moon.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The Precription Drug Bill was championed by the Bush 43 Admin and Big Pharma, and not socialist stooges, like me.

Edit: as to the rest, I doubt you'd know a fact if it was giving you head.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> Hospitals never practiced the kind of draconian nonsense you want to scare us with.



Sorry but considering I've PAID for my son's health insurance I don't think its fair for me to have to rely on charity and goodwill to get his emergency room bills paid for even temporarily.



> Which is why EMTALA was, and is, unnecessary. But even if we leave it in place, it's not a significant driver of inflation because - as pretty much any doctor or hospital will tell you - it hasn't changed their practices. They didn't turn people away before, and they wouldn't afterward.



I'm sure most all doctors have no problem with saving the lives of patients who can't pay but the hospital administrators in charge of the hospitals bottom line do. Many hospitals are for-profit institutions and those that aren't can't run at a loss indefinitely. I'm not sure what kind of fantasy land you live in, but back in the real world the EMTALA was passed (at least partially) in response to an increase in the incidences of patient dumping in the 80's

JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | Patient DumpingStatus, Implications, and Policy Recommendations





> Let's be clear here. You don't give a rat's ass about fiscal responsibility (frankly, you don't even comprehend its meaning). You want the opposite. You want everyone to be alleviated of the responsibility of paying for their own health care.



No, I don't. When you're ready to base your arguments on real world facts instead of just making them up as you see fit (including deciding for me what my own thoughts are) - let me know!


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...





> The Precription Drug Bill was championed by the Bush 43 Admin and Big Pharma, and not socialist stooges, like me.
> 
> Edit: as to the rest, I doubt you'd know a fact if it was giving you head.



and just WHO do you think broke his promise to deal with Big Pharma prices.....instead cut a self-serving deal with them that they just loved....and then got his Obamacare/campaign supported.....?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2012)

^ Why are you repeating Oddball in different words?

Bush was a socialist stooge. He just happened to have an R, which is why it is a "big pharma give-away".


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > You aren't allowed to adjust your withholding willy nilly. Its perjury to lie on your withholding form.
> ...



Preventing a federal agent from enforcing the law was a crime long before Obama took office you dimwit.


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Bad care, as opposed to no care because people won't go see a doctor knowing the cost.

I think it's crap that anyone was exempted at all. If they're going to shove this down my throat then I want it shoved down every last throat in america. Unions, Amish, catholics, politicians, everyone.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



GOP caucuses in both chambers who deep-throated Big Pharma dick and made certain Medicare Part D reforms would not be included in the Senate-passed healthcare bill, which due to the Scott Brown experiment in MA, turned into so-called "Obamacare," since the President and Pelosi pulled a fast one on the Tea Party retards by bringing the half-baked Senate bill to the floor in Congress, and at least getting some things done.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> At any rate - you are mistaken. The law only prohibits CRIMINAL penalties for failure to pay the penalty. The IRS may still garnish your wages and seize your bank assets. These are not criminal penalties. You will not go to prison nor have a criminal record - but your property will be seized in order to pay for it.



How is seizing your property or threatening to any less like treating someone as a criminal???

OPPD, given that the religious conditions on opt-out exemptions require someone to be a member of a religious group since 1999 where the members pay for each other's health care costs --

Can you please explain how this is NOT govt regulation or discrimination based on religion?

That if certain people qualify for exemption based on a narrow condition of religious nature, while other people who aren't of this faith category must either pay a fine or be subject to having property seized, etc.

How is that NOT religious discrimination by govt?

At least with war, there is not a forced draft, so people who are conscientious objectors have freedom to not serve in war. With abortion, people have pushed to overturn Roe v. Wade where women are not criminalized or punished for abortion.

Can you PLEASE explain to me how the same party of liberal Democrat leaders and followers would push NOT to penalize a woman wanting to choose abortion, which is very serious, and yet would push a bill that penalizes people for wanting to choose something OTHER than insurance to pay for their health care?

How can you penalize something as harmless as not wanting to buy insurance, and push like crazy even demonizing GOP and any prolife person for wanting to ban the choice of abortion?

Have you really thought about what you are asking people to accept here?

I am baffled and have been since this thing passed.
Can you please explain one or the other:
1. how is this bill NOT govt discriminating by or regulating on the basis of religion?
2. how can prochoice people support this bill while demonizing prolife govt mandates?

Please OPPD, I would REALLY LOVE to understand either or both points, can you please help? The only answers I get from anyone are that the Democrats don't care. Do you care?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


Oh, and democratics don't deep throat BgPharma dick?

Bet you're gonna save the blue dress too, aren't ya?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

Wacky Quacky said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...



another group that was exempted........Muslims.....


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

Wacky Quacky said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Wacky Quacky said:
> ...



I believe every American in entitled to afforded health coverage. However if you make the decision to go without coverage, then have a massive heart attack, I expect you to either work out a payment plan for that half million dollar hospital bill, or to choose to not seek care at all.

You don't get to choose to not buy yourself insurance, and then ask Americans to shell out for the cost of your care.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> When you're ready to base your arguments on real world facts instead of just making them up as you see fit (including deciding for me what my own thoughts are) - let me know!



I've been doing that all along. I'm not perfect, of course, so it's possible I have some of the facts wrong. But neither you, nor luddly, nor any of the other PPACA apologists droning on about so-called 'facts', have pointed out any specific fact I'm wrong about. That's because it really isn't about the facts - or rather that's not the source of our disagreement. Apart from a few areas of vague legalese (e.g. no "criminal" prosecution, "tax" or "penalty"), it's all pretty cut and dried. There will be lots more ugly shit spill out as the various regulatory regimes start laying down the law - but for now, the facts are actually pretty clear.

So, which "facts" do I have wrong?


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Yes; many did, especially Lieberman and many of the Blue Dogs, one of which controlled a key committee.

As for the rest of your rightie rhetoric, how should I respond?  Hmmm?  Righties are big poopie-heads?  Is that the level you like to "debate" on, Sparky?

Astonishing.  Fall down much, pal?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> The Precription Drug Bill was championed by the Bush 43 Admin and Big Pharma, and not socialist stooges, like me.
> 
> Edit: as to the rest, I doubt you'd know a fact if it was giving you head.


Chimpy McShrub stole the Medicare D bill, lock, stock and barrel, from the democratics....It was 100% the bill socialist stooges like you championed for years.

Speaking of not knowing a fact if one was hit over the head with it.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



i see....you excuse rotten politics because it was Obamamamma......


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > At any rate - you are mistaken. The law only prohibits CRIMINAL penalties for failure to pay the penalty. The IRS may still garnish your wages and seize your bank assets. These are not criminal penalties. You will not go to prison nor have a criminal record - but your property will be seized in order to pay for it.
> ...



Because no crime has been committed. Its a civil action. Are you seriously this retarded? You want to know the difference between having a criminal record and not? Next time you apply for a job or a loan put "felon" on the application and see what happens.




> OPPD, given that the religious conditions on opt-out exemptions require someone to be a member of a religious group since 1999 where the members pay for each other's health care costs --
> 
> Can you please explain how this is NOT govt regulation or discrimination based on religion?
> 
> That if certain people qualify for exemption based on a narrow condition of religious nature, while other people who aren't of this faith category must either pay a fine or be subject to having property seized, etc.



You're confusing the individual mandate with the employer mandate. There is no religious exception for the individual mandate.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



snopes.com: Dhimmitude -- Health Insurance Exemptions


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > The Precription Drug Bill was championed by the Bush 43 Admin and Big Pharma, and not socialist stooges, like me.
> ...



How do you get dressed in the morning?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


You're the one who introduced the vulgarity, comrade...I merely turned it around on you.

Fact remains that Medicare D was a program stolen from the democratics, and the only reason you hated it was because it got signed by a socialist stooge with an (R) next to his name.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> But neither you, nor luddly, nor any of the other PPACA apologists droning on about so-called 'facts', have pointed out any specific fact I'm wrong about.



Actually I just did in the post you replied to. Did you read it? Before the EMTALA was passed patients WERE turned away from emergency rooms because of ability to pay. Your claim was that never happened.


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


Link please, or you're talking through your hat.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You said the program is bringing down costs.  I want to know what costs it is bringing down.  No one has seen costs go down.  Please cite someone saying their costs have gone down.  Everyone else has seen the opposite.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Huh uh, Oddie; I turned it around on you.  *So there!*

Meanwhile, back to grown-up conversation ...

Hastert sponsored it.  Who, exactly, did Dennis steal it from?  Got some history on that, from some place other than the bottom of a tall frosty glass of da koolaid, do ya?

I'm on pins and needles. Do tell


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



You've basically covered the central points of what the bill does and correctly identified all the flaws.  And then you say your problem is that the GOP wants it to fail.  The GOP does not want it to fail.  The bill fails on its own for all the reasons you've given, plus some.  If you want to "correct" the problems you've identified then you would have to scrap the whole bill and start over.
And btw, welcome to the Republican Party.


----------



## AmyNation (Nov 12, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



I wouldnt be opposed to scrapping the bill and starting over. I also recognize that that is impossible, so now we have to deal with what we have. I say the GOP is a problem, because like you they seem to be working from the "nothing can be done to fix this" standpoint. Perhaps that is so, but since it's already here, perhaps we could try instead of throwing our hands up and waiting until Americans are facing serious healthcare issues before addressing the issue.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > But neither you, nor luddly, nor any of the other PPACA apologists droning on about so-called 'facts', have pointed out any specific fact I'm wrong about.
> ...



Heh... better be careful. Simple lies are usually better than complicated ones. Did YOU read that article? I sort of suspect you didn't, since it requires a $125 subscription. In any case, the abstract only mentioned the 'dumping' practice - where people with questionable ability to pay are transferred to charity or public hospitals. Does the rest of the article discuss the frequency of people dying in alleys (the usual image invoked by health care statists) for inability to pay?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the mandate is not only that the penalty is too small to motivate most of those who choose not to buy health insurance,
> ...



You are mistaken.



> The penalty will be paid as a federal tax liability on income tax returns and is enforced by the
> Treasury. Individuals that fail to pay the penalty will not be subject to criminal penalties, liens
> or levies.



https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

That means the IRS cannot go after you if you have no refund coming.

The IRS allows you to claim one extra exemption beyond those you listed, and for most people that will be sufficient to prevent any refund from accumulating.

Mass. is the bluest of blue states and the law was always extremely popular there, but Obamacare is extremely unpopular with at least half the national population, so there will, of course, be less compliance.  Since it is easy for most people to adjust their tax payments so that they will have no refund coming and since the IRS is prohibited from trying to collect the penalty beyond what it is holding as a refund, there is no effective penalty for not buying insurance.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> I wouldnt be opposed to scrapping the bill and starting over. I also recognize that that is impossible, so now we have to deal with what we have. I say the GOP is a problem, because like you they seem to be working from the "nothing can be done to fix this" standpoint. Perhaps that is so, but since it's already here, perhaps we could try instead of throwing our hands up and waiting until Americans are facing serious healthcare issues before addressing the issue.



I appreciate the spirit of this - and I certainly plan to do everything I can think of to fight it - but I'm not sure I see any place to start with "improving" it. In my view, PPACA takes us in exactly the wrong direction. Anything we can do to hasten its demise will be an improvement - up to and include civil disobedience campaigns to sabotage it.


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



I really think the overwhelming electoral vote should shut the conservatives up on this and all issues. They should just go along for the ride this time. No opposition, give them all they want. 

In the meantime, if they were correct that this is the wrong direction, they have 18 months to come up with a different take, not allowing the opposition to say they were obstructed.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Your claim was that it was not a problem.

The abstract is all one needs to see that it is. Patients in need of life saving immediate care were turned away.  That's a problem. And you claim it never  happened.


And if you can't see how turning someone in need of immediate life saving care away can kill the, you're just straight up a moron.


EDIT - and while you've been fruitlessly trying to  pickiaway at the evidence I offer for my opinion - you offer ZERO for your own.  I guess you think that merely your claim that it is true is sufficient


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 12, 2012)

The dupes are fear mongered to the point of insanity LOL!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> No, I don't believe that. I've looked into this  (though, of course I wouldn't want to do any of your research for you )



Oh - you've looked into it. I guess you didn't takes notes on your sources. How convenient!


> But even if we leave it in place, it's not a significant driver of inflation because - as pretty much any doctor or hospital will tell you - it hasn't changed their practices.





> "Indefensible" is an appropriate term. Ron Anderson, M.D., president and CEO of Parkland Memorial Health and Hospital System in Dallas, was the medical director of the emergency department at Parkland in the early 1980s, and he knew all about dumping. *"I would see patients transferred with knives still in their backs, or women giving birth at the door of the hospital, simply because they were uninsured."
> *


The Law That Changed Everything&#8212;and It Isn't the One You Think




> "She does not have any insurance, [and] the hospital does not want to take care of her, OK? This is a private, capitalistic, money-making hospital. They're on my back to have her transferred."


----------



## syrenn (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



much better....for whom?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

syrenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


All the folks that oppose the individual mandate.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Yes...You socialists all know what's in everyone else's best interests, dontcha?


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Your claim was that it was not a problem.
> 
> The abstract is all one needs to see that it is. Patients in need of life saving immediate care were turned away.  That's a problem. And you claim it never  happened.



Did the article (or wait, you didn't actually read it, did you?) say anything about people not getting treatment that they needed? Did it cite any incidents of people dying or suffering unduly because of these transfers? Because the abstract didn't. And outside anecdotal claims and isolated incidents, I've never seen anything like compelling evidence that EMTALA was necessary. Or, on the flip side, that it's continued existence is problem - that it's really any kind of compelling reason to sell our souls to the insurance industry.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I'm a lefty and haven't a clue.

Meanwhile, how's that project coming along?  Didja find out who Hastert stole MC-D from?  Or are you still googling?


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

Annie said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



bump


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Your claim was that it was not a problem.
> ...




I'll answer those questions as soon as you explain why you don't have to offer any evidence whatsoever for your claims while I do.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



So basically the GOP is correct but you don't like the answer.  Got it.


----------



## syrenn (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



the only people it is better for are the ones who dont pay a red cent for care now.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

syrenn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Yeah because disease doesn't spread or anything and when people with kids die in their primes it never affects society in  a bad way. Health is in no way related to the community at large, ask any doctor. If everyone around me has pneumonia I'll be completely healthy and everyone who works at the businesses I rely on will show up to work dead or alive.


----------



## dblack (Nov 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Right. It seems you're also confused about the nature of evidence and argument. I can't prove a negative. You've made various claims about the significance of EMTALA and I rejected them. I haven't seen any evidence that supports your claims - and the abstract to the article you didn't read didn't help. So, I'm not sure what 'evidence' you want me to provide. Links to empty pages?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Comes with the territory....At least you're more self-aware than most.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



In some things, indeed, I am aware.  Others?  Not so much.  So help please me out:

Where'd Hastert steal Medicare Part D from; namely, which one of my Leftitard pals over on the Left side of the aisle, on Captol Hill.

I'm a friggin' pins and needles to be aware of that.  Whataya got?

Or am I aware of this:  You don't know and were just making stuff up?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

The entire idea for Medicare D has been a democrat wet dream since 1965....Who helped the neocons draft the bill would be the same mob of BgPharm lobbyists, had the authors had those (D)s by their names.

Bottom line is that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between you and the socialistic republicans you claim to oppose.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



A Public Option.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 12, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...







> But even if we leave it in place, it's not a significant driver of inflation because - as pretty much any doctor or hospital will tell you - it hasn't changed their practices.



Sorry, but *that's a positive claim*, not a negative. You have claimed that any doctor would tell me that EMTALA hasn't changed their practices. You have offered zero evidence of any doctor telling anyone that. Please explain why you are exempt from having to do so.

My claim is that your claim here:



> They didn't turn people away before, and they wouldn't afterward.



is wrong. The abstract I posted clearly states that patient dumping DID occur. Regardless of whether or not death resulted, your claim that people were not turned away is clearly not true.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> The entire idea for Medicare D has been a democrat wet dream since 1965....Who helped the neocons draft the bill would be the same mob of BgPharm lobbyists, had the authors had those (D)s by their names.
> 
> Bottom line is that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between you and the socialistic republicans you claim to oppose.



So you keep saying.

Who, said what, and when?  Or if they had a bill in mind, what was it?  Anything you're basing that on, at all?

Or are you trying to blame-shift, a bill championed by the Bush 43 Admin, and sponsored by the Rep Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert?  Pure GOP pandering to Big Pharma interests, widely regarded as the worst, fiscally, of any bill ever in the history of the country, and brought to us by Republicans.  Period.  End of story, not that I'm so daft as to even dream of you admitting it.  Just sayin'


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

Bush was Obama lite, both were on the road of what most see as successful for US, no? You want to repeal something?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The entire idea for Medicare D has been a democrat wet dream since 1965....Who helped the neocons draft the bill would be the same mob of BgPharm lobbyists, had the authors had those (D)s by their names.
> ...


Couldn't care less who said what, where and when...Fact remains the neocons passed a shitty bill that was written by BigPharm lobbyists for the BigPharm lobbyists...It would've been the same no matter whose name went on it, as they would've been the same lobbyists crafting the same bill.

I'm sorry you're too thick to figure this out....Better you than me.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Okie doke.  Thanks for clarifying.  However, what remains is the opposite of fact.  Just made-up nonsense.

Thanks for playing.  Always a pleasure.


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Obamacare is now entrenched. There will be no going back. There will be no 'fixes.' It's what will be.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 12, 2012)

What remains is a shit bill that would have been a shit bill, no matter who passed and signed it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 12, 2012)

Hi OohPah:
1. I don't mean LEGALLY what is the difference.

I mean in consequence, if you are going to have your property seized because you disagree religiously about the limits of federal govt, how is that "NOT PUNISHING" you? For your BELIEFS? That you either believe you have the right to decide your own health care coverage, with or without insurance, or you believe these mandates are outside federal jurisdiction and belong to the states or to the people.

OP let me put it this way:
The same way illegal aliens are considered by some to have committed a crime or violation, while others do not; why are we making CITIZENS who have NOT committed a violation of policy suddenly "punishable" for doing what they normally would do that is not a crime???



OohPooPahDoo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



2. Thanks for responding to this as one of the key questions I had.

Did the bill get amended to remove the religious exemption or is it still in effect:

"According to the Culpepper, VA Star-Exponent,

in the midst of this sweeping new legislation is the Religious Exemption, Section 1501(b), which states: The term applicable individual  shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month. 

The bill then defines a health care sharing ministry to be any 501(c)(3) organization that has existed since at least 1999 whose members share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs.

If this is still in the bill, I argue that other people "independent of religious beliefs" should have the same freedom to choose alternative means of covering health care for themselves and others, especially since even this federally mandated program doesn't cover all people.

Thank you for honestly responding to questions I had re: 1 and 2.
If you can please help me reconcile this, I greatly appreciate your help to understand!

Note: My question in #1 is a revised version of my friend Tom Wayburn who used the prochoice arguments to defend drug legalization. In that case he was comparing the freedom to put drugs into his body vs. the freedom of a woman to abort a baby out of hers. In this case, I can see how either drug use or abortion would make people want to ban that as harmful. So if liberal advocates push NOT to punish either drug use or abortion as choices, then why punish the choice not to buy private insurance? That is even LESS harmful of a choice than drug use or abortion, so why jump on this and let the others go?


----------



## Annie (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> What remains is a shit bill that would have been a shit bill, no matter who passed and signed it.



Which is why no fixes should be bothered with. Let it swim or sink on its own. Oh yea, there is no sinking for the bill, just for the citizenry, oh well.


----------



## Koios (Nov 12, 2012)

Oddball said:


> What remains is a shit bill that would have been a shit bill, no matter who passed and signed it.



Keep "thinking" that, if it works for ya.  Meanwhile ...

... I think you have a little something there: is that a koolaid stain?


----------



## francoHFW (Nov 12, 2012)

They'll be tinkering with ACA forever. Woe betide Pubs if they try to do away with it once it starts up in 2014 and people realize what liars Pubs are...

What happened to the national exchange they were so excited about, or tort reform? Totally FOS...


----------



## Rozman (Nov 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The government shoul just take the industry over completely, conscript doctors and give all forms of healthcare for free.



Then Government should take over the housing market.
Who better then Government to make these decisions.
Let Government own all forms of housing and then we can apply for
a place to live...

By the way when you look for that direct deposit of your paycheck into your checking account...Don't bother.You be given a book of government issued vouchers to be used for clothing,food,and transportation...

Good luck to us all...


----------



## Locke11_21 (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).
> 
> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



We will have to pass correcting the flaws before we find out what is in addressing fixing the flaws.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 12, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?



The ACA was never meant to be a final product. The key was laying a foundation on which to build and taking a somewhat scattershot approach, trying lots of different ideas at once. But implicit in the notion of trying lots of things or fostering different approaches is that you're going to evolve and learn from them.

Most of this happens in the states, so they're the ones with the primary responsibility for evaluating what is and isn't working and making the necessary course corrections. Some changes in the federal framework can be made without Congress, in places like the CMS Innovation Center or other pieces of the executive branch. But there may also be places where Congress will need to step in and act as we see what is and isn't working.

At the moment, it's not entirely clear the degree to which Congress is up to the challenge. For instance,  the ACA authorized grants for states to help them get to work retooling their tort laws. Like much of the rest of the law, the philosophy was that letting 50 flowers bloom would reveal the best paths forward (though the idea of tort reform grants was actually borrowed from Republican legislation). To date I don't believe the House has actually appropriated the funds to make those grants happen so no state tort laws have yet been impacted. So if they're not even willing to start the experiments where their actions are still needed--even in areas they ostensibly support, like tort reform--that doesn't bode well for the chances of them building on the successes and correcting the failures of other ongoing experiments.

It's going to be a pretty wild decade. But a fascinating one.


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Your claim was that it was not a problem.
> 
> The abstract is all one needs to see that it is. Patients in need of life saving immediate care were turned away.  That's a problem. And you claim it never  happened.
> 
> ...



Dear OPPD:
1. I have no problem with setting up means where people with emergency life-saving situations needed immediate resources. But if this is done through mandates, then just have the people who believe in and support those mandates to pay for it. And let others pay for other ways to provide help by the same respect for equal freedom to choose.

Especially if it is true that all the electoral/popular votes for Obama equate to support of ACA, then there should be plenty of the population who support this FREELY to pay for it. 
If you are saying that the other half who voted no to Obama "don't matter," then we shouldn't be required to pay for ACA to make it work either! You can't have it both ways. It's called "no taxation without representation." And if you are saying that too many of the half that voted yes can't pay their share THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BILL = DUH!!!

If the bill is so effective, it should be able to cover health care with the people participating voluntarily and freely.

2. for example, there are plenty of ministries and nonprofits doing spiritual healing outreach that have PROVEN these methods SAVE LIVES. People with inoperable cancer, with incureable schizophrenia, permanently cured with spiritual healing. And yet these methods are FREE. They ONLY work when they are voluntarily accepted by people to go through the steps, like AA does not work by compelling or forcing people. You can't force someone to forgive in order to heal, it only works by choosing by free will. Because these methods are so cost-effective, there is no issue with providing access to them freely and VOLUNTARILY. People NATURALLY give to support good solutions that work. So the same with the ACA bill.

3. Also, a more political example if that one is too religious or spiritual for you. People who believe in prolife support to "save lives" of babies and also of women who are suicidal after abortions or related abuses, are expected to FUND their solutions VOLUNTARILY -- not by mandates forcing "everyone to help pay for this." And these are very successful, based on voluntary donations and outreach. Without legislation mandating that people give to these groups that "save lives" there is plenty of charitable and voluntary support for these programs to provide services freely and to participate in them freely.

Please be consistent.

If you would not want to be forced by law to pay for a program you don't believe in, that other people can fund voluntarily who do, and if you would rather have equal freedom to fund a policy you do believe in, then grant others the same respect and freedom under law.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 14, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi OohPah:
> 1. I don't mean LEGALLY what is the difference.
> 
> I mean in consequence, if you are going to have your property seized because you disagree religiously about the limits of federal govt, how is that "NOT PUNISHING" you? For your BELIEFS? That you either believe you have the right to decide your own health care coverage, with or without insurance, or you believe these mandates are outside federal jurisdiction and belong to the states or to the people.



Its not punishing someone to take what they owe by law and give it to the party they owe it to. If you owed me $10,000 and I went to court to seize $10,000 in bank assets from you plus my legal expenses - that's not punishing you. 






> 2. Thanks for responding to this as one of the key questions I had.
> 
> Did the bill get amended to remove the religious exemption or is it still in effect:
> 
> ...



Alternative to what? You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like. 







> So if liberal advocates push NOT to punish either drug use or abortion as choices, then why punish the choice not to buy private insurance? That is even LESS harmful of a choice than drug use or abortion, so why jump on this and let the others go?


In your _opinion_ people shirking on their personal responsibility to buy health insurance is less harmful than abortion.  I've no duty to constrain my arguments to _your_ opinions.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear OPPD:
> 1. I have no problem with setting up means where people with emergency life-saving situations needed immediate resources. But if this is done through mandates, then just have the people who believe in and support those mandates to pay for it. And let others pay for other ways to provide help by the same respect for equal freedom to choose.
> 
> Especially if it is true that all the electoral/popular votes for Obama equate to support of ACA, then there should be plenty of the population who support this FREELY to pay for it.
> ...



Since OPPD is my new hero, hopefully he/she will not mind my butting in.

1. Me either; however, I have a huge problem with ignoring the basic healthcare needs of our People to the point that something minor escalates into an emergency situation, not only creating costs that are a multiple of basic care, but also making our People less healthy and thus less able to produce and contribute to the society.  Not to mention, it sucks to be unhealthy to the degree we need emergency care.  Everyone loses.

2. Many services, including faith-based, provide quite a lot of help. But that's because we as a society are not sufficiently meeting the health needs of our people.  And it's far from a solution, or even one we can bank on.  Thus, willy-nilly, let's hope some good samaritan(s) picks up the slack for us, is little more than being hugely irresponsible.  

3. I haven't the slightest idea of where you're headed with that diatribe.  WTF?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

Figures that an unhinged demagogue would be your new hero.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 14, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear OPPD:
> 1. I have no problem with setting up means where people with emergency life-saving situations needed immediate resources. But if this is done through mandates, then just have the people who believe in and support those mandates to pay for it. And let others pay for other ways to provide help by the same respect for equal freedom to choose.



Hey why don't we just let people pay whatever they want in taxes? I don't wanna pay any, gimme all of mine back please.

Jeez you're a silly little girl


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Figures that an unhinged demagogue would be your new hero.



Still, substance beats the heck out of empty rhetoric.  So there's that.

You feel me, my wigga?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.



Not true. You must buy government approved policies from government approved vendors.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.
> ...




You're free to buy any comprehensive plan offered.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi OohPah:
> ...



Are you really this dense? I don't think you are. I think you're full of shit and you're deliberating obfuscating the issues (which is how PPACA was passed in the first place, so I guess it's appropriate). You don't "owe" the money. It's not a debt for services rendered. It's a penalty levied to punish those who don't obey. Fuck you for lying again.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > You're free to buy from any health insurance provider you like.
> ...



That's a state-level deal and why voters elect insurance commissioners to watch our back and make sure the policies being offered are not snake oil.

Therein is why the Tea/Rep imbeciles are being played for suckers (child's play, really) and carrying the water for snake oil "insurance" lobbyists by saying that selling it across state lines is a good idea, which it isn't.  In fact, it's retarded and would allow the snake oil "insurance" selling folks to bypass our duly elected insurance commissioners.

Are you seeing?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Translation: You're free to "choose" from the "choices" presented to you by your corporate masters. 

You can have any color Mao jacket you want, as long as it's gray.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Your choices are constrained by whatever is available to choose from in every single facet of life. So by your logic not only do we not have freedom of choice - its not even physically possible to have it

Also, there is no law requiring the health care be provided by a corporation. Any partnership or sole proprietorship may also sell it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Hehe.. So, you're free to do as you're told or be punished? That's one fucked up conception of freedom.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Translation: You're free to "choose" from the "choices" presented to you by your corporate masters.
> 
> You can have any color Mao jacket you want, as long as it's gray.



Attaboy, Oddie.  When you cannot retort what was said, pretend they said something else.  That's the ticket!

Hey; I think you got a little something there: is that a koolaid stain?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Your choices are constrained by whatever is available to choose from in every single facet of life. So by your logic not only do we not have freedom of choice - its not even physically possible to have it.



You're (deliberately again, I assume) conflating existential freedom with political freedom. The question is whether we should use force of law to limit our choices further - whether people should be punished for making choices government doesn't approve of.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's not about freedom.  Indeed it's the opposite.

Consumer protection specifically limits the freedoms of the unscrupulous who would gladly take your money and leave you hanging when you got sick.

Thus our freedom to elect insurance commissioners to protect us from that.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)




----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

It's your freedom to be protected from the evil capitalists by electing a dunce to Dullard so you dont get dunderheaded.

Fucking brilliant, i tell ya.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


>



It's sort of funny. But also sort of creepy and depressing to realize how many people in this country think that way.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> It's your freedom to be protected from the evil capitalists by electing a dunce to Dullard so you dont get dunderheaded.
> 
> Fucking brilliant, i tell ya.



Ideally, no.  Do not elect a dunce, nor dunces (Teas/Reps)


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



This much we agree on.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Probably not.  If we did, you'd not have to quote me out-of-context.

Are you getting that?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page when it comes to freedom.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 14, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?
> ...



One of the things removed was the option to show financial responsibility in lieu of buying insurance.  Personally, I thought that was a good idea.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > amynation said:
> ...



lol


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Get used to it because he'll wear you out misquoting you, putting words in your mouth and ignoring what you actually write.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 14, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > There are PROBLEMS with the ACA?
> ...



It does not do anything to bring down costs.  It was a frigging scam and nothing more than a step towards full government control of the health insurance market.

Immie


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.

Is that the freedom you lament not having?  If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Correct; but merely at our option.  So full government control would only occur if government outperforms private insurance in the minds of consumers.  Kinduva freer market thingy.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Translation: You really don't have a choice...So sit down, STFU and take what you're given, peasant!


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



How do you get dressed in the morning?  Utterly astonishing.


----------



## Immanuel (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Wrong, full government control comes by force not efficiency.

Immie


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.
> 
> Is that the freedom you lament not having?  If not, then consider how liberating it is knowing that you're able to choose more freely between policies, not having to worry that some or all might be junk.



This is worth discussing. My conception of freedom includes the right to buy whatever someone else is willing to sell me. As long as no one else is harmed in the exchange, it's no one else's business. 

In this case, that's the freedom I lament not having. And it's a freedom that fans of the regulatory state are loathe to recognize. You like to think that regulations merely constrain the providers of goods and services, but it's a two way street. Regulations that dictate what people are allowed to sell dictate what people are allowed to buy.

The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry. And it's not really freedom at all, it's the opposite. Real freedom to choose always implies the possibility that you may choose poorly, and suffer the consequences. The "freedom" to blunder through life with no accountability for the choices you make (because they were all made for you and you were just following orders) is no kind of freedom worth having.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


I certainly do it without a gubmint bureaucrat picking out my wardrobe for me, comrade.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.
> ...



Ask Samuel Gorton, Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson regarding freedom. There fight was a bit different, but ultimately, it is the same thing.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> The 'freedom' touted by statists is of the sort you highlight here: freedom from worry.


Worth isolating and expounding upon.

"Freedom" as expressed by the framers is a value of acquisition or a "moving toward" value, if  you will.

The only "freedom from" (or "moving away" value) that was recognized as legitimate was the freedom from aggressive antisocial individuals who would seek to abuse their freedom, by maliciously harming another person or their property.

Today, it's these very malicious antisocial people are the ones who've seized power, using the "freedom from" meme to consolidate their power over the populace, whom they view as mere chattel property.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.
> ...



Fair enough.  But it could potentially harm me, *my greatest fear*.  Here's how:

Let's say you shelve your critical-thinking cap, and pretend you're god's gift to Contract Law while skimming over the myriad small print.  Then oops, you, accidentally, buy a shit policy from some asshole who's now spending your cash in the Caymans.  You're fucked.

And maybe me, too. (my fear)  You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, *on my friggin' nickel* (my utter terror!)since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Fair enough.  But it could potentially harm me, *my greatest fear*.  Here's how:
> 
> Let's say you shelve your critical-thinking cap, and pretend you're god's gift to Contract Law while skimming over the myriad small print.  Then oops, you, accidentally, buy a shit policy from some asshole who's now spending your cash in the Caymans.  You're fucked.
> 
> And maybe me, too. (my fear)  You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PULIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, *on my friggin' nickel* (my utter terror!)since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.



Your fears, and subsequent mythical paranoid scare story scenarios spawned by them, are your problem, comrade.

You don't want to get ripped off by Medicare, then it makes much better sense to junk it rather than insist that everyone else risk getting ripped off too.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 14, 2012)

Increases insurance company options and since they will have to compete, lowers our costs. Same with drugs. 

This is exactly why the pubpots are still fighting ACA. They work for big business.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough.  But it could potentially harm me, *my greatest fear*.  Here's how:
> ...



Seriously now.  Not kidding this time.  Were you dropped as a child?  Do you fall down a lot?  WTF?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Increases insurance company options and since they will have to compete, lowers our costs. Same with drugs.
> 
> This is exactly why the pubpots are still fighting ACA. They work for big business.



I don't. In fact, the worst aspect of ACA is that it is a ploy by the insurance industry to maintain their dominance. They're peddling a dysfunctional product and don't want to make the radical changes required. So, they've turned to government to maintain their privileged position. It's a tale as old as government.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough.  But it could potentially harm me, *my greatest fear*.  Here's how:
> ...



As with all the other "isms" you uneducated ignorant fools toss around while not have a clue to their true meaning, why don't you PROVE that this poster is a Communist or SHIT THE FUCK UP.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


You're to economically illiterate and puerile to be serious, or even be taken seriously.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > We might be, unless your definition of freedom is being allowed to sell snake oil "insurance" policies and bilk the unsuspecting in your state, free from Insurance Commission oversights and regulation.
> ...



Kidding / wild senarios aside, it's a simple as this: *They are not free to harm you*.  And rather than clogging up our civil courts or criminal justice system with myriad actions going after folks who ARE NOT FREE TO HARM YOU, we do a bit of crime prevention:  make sure the policies being sold in your state do not harm you, in violation of YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Banner day.  I think I'll pour myself a glass.

Thanks so much.  Ignore me to your heart's content.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Increases insurance company options and since they will have to compete, lowers our costs. Same with drugs.
> 
> This is exactly why the pubpots are still fighting ACA. They work for big business.


Right...The same way that Medicare "competes" with...?

Oh yeah....


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> And maybe me, too. (my fear)  You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, *on my friggin' nickel* (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.



It's sort of ironic how often the liberal position comes down to this (traditionally) "stingy conservative" motif. If your main concern is that freeloaders will get benes on your nickel, then fight that fight! If you want to propose legislation that eliminates Medicare/Medicaid or gets rid of EMTALA, go for it! 

Instead, what you're arguing for here is government that legislates on what we "might" do - effectively punishing us in advance for something we haven't done yet. I am in full agreement that people should be held accountable for their decisions. But they should be free to make those decisions, even if you or I think they are in err.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Policies sold in a state should be left to the state to handle. Why are you advocating otherwise? Plus, it is the JOB of our government to uphold the constitution and protect our rights. That is their business. Not picking winners and losers, paying for everyones toilet brush and the plethora of other responsibilities the government has told simpletons like you they should handle because you're too fucking stupid to do it yourself.....oh, wait. I think we've figured out why he's so in favor of a little protection at the expense of freedom.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > And maybe me, too. (my fear)  You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, *on my friggin' nickel* (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.
> ...


Careful...You're perilously close to getting accused of being dropped on your head!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > And maybe me, too. (my fear)  You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, *on my friggin' nickel* (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.
> ...



For Samuel Gorton, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, the idea of being punished for something you might do would probably sound a lot like being punished because of your belief...or thinking out loud.

It's the same thing really. Not much has changed in ~400 years.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > And maybe me, too. (my fear)  You're now sick as hell, lost your job, infected others and fall down, unconscious, in the middle of OUR PUBLIC SIDEWALK, thus AT GREAT PUBLIC EXPENSE you're whisked off to emergency care, *on my friggin' nickel* (my utter terror!) since I pay into Medicare/Medicaid and have never once had my bill(s) paid by those agencies.
> ...



In re: para 1: If you cannot stay in the game, I'd suggest you get out.  My position came done to nothing of the sort.

And in re: para 2, no.  No one is being punished for something they haven't done yet.  That's a cheesy movie with Tom Cruise, and a fiction.  We have no pre-crime.  What we do is punish those whose policies are deemed unworthy, and not up to the standards of our state, as approved by the voters in our state.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Policies sold in a state should be left to the state to handle. Why are you advocating otherwise? Plus, it is the JOB of our government to uphold the constitution and protect our rights. That is their business. Not picking winners and losers, paying for everyones toilet brush and the plethora of other responsibilities the government has told simpletons like you they should handle because you're too fucking stupid to do it yourself.....oh, wait. I think we've figured out why he's so in favor of a little protection at the expense of freedom.



I'm not.  Take a step back, and re-read what I've posted. That might help.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> In re: para 1: If you cannot stay in the game, I'd suggest you get out.  My position came done to nothing of the sort.



What???



> And in re: para 2, no.  No one is being punished for something they haven't done yet.  That's a cheesy movie with Tom Cruise, and a fiction.  We have no pre-crime.  What we do is punish those whose policies are deemed unworthy, and not up to the standards of our state, as approved by the voters in our state.



Exactly. We're not punishing people for harming others. We're punishing them for not doing as they are told.

The usually excuse for this is that, in the opinion of the state, their actions _might_ cause harm to others - which is why I made the leap to the state 'punishing people for what they haven't done yet'. If, your view, they are simply being punished for being deemed 'unworthy' by the state, then will go with that. Even more despicable, in my view.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Alright, this is getting very "paul Krugman" like. I guess i best be off...


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > In re: para 1: If you cannot stay in the game, I'd suggest you get out.  My position came done to nothing of the sort.
> ...



Correct; they're being told: *do not harm the people of our state.*


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.

It never ends. Never.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Ahh... but they're not. If that were the case, damages would need to be cited and proven in court. The regulatory regime makes assumptions about business practices and policies that _might_ lead to harm (or, more commonly, are merely inconvenient to the state's agenda) and punishes companies for stepping out of line. 

This is usually supported by the vested interests in an industry (the last thing they want is competitors innovating) which is why we've been saddled with so much of this crap in the first place. It's the reason PPACA took the form it did.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.
> 
> It never ends. Never.


Being a progressive/socialist is the most gutless and cowardly choice you can make.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If "they" are not, vote for an Insurance Commissioner who supports what you want.  If most in your state agree, you're in.  If not, you have 49 other states to choose from; or 50 states to choose from, if you're in DC.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.
> 
> It never ends. Never.



Love is an over-statement. But yeah; a little protection from harm trumps no protections.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.
> ...



I wonder if these types actually see why though. I mean, in cases like this we can't make it any more clear how pitiful they sound with their whining and groveling to the king regarding a piece of fruit and a few shillings. Then complain their aren't enough tithers around. 

I wonder if their were so many groveling whiners in colonial times....


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



No. I'm rejecting the requirement that I need permission from a 'Commissioner' to purchase insurance. Or that said Commissioner have the power to compel me to buy insurance I don't want. This is not freedom at all. This is corporatist fascism and I want no part of it.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Cool.  Reject away, and hope a majority agree.  That's the essence of your freedom.

My freedom is to not have it rejected by the will of one: You.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > And you LOOOOVE it. A little protection from harm, a bit of payment to your overlords and you are a happy serf. But your groveling never ends. Once you secure one more protection from freedom, you then find something else threatening uyou "safety" with which you must petition the government for safety/protection.
> ...



Right. You're without any doubt petrified of freedom. You want protection in all areas. Of all kinds and you'll give up a lot, including your abilityt o choose to get it. The founders would have probably had you sent back to England. Or maybe hanged.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


The thing I find positively jaw-dropping is that the grovelers and snivelers try to portray themselves as the smartest people in the room, no matter which room that may be.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



I'd encourage you to doubt that which is wrong.  We call that "critical thinking."

Try it; you may like it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Cool.  Reject away, and hope a majority agree.  That's the essence of your freedom.



No, that's the essence of majoritarianism. The whole idea of constitutionally limited government is that it protects our freedom even when the majority disagrees.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Cool.  Reject away, and hope a majority agree.  That's the essence of your freedom.
> ...



Then amend your state's constitution, with the help of the majority.

And while indeed our bi-cameral lege protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority -- THE PEOPLE protect us from the tyranny of a minority.  Check it out.  If you cannot read Cleisthenes in Greek, or Marcus Tullius Cicero in native Latin, as Adams and Jefferson could and did, try just reading _John Adams_, by David McCollough, in good old Yankee English.  Easy, enjoyable, and enlightening.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


You wouldn't know a critical thought if it kicked you in the head.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Then amend your state's constitution, with the help of the majority.



You don't seem to be grasping this concept, or maybe you just don't want do acknowledge it. If your conception of freedom is (as it seems) that it is always subordinate to the will of the majority, then we are never going to agree. There's more to political life than might makes right.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Then amend your state's constitution, with the help of the majority.
> ...



Thankfully.  I did when I was younger and less informed.  But now that I'm older and better informed I have indeed rejected such concepts, since they're in conflict with the laws of this land and the freedoms the Framers intended.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)




----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Shit; I was premature in pouring myself a glass, it seems.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


\
Wow...Wat a staggeringly concise and critical thought-packed post!


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



What do you mean? Just to be clear, are you rejecting individual liberty when it conflicts with the will of the majority? That's a pretty radical position, but I appreciate the honesty, if nothing else.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I mean you're wrong.  So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it, via the Amendment Process.  Call me a radical, if that works for you.  Adams and Jefferson were, and I like how it turned out.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...


And thugs like this have the nerve to call libertarians anarchists!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Have a drink for me too, Koios.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> I mean you're wrong.  So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it, via the Amendment Process.  Call me a radical, if that works for you.  Adams and Jefferson were, and I like how it turned out.



What am I wrong about? What about my interpretation of individual liberty are you rejecting? The proposition that it should be protected from the will of the majority?


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Have a drink for me too, Koios.



Okie doke.  What's your preferred?  I have a $1200 bottle of Cognac (Cordon Bleu Centenary) that's got about half left in it, which I drink to celebrate.  Is this a worthy occassion?


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > I mean you're wrong.  So to be clear, I'm rejecting your interpretation of individual liberty, until such time as it's the overwhelming majority that wishes to change it, via the Amendment Process.  Call me a radical, if that works for you.  Adams and Jefferson were, and I like how it turned out.
> ...



That what you believe freedom is defines our liberties.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



I'm not at all clear on what you're saying. What about my beliefs are you opposed to? Do you think individual liberty should protected from the will of the majority?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Have a drink for me too, Koios.
> ...



Sure, I'll have a half glass of Miller High Life, thanks.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


He believes that the only "freedom" you have comes by way of the rule of the mob, and not by your inherent natural right to control your own life and destiny.

His is the exact despotic mindset that repulsed the framers.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I think blue is the best color, as long as it's the right blue and not too blue. (insert freedom or liberty in place of blue and it still works ... subjective as all get out)

Now then, back in America: once was a time we were ruled by Kings and/or Gods.  That was rejected in lieu of a republican (small r) self-governance experiment.  More specifically, we are ruled *by laws*, which were chosen by a VERY few, who thought their ideas were so correct that changing them requires a rather significant super-majority, I'll call a super-duper-majority for sake of argument.

But not all freedoms they deemed right for us proved as correct as they thought. So some freedoms have been removed:

1. We're no longer free to own slaves
2. We're no longer free to treat our wives as chattle and vote for them

Others, too, have been eliminated, oft to the chagrin of those who thought their freedoms trumped the will of the majority, which as it turned out, the vast majority did decide to change, and could, and did.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Vague drinking poster is vague and drinking. Not incoherent, but relatively free of any point and mostly wrong about history.

it happens!


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Vague drinking poster is vague and drinking. Not incoherent, but relatively free of any point and mostly wrong about history.
> 
> it happens!



Don't beat yourself up, pal.  I knew it was over your head when I wrote it.

But I'm holding out hope the guy I was in fact replying to is not quite as daft.  Fingers crossed.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



I would hope you'd agree that laws banning slavery and spousal abuse are protecting individual freedom - not limiting it. Liberty doesn't claim the right to harm others. It claims the right to do as we please as long as it we don't violate the same right of others. So I'm not sure what you were getting at with your examples.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Glad you went there. 

Indeed.  But hear me out.  Philosophical thinking on one's Freedom/Liberty versus another, was not even a factor beyond its effect on majority beliefs.  No Supreme Court ruling corrected the "wrong." (in quotes since it too is subjective.)

We had to change the laws.  Amendments to the Constitution made the change, in our defined, and thus (mostly) unambiguous, Freedoms and Liberties.  And it was a super-duper-majority that was needed to make the change ... and not just you or me having our own thoughts on what Liberty v. Tyranny is or is not.

We're a land ruled by laws.  Fact.

Among them is the right for folks to believe in Tea Party ideals, Libertarianism, or whatever, which is defined in OUR LAWS.  But as long as they (or you) are a tiny minority, you haven't the power to change laws to your wishes.  But your right to believe what you will and speak out on it cannot change, except by a super-duper-majority eliminating the First Amendment. (nothing I advocate)


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Indeed.  But hear me out.  Philosophical thinking on one's Freedom/Liberty versus another, was not even a factor beyond its effect on majority beliefs.  No Supreme Court ruling corrected the "wrong." (in quotes since it too is subjective.)
> 
> We had to change the laws.  Amendments to the Constitution made the change, in our defined, and thus (mostly) unambiguous, Freedoms and Liberties.  And it was a super-duper-majority that was needed to make the change ... and not just you or me having our own thoughts on what Liberty v. Tyranny is or is not.
> 
> ...



So this still isn't very clear to me. It seems like what you're saying is that our rights are determined by majority rule. And that's what I'm rejecting. Outside of amending the Constitution, the government is limited in what it can compel us to do - _regardless of whether it enjoys the support of the majority or not_. When the 'super-duper-majority' agrees, we _can_ create new powers for government - but that is deliberately an onerous process.

In any case, we're not talking about amending the Constitution. We're talking about it's role limiting the power of government, implicitly limiting the power of the majority, to impose it's will on the minority.

Let's back up a couple of steps and let me ask you this. In general, how do you think the power of government should be limited? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long as the majority supports it? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long is it doesn't violate certain enumerated rights? Or should it be constrained to only specific functions spelled out in the Constitution?


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed.  But hear me out.  Philosophical thinking on one's Freedom/Liberty versus another, was not even a factor beyond its effect on majority beliefs.  No Supreme Court ruling corrected the "wrong." (in quotes since it too is subjective.)
> ...



No. Our rights were determined by a tiny few (Framers) and established in law.  Then they can be changed by a super-duper-majority, once ratified by 3/4s of the states.

As for limits on the government (state and federal), within the confines of the law, they created a High Court ... aka our Supreme Court, which was orginially thought to be populated by persons of unquestioned integrity and stature.  None had to be an attorney even, and non attorneys have been SCJs.  But today, a great legal mind, and sadly more so these days, a consistent record on past rulings to be more sure of how they'll rule in the future, seems to be who populates the Court.  Not ideal, but indeed within the democratic process set forth, subject to a majority vote as well.

And as imperfect as that might be, it's *exactly how I believe the power of government should be limited*: Let our representatives, as decided by a majority of the voters, do whatever they believe advances the general welfare, insofar as the Supreme Court does not rule (by majority) it unconstitutional.

Even DOMA, which I loathe, is law, in America.  That I accept, but anxiously await the majority to demand that the majority-enacted tyranny on a minority, be overturned, either by a majority of SCJs or our elected representatives.

If that is not clear, I cannot help you further.  Sorry.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> As for limits on the government (state and federal), within the confines of the law, they created a High Court ... aka our Supreme Court, which was orginially thought to be populated by persons of unquestioned integrity and stature.  None had to be an attorney even, and non attorneys have been SCJs.  But today, a great legal mind, and sadly more so these days, a consistent record on past rulings to be more sure of how they'll rule in the future, seems to be who populates the Court.  Not ideal, but indeed within the democratic process set forth, subject to a majority vote as well.
> 
> And as imperfect as that might be, it's *exactly how I believe the power of government should be limited*: Let our representatives, as decided by a majority of the voters, do whatever they believe advances the general welfare, insofar as the Supreme Court does not rule (by majority) it unconstitutional.
> 
> If that is not clear, I cannot help you further.  Sorry.



Maybe that means you are done talking about it, but just in case ...

Maybe I wasn't clear myself, but I wasn't asking for the technical process of how government power is limited, but rather what rules and principles that the Court applies in deciding whether a law is unconstitutional or not. I'm trying to get a sense for what you think is the proper role of majority rule - how and when it should be limited. I've asked you some pretty direct questions to that end:



> In general, how do you think the power of government should be limited? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long as the majority supports it? Should it be able to do whatever it wants as long is it doesn't violate certain enumerated rights? Or should it be constrained to only specific functions spelled out in the Constitution?



These questions are central to political discussion. If we can't find consensus there, there's not much to go forward with. So it seems a good place to start.

EDIT: 

This point might actually get closer to a real discussion: 



> Even DOMA, which I loathe, is law, in America.  That I accept, but anxiously await the majority to demand that the majority-enacted tyranny on a minority, be overturned, either by a majority of SCJs or our elected representatives.



In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > As for limits on the government (state and federal), within the confines of the law, they created a High Court ... aka our Supreme Court, which was orginially thought to be populated by persons of unquestioned integrity and stature.  None had to be an attorney even, and non attorneys have been SCJs.  But today, a great legal mind, and sadly more so these days, a consistent record on past rulings to be more sure of how they'll rule in the future, seems to be who populates the Court.  Not ideal, but indeed within the democratic process set forth, subject to a majority vote as well.
> ...



Perhaps, but obviously not.

And we are discussing it, even if it does not go in the direction you wish, which I'll speculate trends toward the Libertarian Postulate:

_Concoct a theory on how stuff you don't want to pay for should not be, since the theory purports it to be unconstitutional or only a state's right.  Fine.  *But I disagree*._

Moreover, it's wrong. We have a process in place which governs it.  If it's happening, and no ruling has barred it on constitutional grounds, it is what it is: An American policy and law of our land. Period.

Nor do I wish it to change,_ it _being the process.  I happen to believe that the American form of government is the best mankind has yet created.  Call me America-centric, since I am ... no disrespect to folks in Central America who think Simon Bolivar worthy of sainthood, nor Chinese who adore Chairman Mao's memory.  We all have our heros, and mine are the Founding Fathers, even if they marginalized Blacks and Women ... since they also gave us the power to amend those shortcomings.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

Empasis added:


> In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?



On the grounds that it legislates unequal treatment under law of a minority, LBGT Americans.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> ...
> And we are discussing it, even if it does not go in the direction you wish, which I'll speculate trends toward the Libertarian Postulate:
> 
> _Concoct a theory on how stuff you don't want to pay for should not be, since the theory purports it to be unconstitutional or only a state's right.  Fine.  *But I disagree*._
> ...



??? Sorry. I'm not getting anything coherent out of this. Can you rephrase?


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



No.  You'll have to come up to my level, or let it go.  Sorry.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Empasis added:
> 
> 
> > In your view, what justification would the SC have for overturning DOMA?
> ...



And how would that be unconstitutional?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> No.  You'll have to come up to my level, or let it go.  Sorry.



C'mon. I've tried to be nice, but you're really not making much sense here. Just kind of rambling. I suspect you can do better.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Empasis added:
> ...



It (the Con) *requires* equal treatment under law.  It's the so-called "Equal Treatment Clause."


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > No.  You'll have to come up to my level, or let it go.  Sorry.
> ...



Cheesy "I don't get it" tactics are not nice.  They're lame.  And I'm not so daft as to fall for such folly.

Respond or don't.  But do not lamely attempt to diminish the merits of what I'm saying by claiming it to be non-understandable.  It's English, except for "Bolivar" and "Mao," which you can google (verb) if you're confused.

Okie doke?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Cheesy "I don't get it" tactics are not nice.  They're lame.  And I'm not so daft as to fall for such folly.
> 
> Respond or don't.  But do not lamely attempt to diminish the merits of what I'm saying by claiming it to be non-understandable.  It's English, except for "Bolivar" and "Mao," which you can google (verb) if you're confused.
> 
> Okie doke?



Sure. I'm not attempting any 'tactics' or aiming to diminish anything. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I'm particularly interested in the issue of unlimited majority rule, and it's still not clear to me what your view on that is. Frankly, you seem to be avoiding answering direct questions on the issue. Again, if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



So then you can agree that laws can be unconstitutional and yet remain. The can remain, and they can also be formed. Which leads the document to be of no merit in the first place. It's simply a system for people to go through arbitrary motion in. It is not a true protection of inalienable rights. As they can be removed or infringed upon in a legislative and decision process.

Back to the original point with this in mind, it is the same thing here with requiring people to act or be penalized on something they may do later on. Which some would say is unconstitutional. The courts however, decided it was, based on tax law though. Forever squelching the idea that congress doesn't have the authority through the commerce clause to mandate participation in said commerce on any level. At least it will "forever" remain until a new mind challenges this and it is changed. Maybe. Doubtful.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Sure. I'm not attempting any 'tactics' or trying to diminish anything. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from. I'm particularly interested in the issue of unlimited majority rule, and it's still not clear to me what your view on that is. Frankly, you seem to be avoiding answering direct questions on the issue. Again, if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine.



Read it and let me know which words or phrases are over your head.  I'd be happy to clue you in.  And you needn't call me Sensei or anything ... which in Japanese generally means "teacher," since folks born previous to us are our elders and assumed wiser.

Or did you already know that word?


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No.  If they're unconstitutional (ruled thus) then they never remain.

Do I think we can all have our theories on it and yell it from mountain tops?  Sure.  I think 1A covers that, and has been ruled a right, time and time again.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 14, 2012)

dblack said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Empasis added:
> ...



Where, in YOUR constitution, does it say 'everyone is equal except gays'? (Or women, blacks, Hispanics, etc)


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



Dear Luddly: It goes both ways. Marriage laws must either be agreed upon by everyone within that jurisdiction, or else remain PRIVATE through the churches, where everyone has equal religious freedom under the Constitution. That would be equal protection.

Civil unions or contracts through the State can be done without discriminating.

Marriage in terms of a spiritual or religious institution cannot be mandated or regulated one way or another by the State, the people can decide on a policy and have the state reflect that policy they agree to give authority to the state to administer over. But not vice versa. Technically it would be equally unconstitutional for the state to impose a policy either for or against including same-sex relationships as long as part of the population affected dissents.
Otherwise it is infringing on those people's religious beliefs, and should be kept private.

NOTE: gay relationships are NOT the same as race or gender. Some gay people are born that way, that's true, and their orientation may be natural to them and remain for life; but there are cases where people who were healed of abuse CHANGED and no longer have the same sexual attractions as before, whether homosexual or heterosexual, if these were NOT natural to them but reactions to the abuse and not permanent. I have NEVER heard of people changing race or gender "naturally" after they were healed of past abuse, but I am aware there are many people attesting to changing their orientation after healing.

If you do not believe in discrimination, then groups that support gay lesbian transgender and bisexual/transgender also should EMBRACE and not reject former members who become heterosexual, claiming they are lying and were never really gay to begin with!


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Wrong.  It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines.  So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it.  DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC.  Time will tell.

And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.


----------



## Annie (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



I'm confused. Are you now arguing for civil contracts?


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Wrong.  It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines.  So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it.  DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC.  Time will tell.
> 
> And I summarily reject the notion of civil unions, which is merely designed to create a visceral sense that Gay Marriages are less meaningful / respected than Straight Marriages.



The first step, then is to resolve the issue over the term "marriage"
If the point IS to impose religious views and status then that authority does not belong with the state, unless the people consent.

And with civil unions, if ALL people get this through the state, and reserve marriage for their respective churches, then all civil unions can be respected equally, and all marriages through churches of people's choices are up to them to respect by their own beliefs.

So if people cannot agree on marriage through the state, then ALL people should granted civil unions or contracts so at least it is fair. It is not the state's job to sanctify if someone's spiritual relation in marriage is this or that, it is only to oversee contracts affecting civil matters, not spiritual standing in the eyes of others which is a personal religious issue, not something the govt can decide for us.


----------



## Koios (Nov 14, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  It's a contract, entered into voluntarily by both parties that remains in force across state lines.  So if one state allows it, all states must regonize it.  DOMA was put in place to prevent that, albeit, I think it'll likely be thrown out once challenged before the SC.  Time will tell.
> ...



Nah; marriage is fine.  We all know what it is.  We just need to make it more inclusive of same-sex partners.  Easy.  No convoluted nonsense needed.

Cool, yeah?


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 14, 2012)

Koios said:


> Nah; marriage is fine.  We all know what it is.  We just need to make it more inclusive of same-sex partners.  Easy.  No convoluted nonsense needed.
> 
> Cool, yeah?



Sure, if people agree. If not, it isn't any more fair or constitutional to use the govt to endorse a policy that others disagree with religiously, whether the issue is to include or exclude same sex partners. If the problem could be solved by just having govt issue civil unions and contracts to everyone, then offer that. If people really want to have marriage under the state, I AGREE that it should be equal access and opportunity; but they also have the option of removing it completely out of state jursidiction and reserve to the churches.


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



It doesn't. it also doesn't say anything about the federal government's power to regulate marriage.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 14, 2012)

Annie said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



That's all that marriage is. A civil contract.

Its true that some choose to add a religious aspect to it but legally, the various religions have nothing to do with marriage.


----------



## Annie (Nov 14, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



No argument here.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 14, 2012)

Immanuel said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > So let's revisit the idea of a public option.
> ...



Not exactly. Insurers in many markets tend to be reluctant to use their market clout to push back against what might be called extortive price increases from large provider organizations. Sometimes they need an external forcing. Two years ago, for instance, Massachusetts provided one in a somewhat heavy-handed regulatory fashion. A robust public option, on the other hand, would've provided a similar impetus via competitive pressures.



TakeAStepBack said:


> Policies sold in a state should be left to the state to handle. Why are you advocating otherwise?



The general conservative consensus, as far as I can tell, is exactly the opposite. At least the segment that continues to push their variant of an "across state lines" proposal for individual market insurance policies.


----------

