It's almost June - countdown to the Supreme Court decision on ACA

[JoeB131]

That's a specious argument. The average lifespan in 1940 was 62.9 years. In 2010, it was 78.7.

The improvement doesn't have as much to do with insurance and access as it does with improvements in medical science and those improvements came about because of the free market.

Exactly. Improvements that cost money. That's why health care has become more expensive, because they can actually do more now than just watch you die if you have cancer or a heart problem.

If you had a major heart attack in 1940, you could kiss your ass goodbye. Today, we can give you an IV clot buster or do a cardiac cath and save you. If you had cancer in 1940, you were screwed. Today, we have much better surgical techniques, chemotherapies, and radiation treatment.

And those things cost.. money! Exactly. WHich is why health care is more expensive now, not because of anything the government did... other than actually paying for it when private insurance won't. You are just soooooo close to finally getting it...

If you like socialized medicine so much, you might recall that Russia had socialized medicine, but when Boris Yeltsin had his heart attack in 1996, needed bypass surgery and was told by his Russian doctors that he probably wouldn't survive it, it was an American cardiologist, Dr. Michael DeBakey, that went to Moscow and saved his ass.

I think that's sort of retarded, and this is where your argument fails.

EVERYONE has socialized medicine. In any given year, you are either paying for someone else's health care (through Medicare, Medicaid, contributions to your employers insurance or payments to your insurance) or you are collecting money other people are paying it.

It's... all... socialist.

A true "Free Market" would have the rich living very, the poor dying very quickly, and the middle class beoming poor as a result of medical problems.

Which, of course, is why 62% of bankruptcies are linked to a medical crisis, and 75% of those folks had insurance when the crisis started.

 

[Amelia]

You can spin it however you want, Clayton.

If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional, and you guys trying to cling to it don't get to dictate the terms of its end. That's the long and the short of it.



Shoulda tried harder to get something which would pass constitutional muster in the first place.


Well, actually, shoulda had a decent set of priorities and worked on policies which would help more people have jobs so that more could afford healthcare. Made sure the stimulus was used optimally. Made sure the mortgage help programs were working. Put your capital where your mouth was on infrastructure. Little things like that.



It's all academic now. Obama had an opportunity to help strengthen the nation and he squandered it. Hopefully the ACA will be gone in June. And hopefully the people who played fast and loose with the constitution will be gone soon too.

So you're in favor of us responsible citizens, who have health insurance, to pay for the freeloaders who wind up in emergency rooms. Are you a socialist?

What she's in favor of is Obama losing.

I don't think she has much of an idealogy beyond that.

Haha. I just refuse to place comfort over respecting the constitution.

When Santorum looked like he had a shot at the nomination, I thought about jumping ship.

But every time I started warming up to the possibility that following the trajectory Obama has put us on made more sense than lurching to the right with someone like Santorum, I kept coming back to how Obama has flouted the Constitution.

That's the bottom line for me in this race.



Obama had a chance to bring this nation together. He had a chance to keep the independents on his side and even win over some moderate Republicans who would have at least grudgingly said he hasn't done so bad considering everything on his plate. I would have been one of those Republicans.

But he screwed up.




So, yes, I'm in favor of Obama losing. Because of his record. Because of how he let his ego and poor priorities squander precious resources in his first year and put us further in debt for very little gain, especially when that gain could have been so much more had he had good priorities. And because of his assaults on the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong! What drove up the cost of health care is all of the government bureaucracy and internal bureaucracy of the providers themselves that we have. It costs time and money to deal with all of the unnecessary and overly complicated paperwork, policies, and procedures that serve no practical real world function to provide and deliver health care.

You can actually thank the graduate degree colleges for a great deal of it. They created and trained the bureaucratic mindset that constantly tries to reinvent the wheel in order to justify their masters and doctoral degrees.

What our health care system needs is a massive infusion of plain old common sense and practicality.

Did you even try to comprehend the argument I made?

You made the argument that everything was fine with health care until 1940, forgetting the fact that most people didn't make it into their 50's in those oldy days, so, no, things were not fine or anywhere near fine.

If your argument is that there is too much bureaucracy and paperwork, then, gee, guy, you should support a single payer Canadian style system. But in your bizarro world view, the real problem is that we are taking care of the unworthy, I guess. them "college types" messed it up.

The real problem with the expense of health care is that Ed Hanaway, the former president of Cigna, got 78 million dollars when he retired. This was the same asshole who fought tooth and nail against a 17 year old girl getting a liver transplant because it was too expensive, even though her father had insurance with them.

That's a specious argument. The average lifespan in 1940 was 62.9 years. In 2010, it was 78.7.

The improvement doesn't have as much to do with insurance and access as it does with improvements in medical science and those improvements came about because of the free market.

If you had a major heart attack in 1940, you could kiss your ass goodbye. Today, we can give you an IV clot buster or do a cardiac cath and save you. If you had cancer in 1940, you were screwed. Today, we have much better surgical techniques, chemotherapies, and radiation treatment.

If you like socialized medicine so much, you might recall that Russia had socialized medicine, but when Boris Yeltsin had his heart attack in 1996, needed bypass surgery and was told by his Russian doctors that he probably wouldn't survive it, it was an American cardiologist, Dr. Michael DeBakey, that went to Moscow and saved his ass.

Because DeBakey was one of the leading cariologists in the world, is why. No one questions the quality of American health care, only its accessibility and affordability.

 

[JoeB131]

[



Haha. I just refuse to place comfort over respecting the constitution.

.

We arent' talking about "comfort" here, we are talking about people's LIVES.

Which I thought Republicans cared about, being "pro-Life" and all, but I guess not.

By your logic, a complete Federal Single Payer system would be completely constitutional. But somehow, I don't think that you'd go for that, either.

So Obama goes ahead and adopts the "Free Market" solution the right has been talking about for decades, but then they decide it was "uncosntitional" because they supported it UTBGDI!

 

[MeBelle]

Asinine assumptions on your part, since you have no clue as to how ethically and morally my facility is run.

Correct, I have no idea about how much or how little clout you have with your "facility". I do have ample evidence that you're a hack pea brain, who'd turn off your logic for political expediency. I doubt that you'll cast your vote to hire someone who agrees that Obamacare is really a cost saving, like the CBO.

Definition: "I have no game and resort to insults and partisanship I accuse others of. I do not have the ability to respond to direct questions."

 

[IndependntLogic]

But that’s not the case, opposition to the ACA is partisan, not Constitutional. Because this is a political, not legal, issue, it is indeed incumbent upon opponents of the ACA to at least have a ‘replacement plan’ to propose.
No, it doesn’t, one is not ‘forced’ to do anything. If you’re going to participate in the debate do so in the context of knowledge, not ignorance.

You can spin it however you want, Clayton.
If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional, and you guys trying to cling to it don't get to dictate the terms of its end. That's the long and the short of it.
Shoulda tried harder to get something which would pass constitutional muster in the first place.
Well, actually, shoulda had a decent set of priorities and worked on policies which would help more people have jobs so that more could afford healthcare. Made sure the stimulus was used optimally. Made sure the mortgage help programs were working. Put your capital where your mouth was on infrastructure. Little things like that.
It's all academic now. Obama had an opportunity to help strengthen the nation and he squandered it. Hopefully the ACA will be gone in June. And hopefully the people who played fast and loose with the constitution will be gone soon too.

So you're in favor of us responsible citizens, who have health insurance, to pay for the freeloaders who wind up in emergency rooms. Are you a socialist?

I own a small business. Obviously, I'm not a Socialist. For purely economic reasons, I am 100% in favor of a public option. I had it in the military. Not one officer I know bought private and certainly none of the enlisted did. I had when I lived in Canada, Mexico and The Ukraine. I would rather live here than any country in the world but what does it say when even those countries have better systems than we do?
I love that 100% of the people in Congress who tell you that you should not have to suffer through the torment of government provided insurance / health care, ALL have it themselves. Great salesmen, aren't they?

 

[Salt Jones]

I hope the entire thing is thrown out. It will be a political boon for the liberals. And republicans will have to agree to reenact the popular provisions in Congress. It brings out the dem base and puts the repubs on the defensive.

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

As I said:

If the Supreme Court overturns part or all of President Obama’s health care law, House Republicans will find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They will be implicitly responsible not just for the demise of the individual insurance mandate and other unpopular parts of the Affordable Care Act, but also its popular provisions and the return of some of the insurance industry’s harshest practices, like discriminating against people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Recent reporting by both the New York Times and Politico suggests the GOP congressional leadership might try to mitigate the political liabilities of HCR being overturned by introducing piecemeal legislation to reinstitute popular pieces of the law — provisions banning discrimination, and allowing children to be covered by their parents’ health benefits until they’re 26. But that creates a host of new practical and political problems for the GOP.

The biggest practical problem is that many of the popular provisions of the law are only affordable and effective in conjunction with the unpopular provisions. That leaves Republicans on the wrong side of insurers and other stakeholders — all of whom know that the consumer protections in the ACA are only possible if people are required to carry health insurance.

If The Supreme Court Strikes Down ‘Obamacare’ It’ll Create A Big Headache For…John Boehner? | TPMDC

And now comes Allen West, with video, in his own words:

In an interview with ThinkProgress, West pointed to three popular provisions of the health care law that he would like to see preserved: allowing parents to keep children on their health insurance plans until 26, ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions aren’t denied insurance, and closing Medicare’s prescription drug donut hole:

KEYES: Say we repeal [Obamacare] tomorrow. Do you think that will then precipitate a drop in insurance premiums?

WEST: Well you’ve got to replace it. You’ve got to replace it with something. If people want to keep their kid on their insurance at 26, fine. We’ve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, that’s fine. Keep the donut hole closed, that’s fine. But what I just talked to you about, maybe 20, 25 pages of legislation.

Tea Party Icon Rep. Allen West Defends Key Provisions Of Obamacare | ThinkProgress

Right wing posters. please study American political history before you post.

 

[The T]

I hope the entire thing is thrown out. It will be a political boon for the liberals. And republicans will have to agree to reenact the popular provisions in Congress. It brings out the dem base and puts the repubs on the defensive.

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

Salt-Peter? I know PLENTY of politics...and I know more of liberty.

Take your politics and shove it UP your ASS. It gets in the way of MY liberty, and that liberty of millions across the planet.

Read me dweeb?

 

[Salt Jones]

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

Salt-Peter? I know PLENTY of politics...and I know more of liberty.

Take your politics and shove it UP your ASS. It gets in the way of MY liberty, and that liberty of millions across the planet.

Read me dweeb?

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to leave their kids on their healthcare plan until age 26.

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to not by denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to have the medicare prescription donut hole closed, mo matter what the Supreme Court says.

Republicans will cave to stay in office. Learn the game.

 

[The T]

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

Salt-Peter? I know PLENTY of politics...and I know more of liberty.

Take your politics and shove it UP your ASS. It gets in the way of MY liberty, and that liberty of millions across the planet.

Read me dweeb?

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to leave their kids on their healthcare plan until age 26.

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to not by denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to have the medicare prescription donut hole closed, mo matter what the Supreme Court says.

Republicans will cave to stay in office. Learn the game.

ALL at GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

What part of politics and shove it up yer ass wasn't I clear on?

Was it LIBERTY?

Had to be.

 

[Salt Jones]

Salt-Peter? I know PLENTY of politics...and I know more of liberty.

Take your politics and shove it UP your ASS. It gets in the way of MY liberty, and that liberty of millions across the planet.

Read me dweeb?

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to leave their kids on their healthcare plan until age 26.

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to not by denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

Americans will continue to have the freedom and liberty to have the medicare prescription donut hole closed, mo matter what the Supreme Court says.

Republicans will cave to stay in office. Learn the game.

ALL at GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

What part of politics and shove it up yer ass wasn't I clear on?

Was it LIBERTY?

Had to be.

I want all Americans to have the same government paid healthcare that I get for being retired military.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[



Haha. I just refuse to place comfort over respecting the constitution.

.

We arent' talking about "comfort" here, we are talking about people's LIVES.

Which I thought Republicans cared about, being "pro-Life" and all, but I guess not.

By your logic, a complete Federal Single Payer system would be completely constitutional. But somehow, I don't think that you'd go for that, either.

So Obama goes ahead and adopts the "Free Market" solution the right has been talking about for decades, but then they decide it was "uncosntitional" because they supported it UTBGDI!

Which underscores the fact this is partisan, not Constitutional; this is an issue not about something potentially offensive to the Constitution but only an effort to ‘get rid of Obama.’

As a result, when the High Court strikes down the ACA, it will indeed be the responsibility of republicans to enact a similar measure, or suffer the political consequences, whether they like it or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh, this is not constitutional until SCOTUS revokes the mandate, if it does. And, if so, the fix is easy,

Much ado about little.

 

[IndependntLogic]

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

Salt-Peter? I know PLENTY of politics...and I know more of liberty.

Take your politics and shove it UP your ASS. It gets in the way of MY liberty, and that liberty of millions across the planet.

Read me dweeb?

Dude. You're always such a btichy little girl. "Oooh my liberties have been taken away!" and other such hysterics.
So okay. HOW specifically have your liberties been taken away right now? How are you SO oppressed?
I predict, you'll just stomp your little feeties, throw another tantrum, change the subject, sling a few petty insults and come up with absolutely nothing as to hwo you specifically, are "oppressed" and such. Not that tough to predict, actually.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude. You're always such a btichy little girl. "Oooh my liberties have been taken away!" and other such hysterics.
So okay. HOW specifically have your liberties been taken away right now? How are you SO oppressed?
I predict, you'll just stomp your little feeties, throw another tantrum, change the subject, sling a few petty insults and come up with absolutely nothing as to hwo you specifically, are "oppressed" and such. Not that tough to predict, actually.

You know, good point.

I will bet that T and Amelia and every other person here who complains about how the ACA is taking away their liberties is not going through life without some kind of health care coverage.

"The Government is going to make me do something that I already have the good sense to do! Help, help, I'm being opressed. "

 

[IndependntLogic]

Dude. You're always such a btichy little girl. "Oooh my liberties have been taken away!" and other such hysterics.
So okay. HOW specifically have your liberties been taken away right now? How are you SO oppressed?
I predict, you'll just stomp your little feeties, throw another tantrum, change the subject, sling a few petty insults and come up with absolutely nothing as to hwo you specifically, are "oppressed" and such. Not that tough to predict, actually.

You know, good point.

I will bet that T and Amelia and every other person here who complains about how the ACA is taking away their liberties is not going through life without some kind of health care coverage.

"The Government is going to make me do something that I already have the good sense to do! Help, help, I'm being opressed. "

I hear this victim-complex BS all the time. "My liberties have been taken from me!". So I ask about it and "Poof!" gone in a puff of smoke. Cut & Run time.
I find the more hysterical the poster, the more likely they are to change the subject when facts come up.

 

[dblack]

Dude. You're always such a btichy little girl. "Oooh my liberties have been taken away!" and other such hysterics.
So okay. HOW specifically have your liberties been taken away right now? How are you SO oppressed?
I predict, you'll just stomp your little feeties, throw another tantrum, change the subject, sling a few petty insults and come up with absolutely nothing as to hwo you specifically, are "oppressed" and such. Not that tough to predict, actually.

You know, good point.

I will bet that T and Amelia and every other person here who complains about how the ACA is taking away their liberties is not going through life without some kind of health care coverage.

"The Government is going to make me do something that I already have the good sense to do! Help, help, I'm being opressed. "

Insinuation and unfounded ad hominem don't add up to much of an argument. or any argument actually.

The right to say "no thanks" to services or products we don't want, the right to refuse to deal with companies we think are charging too much or otherwise screwing us, is the most fundamental right a consumer has. That right is by far the most important "consumer protection" afforded us by law. You can take away nearly every other regulation the state imposes on businesses and as long as we have the right to refuse to give them our money - then we can ultimately refuse to be victimized by them. It's honestly astonishing to me that so many people are ready to stand by compliantly, to even cheer, as the state and the corporations collude to take this right from us.

Democrats supporting ACA have been making hay of the fact that many Republicans currently opposed to ACA or the mandate have supported similar proposals in the past, or exactly the same policies at the state level. They try to imply that because unscrupulous leaders without convictions switched their positions for purely political reasons, that there are no principled reasons to oppose it. Of course, this is false.

If the tables were turned, if the Republicans had prevailed in '08 and they'd been the ones to push for a mandate (a very plausible scenario in my view) can't we hold out some hope that there would have been Democrats opposed to it on principle? Who would have called it out as the corporatist power grab that it is? And can we further hope that their less principled peers would have joined them in their opposition - even if it were for spurious political reasons?

 

[Dr.House]

]and what will happen.[/B]

all those people who now got to keep their insurance will lose it.

they will thank the republicans for that one

Hopefully, My insurance premiums, which have increased by $350.00 per month in order to provide for all the mandates in Obamacare will go back down.

( yes, indulging in a little wishful thinking )

Personally, I think your full of shit. If you weren't.you'd be lapping Obama's ass.

Puh-leeze...


Lapping 0bama's ass is YOUR specialty....

 

[IndependntLogic]

Dude. You're always such a btichy little girl. "Oooh my liberties have been taken away!" and other such hysterics.
So okay. HOW specifically have your liberties been taken away right now? How are you SO oppressed?
I predict, you'll just stomp your little feeties, throw another tantrum, change the subject, sling a few petty insults and come up with absolutely nothing as to hwo you specifically, are "oppressed" and such. Not that tough to predict, actually.

You know, good point.

I will bet that T and Amelia and every other person here who complains about how the ACA is taking away their liberties is not going through life without some kind of health care coverage.

"The Government is going to make me do something that I already have the good sense to do! Help, help, I'm being opressed. "

Insinuation and unfounded ad hominem don't add up to much of an argument. or any argument actually.

The right to say "no thanks" to services or products we don't want, the right to refuse to deal with companies we think are charging too much or otherwise screwing us, is the most fundamental right a consumer has. That right is by far the most important "consumer protection" afforded us by law. You can take away nearly every other regulation the state imposes on businesses and as long as we have the right to refuse to give them our money - then we can ultimately refuse to be victimized by them. It's honestly astonishing to me that so many people are ready to stand by compliantly, to even cheer, as the state and the corporations collude to take this right from us.

Democrats supporting ACA have been making hay of the fact that many Republicans currently opposed to ACA or the mandate have supported similar proposals in the past, or exactly the same policies at the state level. They try to imply that because unscrupulous leaders without convictions switched their positions for purely political reasons, that there are no principled reasons to oppose it. Of course, this is false.

If the tables were turned, if the Republicans had prevailed in '08 and they'd been the ones to push for a mandate (a very plausible scenario in my view) can't we hold out some hope that there would have been Democrats opposed to it on principle? Who would have called it out as the corporatist power grab that it is? And can we further hope that their less principled peers would have joined them in their opposition - even if it were for spurious political reasons?

Um yeah okay. So you don't buy electricity from say, a power company? jus sayin'
There is another problem with your post. You assume I approve of ObamaCare. I don't. As a matter of fact, my first post on this thread was that I hope it gets repealed. So um Oops!

Anyway, Conservatives and Libartarians have turned into the biggest bunch of whiny schoolgirls in the country. They're all just so "oppressed".
But they can never specficy exactly HOW they have been oppressed. For example, you have gon on about the mandate. Have you been forced to pay it? How has that afected you?

 

[Salt Jones]

You know, good point.

I will bet that T and Amelia and every other person here who complains about how the ACA is taking away their liberties is not going through life without some kind of health care coverage.

"The Government is going to make me do something that I already have the good sense to do! Help, help, I'm being opressed. "

Insinuation and unfounded ad hominem don't add up to much of an argument. or any argument actually.

The right to say "no thanks" to services or products we don't want, the right to refuse to deal with companies we think are charging too much or otherwise screwing us, is the most fundamental right a consumer has. That right is by far the most important "consumer protection" afforded us by law. You can take away nearly every other regulation the state imposes on businesses and as long as we have the right to refuse to give them our money - then we can ultimately refuse to be victimized by them. It's honestly astonishing to me that so many people are ready to stand by compliantly, to even cheer, as the state and the corporations collude to take this right from us.

Democrats supporting ACA have been making hay of the fact that many Republicans currently opposed to ACA or the mandate have supported similar proposals in the past, or exactly the same policies at the state level. They try to imply that because unscrupulous leaders without convictions switched their positions for purely political reasons, that there are no principled reasons to oppose it. Of course, this is false.

If the tables were turned, if the Republicans had prevailed in '08 and they'd been the ones to push for a mandate (a very plausible scenario in my view) can't we hold out some hope that there would have been Democrats opposed to it on principle? Who would have called it out as the corporatist power grab that it is? And can we further hope that their less principled peers would have joined them in their opposition - even if it were for spurious political reasons?

Um yeah okay. So you don't buy electricity from say, a power company? jus sayin'
There is another problem with your post. You assume I approve of ObamaCare. I don't. As a matter of fact, my first post on this thread was that I hope it gets repealed. So um Oops!

Anyway, Conservatives and Libartarians have turned into the biggest bunch of whiny schoolgirls in the country. They're all just so "oppressed".
But they can never specficy exactly HOW they have been oppressed. For example, you have gon on about the mandate. Have you been forced to pay it? How has that afected you?

They are scared of Obama. They think their America is gone and we may take over. It's fun to watch.