Supreme Court. Individual mandate

[Papageorgio]

On fox now

Amazing how one guy who vowed to bring us together, can make a country so divided

We were divided prior to Obama, he has NOT brought us together, sadly. Bush II created the great divide.

Actually Bush in 2000 talked about healing the great divide, so it goes back further.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americans are evenly divided, 46 percent to 46 percent, on whether they support the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform on Thursday, according to a new Gallup poll. Nearly 80 percent of Democrats agree with the court, compared to 45 percent of independents and only 13 percent of Republicans. Americans evenly divided on court

 

[bigrebnc1775]

35% Give Supreme Court Good or Excellent Marks
Supreme Court Update - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"The most important right a consumer has in a free market..." how are rights enforced? regulation?

Depends on the regulation, and more generally on what you mean by "regulation". The term is often applied to laws that have nothing all to do with protecting our rights. So, I guess "sometimes" is the answer to your question.

The most immediate way the government protects our rights is by not stripping them from us by force, which is what the ACA does. The Court, in theory, protects from these abuses - but it has largely ceased to function in that role.

"If what you want is to remove health care from the free market..." never said that

Then you are defending a law that maintains health care and the health insurance as for-profit, "free" market commodities, but strips consumers us of the freedom to decide how we participate in that market. That's great for the insurance companies, but for those of us not interested in being herded into their pens, it's a gross violation.

You need to read the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Many of your points are well reasoned but they address a mythical ruling. The ruling we are discussing is well written. Agree or not with the legal conclusions, it is well written.

What rights are you talking about? The right to not contribute to the ACA's "hared responsibility payment" carries a penalty. That penalty will be collected by the IRS, for constitutional purposes, as a tax penalty.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

35% Give Supreme Court Good or Excellent Marks
Supreme Court Update - Rasmussen Reports™

Public opinion polls are silly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

35% Give Supreme Court Good or Excellent Marks
Supreme Court Update - Rasmussen Reports™

Public opinion polls are silly.

I didn't see your comment to jake starkey. you fucking hack.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Americans are evenly divided, 46 percent to 46 percent, on whether they support the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform on Thursday, according to a new Gallup poll. Nearly 80 percent of Democrats agree with the court, compared to 45 percent of independents and only 13 percent of Republicans. Americans evenly divided on court

Well dante are Public opinion polls silly? if so prove you are a hack.

 

[dblack]

You need to read the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Many of your points are well reasoned but they address a mythical ruling. The ruling we are discussing is well written. Agree or not with the legal conclusions, it is well written.

I've read it. But for what it's worth, I'm not addressing the ruling - I'm addressing the ACA.

What rights are you talking about?

As I said, the freedom to refuse to buy products or services we don't want. Without this right, there is no such thing as a free market - only a rigged game - where consumers are pawns to be traded and shuffled around between the state and its corporate partners.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no profit...no free market...no choice for the patient...

solidarity......a catchword of socialism...."equal" does not always mean equal treatment....

who has the power with socialized medicine....certainly not the patient....

your analysis of quotes take out of the context of the full interview helps you? What is best for the consumer? Not all consumers are patients getting care. You are skewing things to fit an anti socialist argument. Fine. But be fair. Is a socialist solution that works bad just because it is a socialist solution?

Social Security is a socialist solution, and how many decades of Americans have been better off then Americans before FDR?

question: When you said to the insurance companies, "No more profit on the basic health plan," what did they say?

Pascal Couchepin answers: They accept it; they have no choice. And [all these] companies are [heirs] of former social companies. For instance, the Groupe Mutuel ... was built on this idea: no profit; everything must be given to the people who are members of it. So there is a tradition of social attitude in these systems.

I am not systematically against the idea of having profits in the health insurance system, but if we introduce it, it is more with the idea to balance the power in the health insurance system, because now there is a lack of balance of power.

question: Who has the power?

Pascal Couchepin answers: Who has the power? The small group of the people who leads these companies. And it is something for me which can be dangerous, because it is a business with a billion of Swiss francs, and the check and balance is not optimal in the present system. ...

question: But you have government regulation, what we might call regulated competition. Does that work?

Pascal Couchepin answers: It is regulated competition. It is in order, but I think, as a Democrat, ... it could be not bad that once a year they [the company managers] have to go in front of a public assembly to answer questions about their salaries, about the way they see the future, about improvement in the quality of the services. It would be, my opinion, not so bad. And it could be possible through a system of shareholders, but not for profit, more for control.​

i am using your own interview to point out that the socialist answer is not what it's all cracked up to be.....the patient has no power.....a small elite group has all the power...."equal" may mean equal premiums but not necessarily equal treatment.....i would much prefer a free market patient-based system with perhaps some regulatory controls....

social security is a government program that has failed.....

medicare is a government program that has failed....

medicaid is a government program that has failed....

we need to get rid of all the unnecessary middlemen.....the government.....the employers.....the insurance companies (except for major medical).....and make health care costs transparent to the buyer...and allow for crossing state lines....costs will plummet as competitiion kicks in and the fat bloodsucking ticks are removed....

power to the patients...

Social Security has failed? It's been working for over half a century. Still working. It needs fixing. Alarmist rhetoric is not fact.

Medicare works. Still working.

Medicaid works. Still working.

Your argument "the patient has no power", is specious and duplicitous.

---

You: ""equal" may mean equal premiums but not necessarily equal treatment."

What you ignore: They address 'equal care' and you choose to go with ideological assumptions?

So you're saying, when the insurance became mandatory for everyone, more people went to the doctor more?

Pascal Couchepin: Yes. ... But it is over. Nobody will propose to go back and to have a voluntary system. I think it will be impossible to go back. ...

When it passed and you supported it, what were the political forces driving this? Was it just concern for these 5 percent who didn't have coverage?

Pascal Couchepin: No. There was the idea of this 5 percent, but also the idea that with the increase of the expenses in this matter, solidarity will be more and more necessary to be able to give to everybody good service. I think it was more future-oriented.

But I can hear in what you're saying that that concern that everyone get covered, everyone get equal care, that's really important.

Pascal Couchepin: Oh, yes. ... For the Swiss, whether you are right or left doesn't matter; I think there is a consensus on that. We want that every [one] of our citizen can get the best medical treatment when they need it. ...

Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

----

finally, what you propose sounds good. What the 5 Capitalist Democracies program was about was how we can see what others have done...and not have to reinvent the broken wheel.

I still like the Swiss model. Dismissing something because you imagine some mythical 'free market' will work is amusing. Purely Free Markets are a concept that works on paper and in the mind. In the real world...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SS has not failed

Medicare has not failed

Medicaid has not failed

Screaming Eagle has failed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You need to read the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Many of your points are well reasoned but they address a mythical ruling. The ruling we are discussing is well written. Agree or not with the legal conclusions, it is well written.

I've read it. But for what it's worth, I'm not addressing the ruling - I'm addressing the ACA.

What rights are you talking about?

As I said, the freedom to refuse to buy products or services we don't want. Without this right, there is no such thing as a free market - only a rigged game - where consumers are pawns to be traded and shuffled around between the state and its corporate partners.

The Constitutionality of the ACA is what it is all about.

You can refuse. Just pay the penalty. It's the price of imbecilic principle.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

35% Give Supreme Court Good or Excellent Marks
Supreme Court Update - Rasmussen Reports™

Public opinion polls are silly.

I didn't see your comment to jake starkey. you fucking hack.

fuck off nitwit

 

[dblack]

The Constitutionality of the ACA is what it is all about.

You can refuse. Just pay the penalty. It's the price of imbecilic principle.

???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Americans are evenly divided, 46 percent to 46 percent, on whether they support the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform on Thursday, according to a new Gallup poll. Nearly 80 percent of Democrats agree with the court, compared to 45 percent of independents and only 13 percent of Republicans. Americans evenly divided on court

Well dante are Public opinion polls silly? if so prove you are a hack.

One day people do not like somebody or something. Next day something happens and most everyone likes that someone or something they didn't like the day before.

What changed? What value was the opinion poll?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitutionality of the ACA is what it is all about.

You can refuse. Just pay the penalty. It's the price of imbecilic principle.

???

There is no criminal penalty. Put your money where your mouth is. You can choose not to be a good citizen. Choose your imaginary freedom. Refuse to participate and pay the penalty.

It's what MLK did when he'd get arrested.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Americans are evenly divided, 46 percent to 46 percent, on whether they support the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform on Thursday, according to a new Gallup poll. Nearly 80 percent of Democrats agree with the court, compared to 45 percent of independents and only 13 percent of Republicans. Americans evenly divided on court

Well dante are Public opinion polls silly? if so prove you are a hack.

One day people do not like somebody or something. Next day something happens and most everyone likes that someone or something they didn't like the day before.

What changed? What value was the opinion poll?

What in the fuck are you blathering about. You called me out for using a poll but did not say any thing to jake starkey which posted the first poll. Proof you are a fucking hack.

 

[dblack]

There is no criminal penalty.

And do you really believe that will be maintained? You're not that gullible, are you? I'm not. The ACA apologists citing this part of the bill are the some folks who told us it wasn't a tax. We saw how reliable that was.

Put your money where your mouth is. You can choose not to be a good citizen. Choose your imaginary freedom. Refuse to participate and pay the penalty.

What? What point are you trying to make? This is a patently insane formulation of the concept of freedom. The government is tasked to protect our rights, not penalize us for exercising them. You can't have it both ways.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Public opinion polls are silly.

I didn't see your comment to jake starkey. you fucking hack.

fuck off nitwit

Go to hell you god dam mother fucking cock sucking son of a bitch. fucking hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"The most important right a consumer has in a free market..." how are rights enforced? regulation?

Depends on the regulation, and more generally on what you mean by "regulation". The term is often applied to laws that have nothing all to do with protecting our rights. So, I guess "sometimes" is the answer to your question.

The most immediate way the government protects our rights is by not stripping them from us by force, which is what the ACA does. The Court, in theory, protects from these abuses - but it has largely ceased to function in that role.

"If what you want is to remove health care from the free market..." never said that

Then you are defending a law that maintains health care and the health insurance as for-profit, "free" market commodities, but strips consumers us of the freedom to decide how we participate in that market. That's great for the insurance companies, but for those of us not interested in being herded into their pens, it's a gross violation.

You need to read the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Many of your points are well reasoned but they address a mythical ruling. The ruling we are discussing is well written. Agree or not with the legal conclusions, it is well written.

What rights are you talking about? The right to not contribute to the ACA's "hared responsibility payment" carries a penalty. That penalty will be collected by the IRS, for constitutional purposes, as a tax penalty.

Did you read the ruling? It did exactly what he said, it supports for profit health care and insurance by requiring everyone to participate in the market by buying a federally approved and subsidized plan or pay a tax.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I didn't see your comment to jake starkey. you fucking hack.

fuck off nitwit

Go to hell you god dam mother fucking cock sucking son of a bitch. fucking hack.

Got your ass kicked again, huh.