ObamaCare- Mandate is Constitutional as a Tax, etc.

[JakeStarkey]

You libers are all looking silly now.

Got you on the run.

 

[dblack]

I am assuredly not, never will be, and We the People are making very clear that we never will be like your very small minority. You are part of the social compact, from the day you were born. You don't get to opt out unless you give up citizenship. Your options? Fight politically to overturn those who voted for the law. Try to impeach Roberts and or Obama.

There are plenty of options. And it's not even close to over yet. Totalitarian states collapse on their own in time, but we'll keeping fighting the good fight to save you from that fate.

You're welcome.

 

[Flopper]

We all pay out of pocket for routine maintenance and repairs on our homes, our cars, our computers, and all other things that we own. It is ridiculous not to do the same for our healthcare at least up to an amount that won't break the bank.

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

I'm not saying the government should force healthcare on anyone, I'm saying we need to remove the financial road blocks that makes it hard for people to access relatively inexpensive healthcare so minor problems don't become major problems that we all have to pay for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am assuredly not, never will be, and We the People are making very clear that we never will be like your very small minority. You are part of the social compact, from the day you were born. You don't get to opt out unless you give up citizenship. Your options? Fight politically to overturn those who voted for the law. Try to impeach Roberts and or Obama.

There are plenty of options. And it's not even close to over yet. Totalitarian states collapse on their own in time, but we'll keeping fighting the good fight to save you from that fate. You're welcome.

This is a totalitarian state only in your weak little mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just so.

 

[Flopper]

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

There is actually a pretty simple solution to that, end the social contract that demands that we pay for other people's health care just because they show up at an ER. Make ERs places that cover emergencies, and let them tell people who have hangnails to go away.

Or would that offend your sensibilities as being a practical solution to a government created problem?

Or, if you don't want to put the onus on the medical staff in E.R. to judge whether something is or is not an emergency, just allow the E.R. to give a bill to everybody who shows up there without insurance. And allow the hospital to go after their money by normal legal means. That simple change in the current 'social contract' would eliminate almost all of the hang nails and other non emergency E.R. traffic. If folks have to pay for their healthcare, they'll go to the dovctor instead of the far more expensive E.R.

If people could afford to go to the doctor with minor problems, I don't think they would go to the emergency room. Spend 3 to 5 hours sitting in the ER while sick as a dog or go to my doctor and spend 45 mins. I'll chose the doctor office every time. Also the ER is only required to stabilize your condition. They aren't required to provide any treatment pass that point or do any followup.

I have been to the ER many times. They always ask for an insurance card or credit card and if you don't have insurance, they hand you a bill when you leave and ask for payment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who suggests the ER as an acceptable alternative to an unified health care system is either (1) an idiot or (2) an asshole, or (3) an idiotic asshole.

 

[Ava]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka01NFnygS0]Obamatax - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Anyone who suggests the ER as an acceptable alternative to an unified health care system is either (1) an idiot or (2) an asshole, or (3) an idiotic asshole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem I see with your analogy is that if you choose not to maintain your home, car, or computer you pay for the consequences. If you don't maintain your health we all pay. Making it more expensive for people to do the little things such as taking maintenance drugs, physicals, inoculations, and following up on minor problems will surely lead to much higher cost and poorer medical outcomes.

In my opinion, we need to make primary care less expensive not more expensive. I think the problem with the overuse of emergency rooms will disappear when we have more affordable primary care available to everyone.

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

I'm not saying the government should force healthcare on anyone, I'm saying we need to remove the financial road blocks that makes it hard for people to access relatively inexpensive healthcare so minor problems don't become major problems that we all have to pay for.

If that is what you are saying you should be able to explain how Obamacare is going to accomplish what you are advocating for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

I'm not saying the government should force healthcare on anyone, I'm saying we need to remove the financial road blocks that makes it hard for people to access relatively inexpensive healthcare so minor problems don't become major problems that we all have to pay for.

If that is what you are saying you should be able to explain how Obamacare is going to accomplish what you are advocating for.

Tell us why it is not constitutional.

Roberts says you are full of shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Better yet, QWB, email Roberts right now he is wrong and full of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not saying the government should force healthcare on anyone, I'm saying we need to remove the financial road blocks that makes it hard for people to access relatively inexpensive healthcare so minor problems don't become major problems that we all have to pay for.

If that is what you are saying you should be able to explain how Obamacare is going to accomplish what you are advocating for.

Tell us why it is not constitutional.

Roberts says you are full of shit.

Funny, I don't recall arguing that it is unconstitutional since the ruling came down yesterday. Why don't you go put words in rdean's mouth, he is stupid enough to forget he didn't actually say them.

 

[Flopper]

When the ink dried on the Constitution, the state governments assumed responsiblity for the well-being of its citizens. One of the well-being responsibilities was their health, and lives. When the Great Depression hit the states could no longer do the job and the federal government took over. After a time the federal government began turning back some of that resposibilty to the states. Today they share. But as the population ages and new expensive medical procedures are created it has become much more costly. Some average families cannot cope with some of the expenses of a major illness and a number of other families cannot cope with any of the expenses.
The primary question for those of us that have health care at this time or are not sick is: should we continue to treat our sick and elderly even if they have no money, and if so, what is the best way.

If we consider ourselves a civilized country, we certainly should. I think the best solution is mandatory private insurance with government subsidies like the Swiss.

Few people seem to know what the real cost of treating serious illness. The average cost of treating cancer is about $15,000/yr. For more advanced stages of cancer and leading edge treatments the cost can easy be 10 to 20 times that. Heart surgery and followup often runs over $100,000. These problems often lead to even more expensive health problems such as Respiratory Failure on Ventilator, $314,000. It's not just some families that can't cope with these costs but rather most families.

 

[Flopper]

The problem with your analogy is the assumption that the role of the federal government is to be big brother and Nanny to force people to do what people should do for themselves or make us all pay whether the people do that or not. How do you equate freedom for people to live their lives as they choose and not allow them to make their own decisions re their medical care?

I'm not saying the government should force healthcare on anyone, I'm saying we need to remove the financial road blocks that makes it hard for people to access relatively inexpensive healthcare so minor problems don't become major problems that we all have to pay for.

If that is what you are saying you should be able to explain how Obamacare is going to accomplish what you are advocating for.

That's easy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 32 million more people will have insurance by 2019. ACA requires that a number of prevent services be provide free of charge such as Colonoscopies and mammograms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If that is what you are saying you should be able to explain how Obamacare is going to accomplish what you are advocating for.

Tell us why it is not constitutional.

Roberts says you are full of shit.

Funny, I don't recall arguing that it is unconstitutional since the ruling came down yesterday. Why don't you go put words in rdean's mouth, he is stupid enough to forget he didn't actually say them.

Let's put you on record.

You are saying, "Yes, I, Quantum WindBag, affirm that the Roberts court decision on ACA was constitutional."

Thank you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not saying the government should force healthcare on anyone, I'm saying we need to remove the financial road blocks that makes it hard for people to access relatively inexpensive healthcare so minor problems don't become major problems that we all have to pay for.

If that is what you are saying you should be able to explain how Obamacare is going to accomplish what you are advocating for.

That's easy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 32 million more people will have insurance by 2019. ACA requires that a number of prevent services be provide free of charge such as Colonoscopies and mammograms.

One more time.

How does Obamacare accomplish removing financial roadblocks that make it hard for people to access relatively inexpensive healthcare? Since the CBO esitmates that insurance premiums will go up under Obamacare pointing out that people will be covered, even if the numbers actually work in the long run, is not going to count toward what you you claim to want. IOn fact, it is directly opposed to what you claim you want, which is why I oppose it.

By the way, the ACA doesn't require preventative care of any type.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell us why it is not constitutional.

Roberts says you are full of shit.

Funny, I don't recall arguing that it is unconstitutional since the ruling came down yesterday. Why don't you go put words in rdean's mouth, he is stupid enough to forget he didn't actually say them.

Let's put you on record.

You are saying, "Yes, I, Quantum WindBag, affirm that the Roberts court decision on ACA was constitutional."

Thank you.

How can a Supreme Court decision not be constitutional?

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB then agrees with the Roberts' decision.

End of story.

 

[dblack]

How can a Supreme Court decision not be constitutional?

If it doesn't follow the constitution.