# Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

> The Supreme Court has upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
> The court on Thursday handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
> The individual mandate, the law's backers say, is needed to cover 33 million uninsured people, but it's also a requirement that polls say most Americans want to see thrown out.
> Obama, Democrats and their liberal backers had insisted beforehand that the court will uphold the law. If it does, "it's full speed ahead," said Ethan Rome of the Health Care for America Now, a coalition that backs the health plan.
> ...






Welp 

That was unexpected. So, all of ya'all who believed the Supreme Court was heading irreversibly right... what now?


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Ah you jerk!  You stole my bit! 

So apparently it's upheld 100%.  Roberts in surprising moves and upholds it as part of a tax measure within the power of Congress.

And there was a dude outside the courthouse comparing this to Chavez's Venezuela.  The knee-jerk butthurt stupidity has begun.  However, this simplifies Romney's objection to it now that the Supreme Court has explained the power behind the mandate.  But how many people are truly going to pay attention to that?


----------



## very bored (Jun 28, 2012)

I thought for sure it was going to get shot down.  Feels so good to be wrong.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> That was unexpected. So, all of ya'all who believed the Supreme Court was heading irreversibly right... what now?



Okay, I'll admit it, I believed they'd at the very least remove certain portions of the health care bill. I mean if you take a look at the Justices on the bench, anyone would have thought that they would have repealed it.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jun 28, 2012)

5 to 4, not as clear cut as I wanted it but it will do...

But it really shows how political the court has been, considering that the mandate started out as a republican idea.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> 5 to 4, not as clear cut as I wanted it but it will do...
> 
> But it really shows how political the court has been, considering that the mandate started out as a republican idea.



Either by a mile or a foot, a win is a win so we have to take it for what it is for now.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 28, 2012)

Welp, another four years of Obama


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jun 28, 2012)

Interesting how CNN and Fox were a bit too quick on reporting the Supreme Court struck down an individual portion of the health care mandate only to go back and make a correction.


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> Ah you jerk!  You stole my bit!


2 fast 4 u. You should have at least started posting your thread before I got mine up. 



> Okay, I'll admit it, I believed they'd at the very least remove certain portions of the health care bill. I mean if you take a look at the Justices on the bench, anyone would have thought that they would have repealed it.


I think people are too quick to accuse the Supreme Court of being too liberal or too conservative when things don't go their way. They act based on their individual beliefs and convictions, not simply partisan politics, and while this sometimes results in decisions favoring one party's platform over another's, their decisions are never without logic and merit.

I, for one, welcome our old supreme jurisprudence overlords.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

> Amy Kremer, Chairman of the Tea Party Express, said, ?The Supreme Court ruled to uphold this unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into our personal health care decisions. The American people still reject this legislation as bad policy and unwanted government interference with their lives. We will continue to work to defeat Obamacare at the ballot box in November by electing fiscal conservatives ready and willing to represent the will of the people by fully repealing every piece of this legislation.



I think sabotaging your own party appearing as Grover Norquist's is good enough.  Keep crying Tea Party.  I hate your guts, admit your effectiveness in the past for Congress, but now just laugh that the Supreme Court told you to STFU.



> Ken Cuccinelli: Va. AG; "This is a dark day for the American people, the Constitution and the rule of law. This is a dark day for American liberty.



What's next, a _Revenge of the Sith_ quote?  A dark day for American liberty would be the granting of full power to the Executive Branch or the dissolution of the Supreme Court.  You'll be fine, Ken.  You've got insurance for yourself so stop the crocodile tears.



> From Sen John Thune: While today?s decision is disappointing, Congressional Republicans will not rest until ObamaCare is fully repealed. Rather than jam a nearly 3,000-page bill through Congress using political favors and backroom deals, as was the case with ObamaCare, *Congressional Republicans are committed to working across the aisle in a step-by-step manner to improve and expand access to health care, while reducing costs for Americans*.





> Congressional Republicans are *committed to working across the aisle* in a step-by-step manner to improve and expand access to health care, while reducing costs for Americans



From the Party of NO?
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0[/YOUTUBE]



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> 2 fast 4 u. You should have at least started posting your thread before I got mine up.
> 
> I think people are too quick to accuse the Supreme Court of being too liberal or too conservative when things don't go their way. They act based on their individual beliefs and convictions, not simply partisan politics, and while this sometimes results in decisions favoring one party's platform over another's, their decisions are never without logic and merit.
> 
> I, for one, welcome our old supreme jurisprudence overlords.



Them fancy Juris Doctorates are funny things.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

Obamer did it ,it again.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Reuters said:
			
		

> In another part of the decision and in a blow to the White House, a different majority on the court struck down the provision of the law that requires the states to dramatically expand the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor.



Can't win 'em all though.


----------



## αce (Jun 28, 2012)

bama


----------



## AlphaRooster (Jun 28, 2012)

Well duh. The supreme court has been bought and paid for. Why would the decision go any other way?


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> Well duh. The supreme court has been bought and paid for. Why would the decision go any other way?



Well that was awfully short-sighted of you.  You have evidence of this?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 28, 2012)

Welcome to civilization you fucks


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> Well duh. The supreme court has been bought and paid for. Why would the decision go any other way?



>Supreme Court
>Bought


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> Well that was awfully short-sighted of you.  You have evidence of this?



Does he know how the Supreme Court works ?


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

> Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri: "Today, America is threatened with the Stage 3 cancer of socialism, and Obamacare is Exhibit 1."



Sweet Jesus...the butthurt is unbelievable.  Granted it'd be like this if the mandate was struck down but talk about the sensationalism.



Elim Rawne said:


> Does he know how the Supreme Court works ?



I doubt it.


----------



## hyakku (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> >Supreme Court
> >Bought



LOL, I watched this gif for like five minuets at work. Thank you.

Also, as glad as I am to see this, I'm interested to see how the insurance companies intend to screw over those with pre-existing conditions. Everyone puts it like ACA had a mandate to cap certain insurance expenditures for consumers, but didn't that get taken out? If so, in theory we could've just fucked a bunch of cancer patients by forcing them to purchase overpriced healthcare or be fined. Gotta check to see if that cap is in.

Edit: Nevermind, checked. There are indeed caps on the insurance premiums for those up to 400% above poverty level (about 45-50k / yr for a single earner).



We're good


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Welp
> 
> That was unexpected. So, all of ya'all who believed the Supreme Court was heading irreversibly right... what now?



Its still kind of incredibly strange that 4 people voted against something that seems pretty blatantly constitutional to me. Like, it's unreal how partisan the supreme court has gotten. But it's still 4 on each side and 1 that swings either way. 


Both Fox and CNN reported this story totally wrong, said the mandate was struck down. Twitter is now more reliable than CNN smh


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

Kinda disgusting.  A portion of this bill says that insurers can't charge higher premiums to people who are already sick or in poor health.  That's great.  Now I'll be in an insurance pool with overweight chain smoking diabetics with AIDS and my premiums will be increased.  If I don't get health care, I'll be fucking taxed for not having any.  

Businesses with 40 something employees will stunt their own growth so they won't be required to provide health care if they hit that 50 employees mark. 

They used the argument that it's not a tax because everyone is going to need health care eventually, so everyone is already in the market.  My counter argument is that everyone is going to buy clothes eventually, so we should have the government force us to buy clothes, and those who can't afford new clothes will get government subsidized clothes, and those of us with enough clothes will have to pay a "clothing" tax so the government can provide clothes for those without clothes.

Welcome to the Socialist States of America.  I hate to say this, but Nazi Germany is looking pretty good right now.  I'm sick of being a member of a country where people feel that they're entitled to free shit from the government.  No fucking personal accountability.


----------



## corsair (Jun 28, 2012)

Welcome to the socialism club, enjoy your stay. Trust me, it's not as bad as you think.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> Well duh. The supreme court has been bought and paid for. Why would the decision go any other way?







Elim Rawne said:


> Does he know how the Supreme Court works ?



he just another butt hurted repubican.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> Well that was awfully short-sighted of you.  You have evidence of this?



Have you ever seen a supreme court selection process? Every time one is selected they are "accused" of promoting current administrations policies. Which congress was running the show during that last ones??

Heaven help the world if any should die/retire if Obama wins the next election.


----------



## αce (Jun 28, 2012)

> Welcome to the Socialist States of America.  I hate to say this, but Nazi Germany is looking pretty good right now.



oh nonononononono
you're going too far bro


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> Have you ever seen a supreme court selection process? Every time one is selected they are "accused" of promoting current administrations policies. Which congress was running the show during that last ones??
> 
> Heaven help the world if any should die/retire if Obama wins the next election.



You are so fucking dumb it's unreal


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Kira Yamato said:


> Okay, I'll admit it, I believed they'd at the very least remove certain portions of the health care bill. I mean if you take a look at the Justices on the bench, anyone would have thought that they would have repealed it.



I am not 100% on this, but from what i've heard, this bill did not have provisions in it that allowed it to be selectively rejected.  It was an all or nothing deal.

Which is disappointing for me as someone who agrees with the bill maybe about 50/50.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> Kinda disgusting.  A portion of this bill says that insurers can't charge higher premiums to people who are already sick or in poor health.  That's great.  Now I'll be in an insurance pool with overweight chain smoking diabetics with AIDS and my premiums will be increased.  If I don't get health care, I'll be fucking taxed for not having any.
> 
> Businesses with 40 something employees will stunt their own growth so they won't be required to provide health care if they hit that 50 employees mark.
> 
> ...



Though not any dumber than this guy


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

> Welcome to the Socialist States of America. I hate to say this, but Nazi Germany is looking pretty good right now. I'm sick of being a member of a country where people feel that they're entitled to free shit from the government. No fucking personal accountability.



So you'd rather take a totalitarian state based upon racial supremacy and Lebensraum?

I mean...did you even think before you typed this, especially with your family?


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> Well duh. The supreme court has been bought and paid for. Why would the decision go any other way?



Americans 


Obama's had a pretty good week, yo!

I totally thought the supreme court were going to shoot down the bill.


I love American politics  I know NOTHING about Nigerian "politics" as its just fucking lame. But American politics? Comedy gold!


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> So you'd rather take a totalitarian state based upon racial supremacy and Lebensraum?



So he's a typical american conservative?


----------



## Roman (Jun 28, 2012)

> Welcome to the Socialist States of America. I hate to say this, but Nazi Germany is looking pretty good right now. I'm sick of being a member of a country where people feel that they're entitled to free shit from the government. No fucking personal accountability.



Hitler won his elections in part thanks to corporate donations and lobbyists. Sound familiar?

Yeah. Thought so.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

now Obamer have more of a chance to get re elected? or will the butt hurted people rally on Romney.



AlphaRooster said:


> Have you ever seen a supreme court selection process? Every time one is selected they are "accused" of promoting current administrations policies. Which congress was running the show during that last ones??
> 
> Heaven help the world if any should die/retire if Obama wins the next election.



*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> So he's a typical american conservative?



That's a pretty bad generalization considering I have a few conservative opinions.


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> Its still kind of incredibly strange that 4 people voted against something that seems pretty blatantly constitutional to me. Like, it's unreal how partisan the supreme court has gotten. But it's still 4 on each side and 1 that swings either way.


It seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. Uncle Sam forcing me to buy something? What kind of bullshit is that?
I'm perfectly okay with the individual mandate by itself, but as far as I can tell, it is now officially constitutional for the government to make me buy lottery tickets and beer.

That said, I trust the Supreme Court and assume that my assumption is incorrect and I won't actually be forced to buy liberty bonds any time soon.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> That's a pretty bad generalization considering I have a few conservative opinions.



it was a joke


----------



## Chessmaster (Jun 28, 2012)

Gee I remember when Obama said his Mandate wasn't a tax. What a shameless world we live in.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Chessmaster said:


> Gee I remember when Obama said his Mandate wasn't a tax. What a shameless world we live in.



The *Supreme Court* said it worked as a tax measure within Congress.  So where is Obama to blame on this?


----------



## AlphaRooster (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> You are so fucking dumb it's unreal



You are unbelievable ignorant if you don't believe a party doesn't do their best to select a judge in their favor. Look how many people Bush had to bring in before the democratic majority "okay'd" his choice.

You can disagree with me all you want, i don't care, but you have to at least accept the possibility that a Supreme court judge may be selected on their court history that would promote a current administrations policies.



BTW LINKDARKSIDE  I fucking love supernatural!


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> Welcome to the Socialist States of America.  I hate to say this, but Nazi Germany is looking pretty good right now.  I'm sick of being a member of a country where people feel that they're entitled to free shit from the government.  No fucking personal accountability.


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> it was a joke



Mael doesn't into jokes


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> It seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. Uncle Sam forcing me to buy something? What kind of bullshit is that?
> I'm perfectly okay with the individual mandate by itself, but as far as I can tell, it is now officially constitutional for the government to make me buy lottery tickets and beer.
> 
> That said, I trust the Supreme Court and assume that my assumption is incorrect and I won't actually be forced to buy liberty bonds any time soon.



government distributed beer haha. 

people pay taxes for lots of other things and get stuff in return. i guess this is a little more direct? done slightly differently, but essentially the same. 

i mean, what if obama raised taxes but also sent you beer and lottery tickets every month. that'd be blatantly constitutional even if it's absurd


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> It seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. Uncle Sam forcing me to buy something? What kind of bullshit is that?
> I'm perfectly okay with the individual mandate by itself, but as far as I can tell, it is now officially constitutional for the government to make me buy lottery tickets and beer.
> 
> That said, I trust the Supreme Court and assume that my assumption is incorrect and I won't actually be forced to buy liberty bonds any time soon.



but as the administration have (now successfully argued), healthcare is different from other day to day products. It's fucking _healthcare_ :/


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> The *Supreme Court* said it worked as a tax measure within Congress.  So where is Obama to blame on this?



Well, Obama's lawyers originally made that point in support of the mandate which is why they repeated and upheld it in the ruling.

I did enjoy the whole "What else can the government require of you" thing

Military Draft?

Proof of citizenship/residency?


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> You are unbelievable ignorant if you don't believe a party doesn't do their best to select a judge in their favor. Look how many people Bush had to bring in before the democratic majority "okay'd" his choice.
> 
> You can disagree with me all you want, i don't care, but you have to at least accept the possibility that a Supreme court judge may be selected on their court history that would promote a current administrations policies.



What you're saying here and what you said earlier have nothing to do with one another. Yes, an administration will choose as liberal a judge or as conservative a judge as it can and still be approved by congress, but once a Supreme Court Justice is in there, that's it. They say what they want and they believe what they want and no amount of election fundraising, lobbying, or financial shenanigans can change that.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> You are unbelievable ignorant if you don't believe a party doesn't do their best to select a judge in their favor. Look how many people Bush had to bring in before the democratic majority "okay'd" his choice.
> 
> You can disagree with me all you want, i don't care, but you have to at least accept the possibility that a Supreme court judge may be selected on their court history that would promote a current administrations policies.



of course they do. that's how the system works, the president is going to pick a judge that they think uphold the values the president likes. but the court swings pretty fucking hard right and one of the biggest reasons i'll be voting for obama is because yeah some of the justices are going to be retiring soon, and a heavily conservative court at a time when conservatives are living in 19fucking60 would be about the worst possible thing that could happen to this country

also obama is better suited to repelling an alien invasion, thats a big issue


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Alpha, you made the claim they were bought out, like you were implying lobbying like they would in Congress.  Supreme Court doesn't roll that way.


----------



## On and On (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Welp
> 
> That was unexpected. So, all of ya'all who believed the Supreme Court was heading irreversibly right... what now?



Passed 5-4  Not really a landslide, lol


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jun 28, 2012)

Guys.


Take a moment and imagine. Just imagine the vitriol CJ Roberts is getting/going to be getting from butthurt republicans.


I can't even imagine it.

And for the icing on the cake, please remember that it was George Bush who nominated him! You can't make this shit up!


----------



## AlphaRooster (Jun 28, 2012)

Response to my first post: when a judge is picked to promote someone else's policies, i consider that "bought and paid for".

  The problem i have with the Supreme court is they are not impartial anymore. I believe the court is becoming more and more... well against policies i believe in. I see as much of a problem with a heavily left sided court and those who fear a right sided court. 

  I'm trying my best to look at this objectively, meaning I don't think the court should be sided at all. I fear it both ways. I don't know how to fix it, other than hope for non-corrupt govt. electing them.


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> people pay taxes for lots of other things and get stuff in return. i guess this is a little more direct? done slightly differently, but essentially the same.



Where does this dangerous line of reasoning stop?  Will we eventually be living in government housing and eating government food products wearing our government uniforms?   Will our salaries eventually all be taken to be used to pay for things we "need"?



> healthcare is different from other day to day products. It's fucking healthcare :/



Which would be all fine and good if everyone was responsible for their own fucking health.  But now we're all in the same pool, where gender and health don't matter.  My premiums are based on the average healthy American of my age, and the average American my age is a fat ass.  As I get older, and my peers become more and more unhealthy, I'll be charged higher and higher premiums, despite how healthy I stay.  

I haven't been to the doctor in over ten years because I haven't been seriously sick.  I take vitamins and eat healthy, drink water and get plenty of sleep.  Why am I being penalized for the way my peers treat their own bodies? 



> and a heavily conservative court at a time when conservatives are living in 19fucking60 would be about the worst possible thing that could happen to this country



You're incredibly ignorant and probably get your whole anti-conservative rant from the Daily Show and what Hollywood has been telling you.  Being conservative means less big government influence.  Less regulation.  Being conservative means adhering closer to the Constitution and what the founding fathers set up for us.

It's not taking these radical liberties with the Constitution to shove shit down Americans' throats for the "good of the people".  Let the people decide what is good for them, on their own.  It's called free fucking will.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 28, 2012)

Can anyone post Roberts final statements on the ruiling?

EDIT: Nvm 





			
				From wiki said:
			
		

> On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 to uphold the law. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion held that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause, but was constitutional under the Taxing Clause. In Roberts' words:
> *The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.*
> The critical distinction that the majority found convincing was that the Act merely imposed a relatively small tax upon the choice to not buy health insurance, but it did not make that choice itself a crime per se. Although the Court has seen cases in the past in which Congress tried to evade limitations on other enumerated powers through inappropriate interpretations of the Taxing Clause, the Act clearly fell within the boundaries outlined in those cases.



And Ugh, Bachmann's comparisons are just terrible, her speech is so bad it's giving me a headache


----------



## AlphaRooster (Jun 28, 2012)

Obama speaking at 12:15 eastern. this'll be good. Glad i can pay for his campaign.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> I haven't been to the doctor in over ten years because I haven't been seriously sick.  I take vitamins and eat healthy, drink water and get plenty of sleep.  Why am I being penalized for the way my peers treat their own bodies?


 because this is how taxes fucking work, they buy shit that isn't necessarily for you. it's also, you know, how insurance works. everyone pays a little car insurance (which, btw, you have to have if you drive a car), just in case they get in a crash. most of that money never comes back to you, but instead goes to someone else who crashes. 





> You're incredibly ignorant and probably get your whole anti-conservative rant from the Daily Show and what Hollywood has been telling you.  Being conservative means less big government influence.  Less regulation.  Being conservative means adhering closer to the Constitution and what the founding fathers set up for us.


well that's a fucking lie. conservatives, at least today, are perfectly content to invade everyone's personal freedoms. just look at any of the conservative 'moral' issues. When they push state's rights over federal rights it is almost always because the state is more conservative and wants to get away with atrocious bullshit that would never get a pass on a federal level. 



> It's not taking these radical liberties with the Constitution to shove shit down Americans' throats for the "good of the people".  Let the people decide what is good for them, on their own.  It's called free fucking will.


 It is for the good of the people. That's the government's JOB. Even if the people get taxed to pay for it. Again, that's how taxes work.


----------



## Chessmaster (Jun 28, 2012)

Can't rule on a fairness of a tax? Sounds grossly vague. Why don't you tax the miles we drive then.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> because this is how taxes fucking work, they buy shit that isn't necessarily for you. it's also, you know, how insurance works. everyone pays a little car insurance (which, btw, you have to have if you drive a car), just in case they get in a crash. most of that money never comes back to you, but instead goes to someone else who crashes.



7 blessings from the 7 gods upon you and your household.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

Romney speaking now.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> That was unexpected. So, all of ya'all who believed the Supreme Court was heading irreversibly right... what now?



4 people who vote hardcore right no matter what, like 1 or 2 who vote left no matter what.  I am still of that opinion.

I would rahter 9 judges who all vote on each specific case independantly, like most of the US.

But really, I put this all at the feet of leiberman for joining the Republican filibuster against the public option that 60-70% of Americans supported. (depending on the poll)


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 28, 2012)

Makes sense. There was nothing unconstitutional about this law. It was only when the law became politicized that people started believing it would be overturned.


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> I'm trying my best to look at this objectively, meaning I don't think the court should be sided at all. I fear it both ways. I don't know how to fix it, other than hope for non-corrupt govt. electing them.


They aren't "sided". For fuck's sake.

They are all eminently qualified legal scholars who are nominated by partisan presidents for what they honestly believe, not how they're willing to act, and as both conservative and liberal presidents have discovered to their chagrin since the country was founded, nominating a justice is not a guarantee they'll support your agenda.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> 4 people who vote hardcore right no matter what, like 1 or 2 who vote left no matter what.  I am still of that opinion.
> *
> I would rahter 9 judges who all vote on each specific case independantly, like most of the US.*
> 
> But really, I put this all at the feet of leiberman for joining the Republican filibuster against the public option that 60-70% of Americans supported. (depending on the poll)


what about HELL NO!


----------



## Mider T (Jun 28, 2012)

But it was Roberts who surprised this time not Scalia...

Also it's clear this wasn't a legal battle but a political one.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

the only ting that i am scare is the defecit.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> Being conservative means less big government influence. Less regulation. Being conservative means adhering closer to the Constitution and what the founding fathers set up for us.



I am pretty sure that's what being a Libertarian is.

Being a conservative (in the USA) simply means being completely hypocritical.

Don't come between me and my doctor, unless you are trying to push my personal views about Abortion.

Stay out of my personal life, unless you are tryinggn to stop me from doing recreational drugs like Marijuana.

Stay out of my bedroom, unless you are taking Gay's rights away because they make me feel icky.

Stay out of buisnesses, unless you are tailoring bills to help big buisness, killing any type of real competition in the 'free' market by stunting entrepreneurship.

Stay away from my religion, unless I am trying to push it into public classrooms, courthouses, and legislation.  then you better back me up.


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> because this is how taxes fucking work, they buy shit that isn't necessarily for you. it's also, you know, how insurance works. everyone pays a little car insurance (which, btw, you have to have if you drive a car), just in case they get in a crash. most of that money never comes back to you, but instead goes to someone else who crashes.



Taxes pay for shit the government provides and I use.  Or that's the way it's supposed to work.  I hate paying for social programs with my tax money because to use that, I'd have to stop paying tax money.  At least with education spending I can have a kid and take advantage of it. 

The insurance thing is a retarded comparison, though.  I don't agree on making car insurance mandatory, and not regulating it if it is mandatory.  But at least I have the option to not own a car.  I can take advantage of public transportation, ride a bike, walk, or call a cab.  I don't have the option to just die so I don't have to pay health insurance.  In fact, trying to exercise that option is against the fucking law.



> well that's a fucking lie. conservatives, at least today, are perfectly content to invade everyone's personal freedoms. just look at any of the conservative 'moral' issues. When they push state's rights over federal rights it is almost always because the state is more conservative and wants to get away with atrocious bullshit that would never get a pass on a federal level.



Where are conservatives trying to invade personal freedom.  Cite examples. 

I don't agree on a lot of these conservative moral issues, and hate the Christian agenda that my fellow conservatives push, but that's not why I'm conservative.  I'm not conservative because I'm Christian, and I'm not Christian because I'm conservative.  I agree that there are serious issues within my party that largely stem from this moral agenda, but irrationally lumping all conservatives into that bunch is ridiculous, as is judging all conservatives based on the actions of a very vocal few.



> It is for the good of the people. That's the government's JOB. Even if the people get taxed to pay for it. Again, that's how taxes work.



That's absolutely not the job of the government.  The US Government is there to protect our freedoms and liberties, not to provide us with free shit so we live better lives.  We're not supposed to use the government to have better lives, we're supposed to have better lives because the government provides us with the freedom to achieve them. 

You're arguing for prohibition and nationwide tobacco bans because smoking and alcohol kill and the American people are too stupid to do either responsibly.  The government isn't our parent.  It's not supposed to hold our hands.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

> Being conservative means adhering closer to the Constitution and what the founding fathers set up for us.



Not American conservatism during this age.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Linkdarkside said:


> the only ting that i am scare is the defecit.



I'm scared of that sentence structure. 

This isn't going to take place until 2014, so we'll have to wait and see while making SMART cuts and programs.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> Taxes pay for shit the government provides and I use.  Or that's the way it's supposed to work.  I hate paying for social programs with my tax money because to use that, I'd have to stop paying tax money.  At least with education spending I can have a kid and take advantage of it.
> 
> The insurance thing is a retarded comparison, though.  I don't agree on making car insurance mandatory, and not regulating it if it is mandatory.  But at least I have the option to not own a car.  I can take advantage of public transportation, ride a bike, walk, or call a cab.  I don't have the option to just die so I don't have to pay health insurance.  In fact, trying to exercise that option is against the fucking law.


in other words, you're an extremist





> Where are conservatives trying to invade personal freedom.  Cite examples.


you serious? 

see jewsuke's post above^ 

although he forgot the part 

cops mind your own business, unless you're talking to mexicans


also it's blatantly clear you've never read the constitution or anything the founding fathers said


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> I am pretty sure that's what being a Libertarian is.
> 
> Being a conservative (in the USA) simply means being completely hypocritical.
> 
> ...



+rep indeed.

This is why Libertarianism is ever-fail.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Jun 28, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> They aren't "sided". For fuck's sake.
> 
> They are all eminently qualified legal scholars who are nominated by partisan presidents for what they honestly believe, not how they're willing to act, and as both conservative and liberal presidents have discovered to their chagrin since the country was founded, nominating a justice is not a guarantee they'll support your agenda.



Well normally i'd agree with this, but like i was saying, i think the judges are becoming, for a lack of a better word "manipulated".

Plus i'm not saying none of them are qualified, but a opinionated judge, no matter which way they swing, are still opinionated.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

corsair said:


> Welcome to the socialism club, enjoy your stay. Trust me, it's not as bad as you think.



Actually...it's going to be private insurance companies still handling healthcare...


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> +rep indeed.
> 
> This is why Libertarianism is ever-fail.



no, he's saying that's conservatives. libertarians are just ignorant/selfish about taxation. also for some reason people think ron paul is libertarian


----------



## corsair (Jun 28, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Actually...it's going to be private insurance companies still handling healthcare...



It was a joke about how everything seems to be "socialism" nowadays


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

This is what you conservatives wanted! PRIVATE BUSINESS IS TAKING THE REIGNS IN FULL FORCE YEEHAW! So I really am finding the bitching kind of hilarious, SOME form of universal healthcare was a long-time coming and we have known for decades that we needed some system. When the first, public option was introduced (when it still kept the private insurance system in place alongside it), idiots in the Tea Party screamed socialism at the top of their lungs; many while depending on Medicare and Social Security! So now we have the alternative, and it really doesn't sound so glamorous does it?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 28, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5yTmVxRN2g[/YOUTUBE]

YESSSSSSSS YESSSSSSSSSSS YESSSSSSSS


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> no, he's saying that's conservatives. libertarians are just ignorant/selfish about taxation. also for some reason people think ron paul is libertarian



I find the line separating the two of them unusually thin nowadays.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 28, 2012)

Voice of reason, Obama is speaking.  Explaining the actual law instead of his opinion of the Supreme Court's decision.


----------



## AlphaRooster (Jun 28, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Being a *leftist* (in the USA) simply means being completely hypocritical.
> 
> Don't come between me and my doctor, *unless you think i go too much.*
> 
> ...



I can play this game too.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> I can play this game too.



That wasn't clever at all. That was actually quite stupid.



> Stay out of my bedroom, unless you promise me all the sex I want how i want, with no consequences.



like what.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> I can play this game too.



democrats have never claimed that they're anti-government. they generally believe in using government's power to raise the standard of living of as many citizens as possible. 



also, seeing butthurt conservatives threatening to move to_* Canada!*_ over this, bahahaha


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> +rep indeed.
> 
> This is why Libertarianism is ever-fail.



Becuase Libertarian's actually want to keep religion out of government and foster entrepreneurship?

And I forgot one.

Keep government small becuase it can't run anything correctly.... Except everyone elses government.  If a country doesn't do exactly what we say, we should preemptively run in and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, since then our government knows what's best for them and how to run their country correctly.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 28, 2012)

There is nothing right or left about this. It was only made to seem that way. 

The key question is, can the government tax you to provide a service? Of course. Is Obamacare constructively a tax? Of course. Simple, and it should have been unanimous. 

Striking it down would describe that cute right winger term "legislating from the bench "


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> I can play this game too.



Except Democrats have never claimed to be small government or say most of those blanket statements.  You think a leftist would say to keep government out of buisnesses at all?


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

also this may help some of the slower kids here





> redditor captainpixystick explains the Affordable Care Act to you like you're five.
> 
> Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance.
> 
> ...


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> Voice of reason, Obama is speaking. Explaining the actual law instead of his opinion of the Supreme Court's decision.



Putting his political spin on the law while insisting that it's not political. 



> they generally believe in using government's power to raise the standard of living of as many citizens as possible.



Attempting, and mostly failing, at raising the standard of living for a great deal of people while lowering the standard of living for an almost equal amount of more responsible people while slowly burning bridges so the negative impacts of their actions can never be reversed. 



> The key question is, can the government tax you to provide a service? Of course. Is Obamacare constructively a tax? Of course. Simple, and it should have been unanimous.



That is a real question.  Can government tax you to provide a service?  What service?  Can the government now have a pony tax so I can ride a pony everywhere?  What about the Steak Fridays service, where we're taxed and then given a steak on Fridays?

No, the government can't just tax you whenever it feels like it to provide services we might not want.  This is one area of the Constitution that needed more work.  Fucking implied powers.



> also this may help some of the slower kids here



Poor example.  A simple cancer clause would have solved the entire problem, and a clause that states that an insurance company can't drop service just because you got sick.


----------



## Madai (Jun 28, 2012)

> Where does this dangerous line of reasoning stop? Will we eventually be living in government housing and eating government food products wearing our government uniforms? Will our salaries eventually all be taken to be used to pay for things we "need"?



It stops *where the voters say it stops*. 

Also, the government moves very very slowly.  A large market for an insurance product will exist long before the governments says such insurance is so great everyone should have it.  States will pioneer it (Hi ROMNEY!) before it has a chance of being implemented at the federal level.

There was a health insurance market long long before the government decidied it's a really good idea for everyone to be insured. There is no food insurance market or clothing insurance market-- *probably because there's no catastrophe to hedge against*.  The part in bold is kinda important, and I bet if you're opposed to universal health insurance you probably don't understand what it means.

I don't think it's a dangerous line of reasoning at all that a government should in general try to protect it's people from disasters, whether personal or widespread.  It kinda goes into to the whole "Promote the general welfare" part of the constitution.

Meanwhile, your concerns regarding subsidizing the fat and smokers are unfounded.  Companies are way ahead of you: many refuse to hire fat people and smokers(and they can factually argue that smokers and fat people don't perform as well, so they not only "get away with it", they're encouraged to do so).  The incentives to quit smoking continue to pile up, the percent of smokers, well, they are a dying breed in every sense of the word.  You may think you're subsidizing them, realistically, this new bill is probably going to marginalize them even further.


----------



## happiholic (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> also, seeing butthurt conservatives threatening to move to_* Canada!*_ over this, bahahaha



LOL. I died.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> Attempting, and mostly failing, at raising the standard of living for a great deal of people while lowering the standard of living for an almost equal amount of more responsible people while slowly burning bridges so the negative impacts of their actions can never be reversed.


mmm as opposed to the conservative approach that has lowered the standard of the entire middle class substantially. 





> That is a real question.  Can government tax you to provide a service?  What service?  Can the government now have a pony tax so I can ride a pony everywhere?  What about the Steak Fridays service, where we're taxed and then given a steak on Fridays?


yes. if a bill passes. which is why you vote for congressmen and presidents to decide for you what bills get proposed and passed. 



> No, the government can't just tax you whenever it feels like it to provide services we might not want.  This is one area of the Constitution that needed more work.  Fucking implied powers.


that's like the sole function of government. 

i swear you're new to this country and everything about it. did you not watch the cartoon about the bill crying on the steps of congress or whatever when you were a kid?



> Poor example.  A simple cancer clause would have solved the entire problem, and a clause that states that an insurance company can't drop service just because you got sick.


it could be any sickness, obamacare is designed to make sure people who really need healthcare can actually get it. you're just talking about halfsteps for small symptoms of the problem


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> also, seeing butthurt conservatives threatening to move to_* Canada!*_ over this, bahahaha



That's...ironic?



Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Becuase Libertarian's actually want to keep religion out of government and foster entrepreneurship?
> 
> And I forgot one.
> 
> Keep government small becuase it can't run anything correctly.... Except everyone elses government.  If a country doesn't do exactly what we say, we should preemptively run in and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, since then our government knows what's best for them and how to run their country correctly.



Libertarians also invoke the spirit of isolationism, screwing over national alliances simply to save a dollar or two when if you haven't noticed is a little more necessary nowadays thanks to places like North Korea.  Libertarianism fosters only the protections of businesses from actual ethics, and the notion that if we let business go laissez-faire that they could very well remain loyal to American workers is nothing short of naivete.  It's unregulated capitalism, and an abomination.


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> It stops where the voters say it stops.



Obviously not.  The majority of Americans said they didn't want this thing to make it out of the Supreme Court.  



> There was a health insurance market long long before the government decidied it's a really good idea for everyone to be insured. There is no food insurance market or clothing insurance market-- probably because there's no catastrophe to hedge against. The part in bold is kinda important, and I bet if you're opposed to universal health insurance you probably don't understand what it means.



I'm not against healthcare reform.  I'm against this radical health care reform.  And I'm not against universal health care.  People should get, universally, health care.  I'm against people being forced to get it, and the government providing it for people who won't get it. 



> It kinda goes into to the whole "Promote the general welfare" part of the constitution.



Which does not grant powers to the government.



> Meanwhile, your concerns regarding subsidizing the fat and smokers are unfounded.



You're saying Americans aren't getting fatter?  And being fat isn't a health concern.  Or that fat people don't have higher health care costs?  Smoking aside, obesity is the real issue here.



> that's like the sole function of government.



You are completely lost.



> it could be any sickness, obamacare is designed to make sure people who really need healthcare can actually get it. you're just talking about halfsteps for small symptoms of the problem



Every child should be covered.  Every healthy adult should have health insurance.  If they don't, and they get sick, they gambled and lost.  Sorry.  Be smart next time.  Sick kids who turn into sick adults should still be covered based on the fact insurance companies can't decline to serve you despite the fact that you're covered just because you now need it.  Therefore they can't deny you coverage if you've always had coverage, i.e. from childhood. 

If you're a healthy adult, you decide not to get health insurance, you then get sick... fuck you.  You're an idiot.  A better solution than forcing people to get a product, and taxing them if they don't want to.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> +rep indeed.
> 
> This is why Libertarianism is ever-fail.



Libertarianism is a mental disorder.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> I'm not against healthcare reform.  I'm against this radical health care reform.  And I'm not against universal health care.  People should get, universally, health care.  I'm against people being forced to get it, and the government providing it for people who won't get it.



That's stupid. That isn't universal healthcare what you support, it was the extremely flawed system we had to begin with. This is extremely shortsighted, and people like you were going to have to accept sooner or later we needed a more effective, universal system in place. You evidently can't think beyond the scope of your own situations and fail to understand how another individual's circumstances would impact your own.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

The only thing I just want Americans to take away from this is still a notion that they should still be responsible about the health choices they make.  If they smoke, eat a lot, are sedentary, drink, etc., there has to be some compulsion set forth by authorities and by private health officials to keep them thinking healthy.  I don't believe all medical companies are licking their chops waiting for diabetic fatasses to come in droves.  While insurance will be made more available, people need to remind Americans that they can also avoid having to go see the doc in the first place by being somewhat responsible.  That's about the only conservative measure I can take from this and even then I have very little faith seeing how some regions operate.


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> That's stupid. That isn't universal healthcare what you support, it was the extremely flawed system we had to begin with.



I said I wanted reform.  The reform is the part where insurance companies can't deny you coverage when you've paid your premiums and now need it.  Reform is insurance companies not being able to drop you when you get sick, since you just paid the company for a service that they're now denying to you.  Reform is no limits on how long you can keep insurance after you've first been accepted.



> You evidently can't think beyond the scope of your own situations and fail to understand how another individual's circumstances would impact your own.



I largely believe in the power of the individual, yes, and that people should be responsible for their own actions.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> I largely believe in the power of the individual, yes, and that people should be responsible for their own actions.



Or in this case, people should be responsible for sicknesses they get through no fault of their own because god forbid any of your money help anyone else.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

*?Mandate struck down?: ?Dewey Defeats Truman? moment for CNN, Fox News*



> The Supreme Court upheld the individual insurance mandate of President Obama's "Affordable Health Care Act" in a 5-4 decision on Thursday, sending cable news and Twitter into a frenzy.
> 
> Moments after the 193-page ruling was released by the court, several media outlets--including CNN and Fox News--erroneously reported on-air that the mandate had been struck down.
> 
> ...


haha love this stuff.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> Poor example.  A simple cancer clause would have solved the entire problem, and a clause that states that an insurance company can't drop service just because you got sick.



Why just cancer? Why didn't you just state pre-existing conditions. I have two myself that I was born with that makes it nearly impossible to get coverage. It's prevented me from obtaining multiple job offers due to their insurance coverage (or lack thereof) and leaves you with slim pickings. While I'm fortunate enough to have a job that has decent health care coverage I know if god forbid, I lose my job, my only option earlier would have been to be completely destitute to qualify for medicaid because we all know you're screwed the moment you try getting a part time job or contract work.


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> Or in this case, people should be responsible for sicknesses they get through no fault of their own because god forbid any of your money help anyone else.



Shouldn't it be my fucking choice whether I give charity to an individual?  I'm not anti-charity.  I'm anti being forced to give charity.  Why is this concept difficult to understand.



> Why just cancer? Why didn't you just state pre-existing conditions.



Yeah, whatever.  Any clause that states after being incident free for a certain number of years, you can no longer be denied service and your premiums must be reset to reflect that of a healthy individual (or however healthy you would be minus the condition).



> I have two myself that I was born with that makes it nearly impossible to get coverage. It's prevented me from obtaining multiple job offers due to their insurance coverage (or lack thereof) and leaves you with slim pickings. While I'm fortunate enough to have a job that has decent health care coverage I know if god forbid, I lose my job, my only option earlier would have been to be completely destitute to qualify for medicaid because we all know you're screwed the moment you try getting a part time job or contract work.



And again, any condition existing from childhood should be covered as if the individual were still a child.  And all children should be covered, so any childhood ailments should also be covered. 

Again, the thing that rustles my jimmies is the forcing of care on someone, and that someone with pre-existing conditions can now get coverage at the same rates as someone who is the same age and healthy.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

> No. I tried to buy an insurance policy after I graduated from college, and every company denied me because of preexisting conditions. I mean I could not buy health insurance. At any price. That is what I am indicating. Also, I have a full-time job with health insurance, so I’m not asking you or anyone else to subsidize my costs at this point. Oh, well, except for my coworkers and the insurance company. Because that’s how insurance works. A large group of people pay into it, and some people will need more services and some people will need less, but they’ll all pay the same premiums.
> 
> “Fair” doesn’t exist when it comes to healthcare. It’s not “fair” that some people are born with congenital heart defects and diabetes and cancer and mental illness. It’s not “fair” that some of us have to deal with those things for our whole lives and have to worry about going bankrupt to pay for it. If you really think having to buy insurance is unfair, try being sick and uninsured for a little while.


just throwin this out there.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

> No. I tried to buy an insurance policy after I graduated from college, and every company denied me because of preexisting conditions. I mean I could not buy health insurance. At any price. That is what I am indicating. Also, I have a full-time job with health insurance, so I’m not asking you or anyone else to subsidize my costs at this point. Oh, well, except for my coworkers and the insurance company. Because that’s how insurance works. A large group of people pay into it, and some people will need more services and some people will need less, but they’ll all pay the same premiums.
> 
> “Fair” doesn’t exist when it comes to healthcare. It’s not “fair” that some people are born with congenital heart defects and diabetes and cancer and mental illness. It’s not “fair” that some of us have to deal with those things for our whole lives and have to worry about going bankrupt to pay for it. If you really think having to buy insurance is unfair, try being sick and uninsured for a little while.


just throwin this out there.





martryn said:


> Shouldn't it be my fucking choice whether I give charity to an individual?



No? How many times must the concept of taxation be explained to you?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> No? How many times must the concept of taxation be explained to you?



SOCIETY WHAT'S THAT?


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> Libertarians also invoke the spirit of isolationism, screwing over national alliances simply to save a dollar or two when if you haven't noticed is a little more necessary nowadays thanks to places like North Korea.  Libertarianism fosters only the protections of businesses from actual ethics, and the notion that if we let business go laissez-faire that they could very well remain loyal to American workers is nothing short of naivete.  It's unregulated capitalism, and an abomination.



Libertarianism definitely isn't flawless.  One very vocal libertarian that I follow on youtube and the like has made videos saying how the 13th amendment was unnecessary.  Which I thick would be a great boon to the human trafficking market.  Think of all that money in selling small children to rich creeps.


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> No? How many times must the concept of taxation be explained to you?



And this is why social programs are unfair.  And you're still demonstrating your own ignorance on how government works.  Not all taxes go to social programs.  I have no problems with taxation, as not all taxes go for charity.  Some of them actually do pay for services that I approve of and benefit me: education, police and fire services, road works, the military, etc.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> just throwin this out there.



That's exactly the situation I was in. No matter the cost of premiums, no one would cover me at all. I spent 7 years combined (undergrad and grad school) earning my degrees so I could obtain decent employment and become a contributing member of society. The cards are stacked against you from the very start. Many potential entry level positions, research opportunities were closed off to me, because I needed to be on some form of health coverage in order to ensure I would get the treatment I needed in order to live. 

You're options are to find gainful employment right off the bat with decent health care coverage or be dirt poor and get medicaid. There's no working two part time jobs to gain experience in order to get your foot in the door. There's no ability to obtain part time teaching/research positions because you know they don't come with health insurance (even though they could help you land a better job opportunity).


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> And this is why social programs are unfair.  And you're still demonstrating your own ignorance on how government works.  Not all taxes go to social programs.  I have no problems with taxation, as not all taxes go for charity.  Some of them actually do pay for services that I approve of and benefit me: education, police and fire services, road works, the military, etc.



BUT WHAT IF YOUR HOUSE NEVER CATCHES ON FIRE ALL THAT WASTED TAX MONEY

I'd tell you to move to the ultra-libertarian country of your dreams or whatever but such a thing doesn't exist in this world because it doesn't work. America's the only first world country without universal healthcare.


----------



## baconbits (Jun 28, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Does he know how the Supreme Court works ?



How odd.  When the thread about the Supreme Court not reconsidering corporate personhood many people supported the view that the court was political and "bought and paid for".  Now that they rule in ways that you agree with all of a sudden the person making the charges must have evidence.  Interesting.



Mael said:


> Sweet Jesus...the butthurt is unbelievable.  Granted it'd be like this if the mandate was struck down but talk about the sensationalism.



I don't think there's so much "butthurt" as disagreement.  Either way this works out great for us politically but terrible for the country as a whole.

Legally I can't find a logical basis for this ruling.  The word "tax" is not in the bill yet the Supreme Court rules that they can magically find a tax when there is none.  Now the government can demand that you buy something.  Unreal.

In other words I agree with this:



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> It seems blatantly unconstitutional to me. Uncle Sam forcing me to buy something? What kind of bullshit is that?
> I'm perfectly okay with the individual mandate by itself, but as far as I can tell, it is now officially constitutional for the government to make me buy lottery tickets and beer.
> 
> That said, I trust the Supreme Court and assume that my assumption is incorrect and I won't actually be forced to buy liberty bonds any time soon.



Your assumption is only somewhat incorrect.  They are saying you can be told to buy anything, but not under the commerce clause - it has to be justified as a tax.  Odd ruling.



Chessmaster said:


> Gee I remember when Obama said his Mandate wasn't a tax. What a shameless world we live in.





Mael said:


> The *Supreme Court* said it worked as a tax measure within Congress.  So where is Obama to blame on this?



Lol.  Mael, contain your glee for a moment and think: Obama said it was not a tax, it was a mandate, all through the political process.  As soon as this bill went to court he sent his lawyers to argue that this was a tax, not a mandate.  That's pretty cynical.



Linkdarkside said:


> Libertarianism is a mental disorder.



Wow.  The libs in this thread are incredibly over the top.  I'm glad to see you've gotten a victory but you're letting the victory go to your heads a little bit.

Libertarianism has problems but it is a conceivable and legitimate political philosophy.  It suggests that the power of government should be severely limited.  There are legitimate reasons for believing it and it is logically more convincing than socialism or communism.



Mael said:


> The only thing I just want Americans to take away from this is still a notion that they should still be responsible about the health choices they make.  If they smoke, eat a lot, are sedentary, drink, etc., there has to be some compulsion set forth by authorities and by private health officials to keep them thinking healthy.  I don't believe all medical companies are licking their chops waiting for diabetic fatasses to come in droves.  While insurance will be made more available, people need to remind Americans that they can also avoid having to go see the doc in the first place by being somewhat responsible.  That's about the only conservative measure I can take from this and even then I have very little faith seeing how some regions operate.



I'm glad you said this because this expresses the dictatorial leanings of a socialist system.  Rather than let each individual bear the individual costs for their free choices (freedom) you have argued that the state will tell you what you ought to do with some form of "compulsion" (totalitarianism).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> BUT WHAT IF YOUR HOUSE NEVER CATCHES ON FIRE ALL THAT WASTED TAX MONEY
> 
> I'd tell you to move to the ultra-libertarian country of your dreams or whatever but such a thing doesn't exist in this world because it doesn't work. America's the only first world country without universal healthcare.



It's hilariously shortsighted, and furthermore his considering of healthcare as "charity", it's something like roads, that we ALL will use in our lifetimes.



> I'm glad you said this because this expresses the dictatorial leanings of a socialist system. Rather than let each individual bear the individual costs for their free choices (freedom) you have argued that the state will tell you what you ought to do with some form of "compulsion" (totalitarianism).



This thing about the healthcare system proposed and upheld leading to dictatorship is absolutely idiotic. Healthcare is an essential service like roads, schools, etc. that we will all use in our lifetimes. You are like martryn in that you cannot seem to conceptualize circumstance beyond your own, or how they will impact yours. A person's health costs can, have, and will continue to impact the health expenses of others. Especially when they don't have coverage.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

@bacon:  I said Americans need to be personally responsible.  The government giving advertisements advocating a healthier living isn't really my definition of totalitarianism.  Please let us know when we turn into North Korea.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> BUT WHAT IF YOUR HOUSE NEVER CATCHES ON FIRE ALL THAT WASTED TAX MONEY
> 
> I'd tell you to move to the ultra-libertarian country of your dreams or whatever but such a thing doesn't exist in this world because it doesn't work. America's the only first world country without universal healthcare.



I think it was like a year ago the libertarians were postulating building an artificial island and starting their own government there.  If you wait a while it might happen.


----------



## Hwon (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> I'm not against healthcare reform.  I'm against this radical health care reform.  And I'm not against universal health care.  People should get, universally, health care.  I'm against people being forced to get it, and the government providing it for people who won't get it.



a) It isn't even remotely radical.
b) It doesn't force people to buy insurance.
c) The government isn't providing it.

It is taking the private industry and setting up national exchanges that are subsidized for lower income people and families.  So unless you are poor the only thing this law changes with in the industry is that it creates a more open market for competition.  The mandate only involves a tax for those who don't have insurance because the government by law is still having to provide money/service for a person's healthcare. 



martryn said:


> Every child should be covered.  Every healthy adult should have health insurance.  If they don't, and they get sick, they gambled and lost.  Sorry.  Be smart next time.  Sick kids who turn into sick adults should still be covered based on the fact insurance companies can't decline to serve you despite the fact that you're covered just because you now need it.  Therefore they can't deny you coverage if you've always had coverage, i.e. from childhood.
> 
> If you're a healthy adult, you decide not to get health insurance, you then get sick... fuck you.  You're an idiot.  A better solution than forcing people to get a product, and taxing them if they don't want to.



Be smart?  Are you retarded?  I mean seriously do you not even know what healthcare reform is about?  It is about affordability.  You need to get out of your imaginary world where there are large groups of people who don't want insurance and anyone who doesn't and gets sick is just an irresponsible idiot.

You sir are the idiot.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Jun 28, 2012)

Wow thought they would have shot it down but good for Obama. I see the Republicans are out in force with the cray talk.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 28, 2012)

Not sure if this has been posted, but...



Fill out your information to see how the bill affects you.


----------



## baconbits (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> @bacon:  I said Americans need to be personally responsible.  The government giving advertisements advocating a healthier living isn't really my definition of totalitarianism.  Please let us know when we turn into North Korea.



You've advocated government compelling the individual to do certain actions; you've even advocated government telling us what size drinks we can have.  How does this not tend towards totalitarianism?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

baconbits said:


> You've advocated government compelling the individual to do certain actions; you've even advocated government telling us what size drinks we can have.  How does this not tend towards totalitarianism?



He advocated government support of recommending healthy eating, and nothing more. There's nothing totalitarian about that, you are making a completely idiotic argument here. I guess the food pyramid and the FDA are socialist totalitarian constructs too!


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

baconbits said:


> You've advocated government compelling the individual to do certain actions; you've even advocated government telling us what size drinks we can have.  How does this not tend towards totalitarianism?



But does it stop us from having the drinks?  Are we going to be put into camps for having the 16oz soda instead of the 32oz with twice the sugar?

People are naturally selfish and Epicurean, the short-term sight of pleasure over pain.  Especially with poor education standards in some of these states, they're targets for smarter folks to take advantage of bringing in the championing of choice against better advice.  And when these folks do make these bad choices, everyone suffers.  "They'll pay for the choices themselves," and they are...and we're also paying no matter what, so if it truly meant we'd have less fatties and less insurance costs ramping up, recommend and regulate the fuck away since you're not denying them, just warning them.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

baconbits said:


> You've advocated government compelling the individual to do certain actions; you've even advocated government telling us what size drinks we can have.  How does this not tend towards totalitarianism?



laws!=totalitarianism. especially when these are laws proposed by elected officials...


also:





> The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
> 
> Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The clich that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
> 
> ...



just sayin


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

The Dept. of Agriculture recommends 6-11 servings of bread, rice, or pasta a day. Socialism.

The Dept. of Agriculture recommends 3-5 servings of vegetables a day. Socialism.

The Dept. of Agriculture recommends 2-4 servings of fruit a day. Socialism.

The Dept. of Agriculture recommends 2-3 servings of eggs, meat, or beans a day. Socialism.

The Dept. of Agriculture recommends 2-3 servings of dairy products a day. Socialism.

The Dept. of Agriculture recommends a sparse consumption of fatty, oily, and/or sugary foods. Socialism.

TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO GET OUT OF MY BELLY.


----------



## Barioth (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> laws!=totalitarianism. especially when these are laws proposed by elected officials...
> 
> 
> also:
> ...



If such things does occurs. I am ready for the worse. Just saying. Hopefully you live through it as well.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 28, 2012)

martryn said:


> That is a real question.  Can government tax you to provide a service?  What service?  Can the government now have a pony tax so I can ride a pony everywhere?  What about the Steak Fridays service, where we're taxed and then given a steak on Fridays?
> 
> No, the government can't just tax you whenever it feels like it to provide services we might not want.  This is one area of the Constitution that needed more work.  Fucking implied powers.



Yes, we could have a pony tax. That is very constitutional. The constitution doesn't exist to prevent laws that people think are absurd, that's the job of the congress and to a much more limited extent, the president. 

If you disagree, then find me the pony tax clause. It doesn't exist, and that's because the power to legislate and tax is given to the congress. The requirement to buy insurance is no different than the requirement to buy a license, and the penalty for failing to buy it (tax) is really no different than any other tax.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 28, 2012)

Thank. Fucking. God.

I was pretty fucking worried. Minimal hyperbole, my life and livelihood kinda depends on the ACA's continued existence.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Ninja Cheetos said:


> Not sure if this has been posted, but...
> 
> 
> 
> Fill out your information to see how the bill affects you.



Insurance availible for about $2,600 and a $700 tax if I don't comply.

Not to bad, thats if I don't make more money in the next 4 years though.


----------



## .44 (Jun 28, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> 4 people who vote hardcore right no matter what, like 1 or 2 who vote left no matter what.  I am still of that opinion.


Which people are you talking about?

Even if you have a point, your numbers are off.

Always right: Thomas, Scalia.
Mostly right: Alito, Roberts.
Does what he wants: Kennedy.
Mostly left: Kagan, Breyer
Always left: Ginsburg, Sotomayor.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jun 28, 2012)

America's first step towards being civilized. Must say I'm very proud of the colony


----------



## Draffut (Jun 28, 2012)

Sunuvmann said:


> Thank. Fucking. God.
> 
> I was pretty fucking worried. Minimal hyperbole, my life and livelihood kinda depends on the ACA's continued existence.



I don't think you understand.  if you have a pre-existing condition you don't deserve medical treatment.  You need to find a dark alley to die quietly away from the rest of us!


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 28, 2012)

One HUGE thing people are ignoring is that while Roberts sided with the progressive judges in upholding the mandate he at the same time put limitations on the commerce clause.  Something which in the future will likely make it much more difficult to enact other social programs or enact anti-discrimination laws which have often used the commerce clause as their basis.


----------



## .44 (Jun 28, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> One HUGE thing people are ignoring is that while Roberts sided with the progressive judges in upholding the mandate he at the same time put limitations on the commerce clause.  Something which in the future will likely make it much more difficult to enact other social programs or enact anti-discrimination laws which have often used the commerce clause as their basis.



It's not a strictly Roberts thing.

If you remember the oral arguments, Sotomayor brought up the same solution (it's constitutional if it's construed as a tax).

If I recall correctly (it's been a longass time), the conservative justices (besides Roberts) were the ones adamant that it couldn't be a tax.

Kagan and Ginsburg wanted it to be considered a nontax (probably forseeing this result).

EDIT: Just went through the transcripts; even Verrilli (the solicitor general) was holding out for this possible outcome.


			
				Verrilli said:
			
		

> But if there is any doubt about that under the Commerce Clause, then I urge this Court to uphold the minimum coverage provision as an exercise of the taxing power.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> BUT WHAT IF YOUR HOUSE NEVER CATCHES ON FIRE ALL THAT WASTED TAX MONEY
> 
> I'd tell you to move to the ultra-libertarian country of your dreams or whatever but such a thing doesn't exist in this world because it doesn't work. America's the only first world country without universal healthcare.


Yeah they do. Somalia for one.

@Jewsuke: Yeah prexisting and on parent's insurance. I need it to exist until I can get a career with health insurance

Brb, finding an iceflow to go die on.


----------



## .44 (Jun 28, 2012)

Sunuvmann said:


> Yeah they do. Somalia for one.
> 
> @Jewsuke: Yeah prexisting and on parent's insurance. I need it to exist until I can get a career with health insurance
> 
> Brb, finding an iceflow to go die on.



It's called an "ice floe", Mr. Mann.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 28, 2012)

Oh. Well idk. Im not an eskimo. How should I know all ice related homonyms?


----------



## .44 (Jun 28, 2012)

Back on topic: Re-reading the oral arguments, I think this result was pretty much to be expected. Of course, I'm using the power of already knowing the result, but shhh.

Thomas: Never says anything, but is against anything that comes close to extending the power of the commerce clause.
Scalia: Vocally against the tactic of "it's a tax" / "it's not a tax". 
Alito: Argued that it couldn't be construed as a tax.
Roberts: Argued that it could be construed as a tax.
Kennedy: Bizarrely (for him) vocal against it.
Breyer: Thought it would be constitutional even not as a tax.
Ginsburg: Thought it would be constitutional even not as a tax.
Kagan: Thought it would be constitutional even not as a tax.
Sotomayor: Argued that it could be construed as a tax.

So: 
4 - not constitutional
3 - constutional; nontax
2 - constitutional; tax 


Sunuvmann said:


> Oh. Well idk. Im not an eskimo. How should I know all ice related homonyms?



I think I actually learned the proper spelling from the WC3 World Editor.


----------



## baconbits (Jun 28, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He advocated government support of recommending healthy eating, and nothing more. There's nothing totalitarian about that, you are making a completely idiotic argument here. I guess the food pyramid and the FDA are socialist totalitarian constructs too!



I think you need to go to dictionary.com and look up the difference between compel and suggest.  After that, let's talk.



Mael said:


> But does it stop us from having the drinks?  Are we going to be put into camps for having the 16oz soda instead of the 32oz with twice the sugar?



Are you saying that the lack of a severe penalty means that you're not moving towards totalitarianism?



Mael said:


> People are naturally selfish and Epicurean, the short-term sight of pleasure over pain.



True, but because they are should you then try to force them to do as you will?



Mael said:


> Especially with poor education standards in some of these states, they're targets for smarter folks to take advantage of bringing in the championing of choice against better advice.  And when these folks do make these bad choices, everyone suffers.  "They'll pay for the choices themselves," and they are...and we're also paying no matter what, so if it truly meant we'd have less fatties and less insurance costs ramping up, recommend and regulate the fuck away since you're not denying them, just warning them.



Yeah, your argument isn't really coherent.  Changing the law to make giving certain size drinks illegal isn't "warning them" it's dictating behavior.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

Sunuvmann said:


> Yeah they do. Somalia for one.







> Since the outbreak of the Somali Civil War in 1991 there has been no central government control over most of the country's territory.[2] The internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government controls only a small part of the country. Somalia has been characterized as a failed state and is one of the poorest and most violent states in the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]



oh well then he can move there


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 28, 2012)

I am suprised but I heard the corperations loved it and maybe that was enough to swing some of the pro-corperation justices?

Honestly though, this is a shitstorm I really don't want anything to do with.


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> I am suprised but I heard the corperations loved it and maybe that was enough to swing some of the pro-corperation justices?



There is only one kind of justice: Pro-constitutionalist. Their interpretation differs and honestly I think it's a little unsightly how people blame supreme court trends they don't like on corporations, or feminism, or I don't even know what the conservatives are blaming this on but I'm sure it's something absurd.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 28, 2012)

baconbits said:


> There is no slippery slope.  There are two ways for governance - one relies on freedom and personal responsibility.  The other takes away freedom and assumes the burden of personal responsibility.
> 
> One can take a position in the middle, but it's easy to see when you're moving towards one end or the other.  I'm not arguing that we will accidentally slip and become North Korea; I'm arguing that we're moving towards that side of the spectrum with policies and mindsets like this.



Lol you derp. The whole point of the ACA is individual responibility. Its making you be responsible and get insurance lest you become a drag on society. Obamacare IS the free market solution for universal healthcare.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jun 28, 2012)

The only thing that I did not like was how the US Supreme Court put some limitations on the Medicaid coverage.


While the federal government can suggest that the states accept all people who maku up to 133% of the federal poverty level, the US Supreme Court ruled that it cannot penalize the states if it choses not to go up that level.


Which sucks since several states (especially the South) lower the poverty line despite being way lower than the federal poverty limit !


Other than that, I am glad that we now have some sort of near-universal healthcare......at least, citizens are required to have affordable insurance from the state run insurance exchange sites that would be subsidized by the government depending on income level.


I believe this is based on the Swiss version of universal healthcare.


----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Sunuvmann said:


> Lol you derp. The whole point of the ACA is individual responibility. Its making you be responsible and get insurance lest you become a drag on society. Obamacare IS the free market solution for universal healthcare.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYGuQlQseHU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Raiden (Jun 28, 2012)

That speech started out so dry it's ridiculous.

Anyway hurdle avoided. 

But boy was Romney clear in his message. This will only rally the Republican base further. And democrats stay asleep even though the next election could mean there won't be another Democrat for probably 10-12 years.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 28, 2012)

> “How could John Roberts side with the liberals? The individual mandate is so clearly unconstitutional – even to a layperson – how could it be? Kind of like a Vince Flynn book. Someone got to Roberts. I bet they got to him and told him he has to vote this way or members of his family – kids, wife, parents, whoever – were going to be killed. Later this afternoon, it’s going to come out that Roberts was coerced. A Secret Service agent overheard Obama and Axelrod discussing the Roberts blackmail. He managed to get them on tape discussing it. Later this afternoon, the whole story will come out, Roberts will issue his REAL opinion, and Obama and Axelrod will be taken away in handcuffs.”


----------



## Nemo (Jun 28, 2012)




----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

I love the irony behind the "moving to Canada" comment, considering Canada has exactly what they're avoiding.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jun 28, 2012)

^ Canada is even more progressive than America !


----------



## Mider T (Jun 28, 2012)

Those people wouldn't move 50 miles away from their mother, too cowardly to protest or move to Canada.


----------



## Raiden (Jun 28, 2012)

Those damn people on Twotter/Shitbook probably don't know what's in the bill.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jun 28, 2012)

And Republicans will continue to go by ignorance if it means more support for their agenda to go back when receiving health insurance was a privilege instead of right, unfortunately .....


Ironic since the individual mandate was a Republican idea during the 1990s


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 28, 2012)

Raiden said:


> Those damn people on Twotter/Shitbook probably don't know what's in the bill.



That's not uncommon.  If you ask people if they like "Obamacare" they yell and holler about how horrible it is because they've been conditioned to do so, but if you ask them about most of the pieces of Obamacare individually they love them.


----------



## Cyphon (Jun 28, 2012)

Browsed through here just for some laughs and I did notice a pattern from one of our beloved posters:



Seto Kaiba said:


> That was actually quite *stupid*.





> This thing about the healthcare system proposed and upheld leading to dictatorship is absolutely *idiotic*. Healthcare is an essential service like roads, schools, etc. that we will all use in our lifetimes. You are like martryn in that you cannot seem to conceptualize circumstance beyond your own, or how they will impact yours. A person's health costs can, have, and will continue to impact the health expenses of others. Especially when they don't have coverage.





> He advocated government support of recommending healthy eating, and nothing more. There's nothing totalitarian about that, you are making a completely *idiotic* argument here. I guess the food pyramid and the FDA are socialist totalitarian constructs too!





> That's *stupid*. That isn't universal healthcare what you support, it was the extremely flawed system we had to begin with. This is extremely shortsighted, and people like you were going to have to accept sooner or later we needed a more effective, universal system in place. You evidently can't think beyond the scope of your own situations and fail to understand how another individual's circumstances would impact your own.




1. The first thing that comes to mind when reading your posts is that you should try to be more respectful. I know most of you don't care, as many of the Cafe members seem to lack even the most basic moral compass. That said, I am just pointing out that you should try. Any person on the other side of the argument could just as easily dismiss all of _your_ ideas as idiotic or stupid and you really would have nothing to talk about besides back and forth childish name calling. 

Disagreement =/= lack of intelligence. 


2. _If_ you insist on continuing with such behavior you could at least expand your vocabulary in that regard. You just keep using the same words when there are so many to choose from. It is as if you are just some robot stuck on repeat with little of value to contribute to the discussion.



As for the topic.....I haven't really paid much attention to the entire thing but I don't like the decision. I don't think the government should be able to force this on people. And that isn't to say I am against reform or all of this bill, I just don't see how you can "tax" someone for not having health insurance. 

What I find most odd about it is that it is coming from the Democrat/Liberal side of things. I was under the impression they were the ones concerned with people's well being. This sounds to me like they are forcing people into an extra money burden one way or the other. You buy insurance and have another extra monthly bill you may not want or even need or you don't buy it and you pay anyway.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jun 28, 2012)

I hate the stupidity of certain Americans, they reject the mandate but still expect the other provisions to stand ?


I prefer a single payer system over this, but I will do my job as a American citizen by buying subsidized health insurance so that my little input will make health insurance a little cheaper for the next person!


That is how insurance works, people!  The prices will not lower nor be competitive unless it has a huge market of people trying to do the same.

Thus, that is where the individual mandate came in.

If you do not want health insurance, then you have to pay a tax so that it can help other people buy affordable health insurance!

You have a duty as American citizens to pay taxes for the benefit of the welfare for the nation!


----------



## Enclave (Jun 28, 2012)

I only hope that in 20 years or so some politician is going to come around and manage to turn this into a public option system.  Insurance companies would still exist as they'd provide extended services.  They really are cheaper than a privately run insurance company.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jun 28, 2012)

I actually think this is a more preferable alternative then having some kind of universal health care lark. Now if America really did want to implement something like universal health care – *don’t* follow the European or Canadian example. And this is all good for insurance companies but what about middle class citizens?


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jun 28, 2012)

The federal government will pay a portion of your health insurance premium depending on your income level.

The people who earn the least per year will receive the most assistance from the government to pay for it or can apply to Medicaid (that is, if the state you are living in will agree with the federal suggestion for Medicaid coverage).


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 28, 2012)

Enclave said:


> I only hope that in 20 years or so some politician is going to come around and manage to turn this into a public option system.  Insurance companies would still exist as they'd provide extended services.  They really are cheaper than a privately run insurance company.



What Obama should have done is passed a healthcare law that is only one sentence long.  "The age restriction for Medicare is hereby abolished, the program will now cover all citizens.".


----------



## Raiden (Jun 28, 2012)

Enclave said:


> I only hope that in 20 years or so some politician is going to come around and manage to turn this into a public option system.



Most Republicans will probably have kicked the bucket then.

There's enough of us soft spoken Democrats to yell over Ann Coulter, so I think we got it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

Jack Cafferty is an idiot.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 28, 2012)

Ninja Cheetos said:


>



How ironic. If Romney is elected, I may just have to that myself. Or more likely England. Since dual citizenship.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jun 28, 2012)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> The federal government will pay a portion of your health insurance premium depending on your income level.
> 
> The lower money you earn per year, the more help you get from the government to pay for it.



How does the federal government pay for it?

I mean the places the government can get its money from are: taxes, income, fines, debt, or inflation. 

...you see where I’m going with this?


----------



## sadated_peon (Jun 28, 2012)

baconbits said:


> There is no slippery slope.  There are two ways for governance - one relies on freedom and personal responsibility.  The other takes away freedom and assumes the burden of personal responsibility.
> 
> One can take a position in the middle, but it's easy to see when you're moving towards one end or the other.  I'm not arguing that we will accidentally slip and become North Korea; I'm arguing that we're moving towards that side of the spectrum with policies and mindsets like this.



Do you support then the rejection of people from hospitals if they are unable to pay for their medical treatment? Even if that rejection leads to their death?


----------



## Saishin (Jun 28, 2012)

*US Supreme Court upholds healthcare reform law*



> The US Supreme Court has said President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform act is constitutional.
> 
> The court upheld a core requirement known as the "individual mandate" that Americans buy insurance or pay a fine.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18630837


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jun 28, 2012)

Raising the poll tax on the higher income earners, taxing citizens who do not have insurance, taxing businesses who do not give adequate health insurance to their employees, and taxing certain hospital equipment.

There are more, but those are the only ones that I remember right now......


----------



## Mider T (Jun 28, 2012)

So I take it you just came in the Cafe and pressed "New Thread" without taking a look around?


----------



## lowtech redneck (Jun 28, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Makes sense. There was nothing unconstitutional about this law. It was only when the law became politicized that people started believing it would be overturned.



Perhaps you didn't notice, but five of the justices specifically rejected the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause as Constitutional justification, and four rejected the argument that taxing inactivity is non-coercive and/or within the taxation powers of congress.  For people who actually support federalism and the concept of Constitutionally limited government, that's a silver lining, and 'living Constitution' enthusiasists will no longer be able to shout down such arguments as fringe jurisprudence.

Its not a good day for my side, but Roberts' decision seems more of a revocable setback (i.e. we just need to contain the damage untill the balance of the Supreme Court shifts, which would have been much more difficult if the Commerce Clause justifaction was accepted) than a deathblow as far as limited government and federalism is concerned.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)




----------



## Mael (Jun 28, 2012)

Wow dude you are bad at this.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 28, 2012)

MbS said:


> I actually think this is a more preferable alternative then having some kind of universal health care lark. Now if America really did want to implement something like universal health care ? *don?t* follow the European or Canadian example. And this is all good for insurance companies but what about middle class citizens?



I'm middle class, I'm pretty happy with Canadian healthcare.

Not saying it's perfect but I'd be freaked right the fuck out if it was going to turn into the same style you had before Obama changed it.  Hell, I'd be freaked right the fuck out if we were going to switch to the same kind of healthcare you currently have as well.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jun 28, 2012)

Mael said:


> Wow dude you are bad at this.



I'd go easy on Saishin since he/she is usually one of the best at posting "real" news, soon after they happen.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 28, 2012)

I want insurance companies to be destroyed tbh. I want single payer and every last one of those fuckers to go balls up bankrupt. Christ, theyre the cheapest fuckers in the world who will fight tooth and nail to not pay a single cent. Bloody cunts.


----------



## Federer (Jun 28, 2012)

Good decision.

Health is one of the basic things that a person needs and everyone should have access to insurance and should pay for it.

It was about time to take away all that power from the insurance companies.


----------



## Saishin (Jun 28, 2012)

mr_shadow said:


> I'd go easy on Saishin since he/she is usually one of the best at posting "real" news, soon after they happen.


Thank you Mr Shadow 

sorry wasn't my intention,I didn't see that someone have posted this news already,my mistake


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jun 28, 2012)

Mider T said:


> So I take it you just came in the Cafe and pressed "New Thread" without taking a look around?



 

aint gonna lie, I do that all the time!


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jun 28, 2012)

I admit to being surprised about the mandate (I was on the fence about it myself)... everything else I expected to pass Constitutional muster


----------



## First Tsurugi (Jun 28, 2012)

Roberts had to do some serious legal gymnastics to save the mandate.

Commendable, but undoubtedly a case of judicial activism.


----------



## Kahvehane (Jun 28, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> Roberts had to do some serious legal gymnastics to save the mandate.
> 
> Commendable, but undoubtedly a case of judicial activism.



Judicial activism? From Chief Justice Roberts?




Dafuq did I just read


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 28, 2012)

First Tsurugi said:


> Roberts had to do some serious legal gymnastics to save the mandate.
> 
> Commendable, but undoubtedly a case of judicial activism.





lol wut?


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Jun 28, 2012)

Mixed feelings here. I like because people will be covered but I hate due to tax increases that will eventually happen when they realize it is going to cost way more then what they anticipated. 

Hospitals will help people both ways with or without insurance. It's all good on paper but the reality in 2014 is going to be much different then what they think will happen.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jun 28, 2012)

Kind of have mixed opinions about all this, but maybe I'll be able to see a doctor for the first time in a decade, and a dentist for the first time this century. 



Ninja Cheetos said:


> Not sure if this has been posted, but...
> 
> 
> 
> Fill out your information to see how the bill affects you.



"You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income."

Looks like it at least contains some provisions for those of us in the cheap seats.

My only experience with Mandatory Insurance was when I was in college, and the only thing insurance ever did was make my one hospital visit cost 3X AS MUCH as it would have if I was uninsured.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 28, 2012)

this is the thing that ends the whole pre-existing condition bullshit right?

Then it's an amazing day


----------



## MasterSitsu (Jun 28, 2012)

Enclave said:


> I'm middle class, I'm pretty happy with Canadian healthcare.
> 
> Not saying it's perfect but I'd be freaked right the fuck out if it was going to turn into the same style you had before Obama changed it.  Hell, I'd be freaked right the fuck out if we were going to switch to the same kind of healthcare you currently have as well.


That's nice

But How can you compare the two countries and say what is right? the united states has a huge population compared to Canada's manageable 30 so on million not to mention a a larger percent of wealthy people compared to poor.

It was just removing preexisting conditions from insurances and making affordable care  I'd be down with that


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 28, 2012)

This is good news. The American health system just became a lot like Australia.

Hopefully noone will get hit for $60000 operations anymore.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 28, 2012)

MasterSitsu said:


> That's nice
> 
> But How can you compare the two countries and say what is right? the united states has a huge population compared to Canada's manageable 30 so on million not to mention a a larger percent of wealthy people compared to poor.



Nearly every developed country in the world has some kind of government run system.  What is different about us that it can't work here?



MasterSitsu said:


> It was just removing preexisting conditions from insurances *and making affordable care  I'd be down with that*



What do you mean "making affordable care"?


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Jun 28, 2012)

Damn,huge surprise even for me.


----------



## Raiden (Jun 28, 2012)

Sunuvmann said:


> I want insurance companies to be destroyed tbh. I want single payer and every last one of those fuckers to go balls up bankrupt. Christ, theyre the cheapest fuckers in the world who will fight tooth and nail to not pay a single cent. Bloody cunts.



Wait until I graduate college first plz. If they go bankrupt then Hartford will really hit the shitter .


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

Watching Piers Morgan, and I have to ask, where the fuck is this girl getting her facts?


----------



## Raiden (Jun 28, 2012)

From the shitter.

I'm really sick of these people. How do you just make up stuff/use horrible sources on television ?


----------



## Revolution (Jun 28, 2012)

So now all the poor suckers who earn very little have to pay higher taxes.  Of that's what you want, so be it.  The reason it was opposed is because it was cheaper to Medicaid, get your own private healthcare, or not have healthcare then it is to pay the taxe on this bill.

The way I see it, the bill is for government worshipers: people who believe the government can do everything you can do better. And you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself, and one size fits all.  So be it. You reap what you sow, suckers.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 28, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> So now all the poor suckers who earn very little have to pay higher taxes.  Of that's what you want, so be it.  The reason it was opposed is because it was cheaper to Medicaid, get your own private healthcare, or not have healthcare then it is to pay the taxe on this bill.



What taxes will the very poor be paying under this bill?



Sarahmint said:


> The way I see it, the bill is for government worshipers: people who believe the government can do everything you can do better. And you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself, and one size fits all.  So be it. You reap what you sow, suckers.



And how exactly do you explain all the other countries with government run systems that have better healthcare systems than us _and_ pay less to get it?


----------



## drache (Jun 28, 2012)

baconbits said:


> There is no slippery slope.  There are two ways for governance - one relies on freedom and personal responsibility.  The other takes away freedom and assumes the burden of personal responsibility.
> 
> One can take a position in the middle, but it's easy to see when you're moving towards one end or the other.  I'm not arguing that we will accidentally slip and become North Korea; I'm arguing that we're moving towards that side of the spectrum with policies and mindsets like this.



:rofl

the GOP is not for personal responisiblity, if they were Bush and Cheney would have been tried for gross mismanagement and war crimes


And this is not even close to socialism

grow up bacon


----------



## Pocket4Miracles (Jun 28, 2012)

Glad that the bill upholds. It will help the small market size of health insurances, the insured and the workforce because it will bring healthy people to work than just stay at home sick.

To the user said that this bill is for the government worshipers: We are still paying insurance by taxes from our payroll checks and now affordable policies that I can choose public or private. 

It is just the people who is on the poverty line will get federal subsides to help their coverage.


----------



## drache (Jun 28, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> So now all the poor suckers who earn very little have to pay higher taxes.  Of that's what you want, so be it.  The reason it was opposed is because it was cheaper to Medicaid, get your own private healthcare, or not have healthcare then it is to pay the taxe on this bill.
> 
> The way I see it, the bill is for government worshipers: people who believe the government can do everything you can do better. And you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself, and one size fits all.  So be it. You reap what you sow, suckers.



and the way I see it you are completely uninformed

this bill was 'opposed' mostly because the GOP has gone off the deep end and is throwing a tantrum cause 50+% of people want what they don't


----------



## Pocket4Miracles (Jun 28, 2012)

P.S.: It is kind of funny that a conservative judge help Obama of getting a second term.


----------



## drache (Jun 28, 2012)

Pocket4Miracles said:


> P.S.: It is kind of funny that a conservative judge help Obama of getting a second term.



Roberts had no choice if he didn't want his court to be a joke the fact is there was and never has been any legal ground to this challenge and after Bush v Gore well the Supreme Court has been seen as more and more partisan and more of a joke.

This way at least Robert 'wins' on apperance.


----------



## Pocket4Miracles (Jun 28, 2012)

drache said:


> Roberts had no choice if he didn't want his court to be a joke the fact is there was and never has been any legal ground to this challenge and after Bush v Gore well the Supreme Court has been seen as more and more partisan and more of a joke.
> 
> This way at least Robert 'wins' on apperance.



true. 

Roberts have to follow according to The Constitution. I have a felling that the bill was indeed constitutional.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 28, 2012)

Of course it was. Romney did it in his state and nobody took it to court. Federal law obviously would not be any different just because it was spread, especially considering that you don't even have to pay the mandate if your state opts out of the plan to create a custom plan(which is in the bill btw)

Even i, who thought the bill was bullshit as soon as it passed knows that it was completely constitutional and even a very minute(like 1/10th of 1% of a centimeter) step in the right direction


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

I expect most of the south to opt out of it, and suffer because of that too.


----------



## Samehada (Jun 28, 2012)

Even thought I wasn't in favor with parts of the bill and wouldn't mind if it wasn't even created I want to applaud the court.

Unlike so many who hate the bill and now think our courts are corrupt, this shows the exact opposite. Shows that regardless of part affiliation, our Supreme Justices understand their weight and disregard any political motives when creating their decisions. Especially for Justice Roberts who, when pitted against predictions and party affiliation, did the right thing by voting on what he thought was right. 

For the conservatives, you really must give Roberts a pat on the back. He has won this battle for Republicans just as much as Obama has:

1. He is proving that not all Conservatives are narrow-minded and have the ability to be just in this world. Pretty much throwing the middle finger at all the Democrats who claim Republicans are also working on the dark side of things.

2. He decided that the mandate for Medicaid (insurance for the poor) is unjust. For this reason he has allowed the states win the battle by giving each state the option to accept the money and forced Medicaid, or leave it. This is championing for state rights against Obama.

3. Continuing the effects above, but significant enough to have its own category, Roberts has officially placed restrictions on how far the states can be mandated and how far the excuse of "regulation of commerce" can be extended in more specific fields. As long as the Supreme Court stands, they will be able to use this significant case to define the limits of commerce regulation, and for the Conservatives, set a finer line on defining "Big Government."

Robert's term is becoming closer and closer to the significant Warren term. Warren's courts destroyed discrimination and became one of the most historic and appraised Supreme Court. If Robert keeps this up, he may very well be known as the second most significant court, especially with Gay Marriage to be decided on this Summer as well. Red-headed, conservative Supreme Justice Roberts may be known as the champion of revolutionary causes, something usually affiliated with the liberals.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 28, 2012)

^ Lol, one vote doesn't change Roberts previous voting record 

Or are you substituting saving face by backing Obama's obviously constitutional plan with something like the blatantly corrupt Citizen's united?


----------



## martryn (Jun 28, 2012)

> And how exactly do you explain all the other countries with government run systems that have better healthcare systems than us and pay less to get it?



What countries are you referring to?  Please cite specific examples.  I know you're not talking about Great Britain because their system sucks shit ass and a lot English leave the country to pursue treatment elsewhere.


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

This system isn't bad, Marty. It allows the United States to maintain the quality of care that makes American healthcare the envy of every shitty socialist waiting-list tax hell without leaving people with preexisting conditions not covered by medicare up shit creek without a paddle or a boat.

You can say "Well they can just get Medicaid" but - and I don't expect most people posting here to understand this, even though they'll make noise about how bad it is - having less than 2 grand in your bank account to qualify for medicaid is a shitty situation to be in.

I do think the constitutionality of the individual madate is debatable, but at some point we have to move in a direction that doesn't leave the disadvantaged behind.

If you're super poor, you get Medicaid. If you're old, you get medicare. If you're young and reasonably healthy, you can afford insurance easily.

What about the people who aren't reasonably healthy and aren't poor, but aren't wealthy enough to afford premiums in the thousands?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 28, 2012)

For being an administrator with authority Kiri, you sure don't know much about how socialist systems actually work 

"Envy of the world", is this why the US has some of the most unhealthiest states in the western world? Because its an envy?


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 28, 2012)

our healthcare's pretty good as long as they don't drop you cus you got sick 

honestly it's amazing this is a partisan issue at all to me. if it weren't for the fact that it's important to obama, it really shouldn't be... it was once called romneycare ffs


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> our healthcare's pretty good as long as they don't drop you cus you got sick
> 
> honestly it's amazing this is a partisan issue at all to me. if it weren't for the fact that it's important to obama, it really shouldn't be... it was once called romneycare ffs



BOB DOLE!!!


----------



## Samehada (Jun 28, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> ^ Lol, one vote doesn't change Roberts previous voting record
> 
> Or are you substituting saving face by backing Obama's obviously constitutional plan with something like the blatantly corrupt Citizen's united?



Obviously not on his previous record, but simply shows that our Justice's are doing their job correctly.

If anything, I am looking at this with an optimistic approach. The bill itself will not destroy America no matter how you look at it. Sure, in opinion, it can do some damage, but what it has created in the long-term Justice System is simply fantastic.

Hopefully you read my explanations why I believe so. I don't want to rewrite it  again.


----------



## drache (Jun 28, 2012)

Pocket4Miracles said:


> true.
> 
> Roberts have to follow according to The Constitution. I have a felling that the bill was indeed constitutional.



no he could have followed the conservatives in throwing the consitution out the window



Seto Kaiba said:


> I expect most of the south to opt out of it, and suffer because of that too.



well as the law is implemented I think that will backfire



Samehada said:


> Even thought I wasn't in favor with parts of the bill and wouldn't mind if it wasn't even created I want to applaud the court.
> 
> Unlike so many who hate the bill and now think our courts are corrupt, this shows the exact opposite. Shows that regardless of part affiliation, our Supreme Justices understand their weight and disregard any political motives when creating their decisions. Especially for Justice Roberts who, when pitted against predictions and party affiliation, did the right thing by voting on what he thought was right.
> 
> ...



Dude don't pat roberts on the back so hard you'll strain something

let's be clear after Bush v Gore and Citizens Roberts had a choice eother ACTUALLY uphold the consitution or risk a backlash from an obviouslly partisan decesion

Roberts is many things but he's not dumb


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> For being an administrator with authority Kiri, you sure don't know much about how socialist systems actually work



First of all, I'm the administrator of a fucking anime forum. That gives me no responsibility to be a genius.

Second of all, despite that, I know a hell of a lot more about the dichotomy between socialist and individual healthcare systems, because first, I'm American. I've seen the system here and I've seen it works, unlike most of the Eurotrash who believe we let people without insurance die in the streets.

Third, both my parents are doctors and I'm going that way too. I grew up being babysat by nurses at a hospital while my parents made their rounds.

Fourth - and this by no means makes me an expert on socialist medicine systems, but it does give me the mandate to debate it on an internet forum - I've done my research. I know the disadvantages of socialist medicine, and the biggest one is their doctors suck dick because all the good ones come to the US to practice because we actually pay them, and they suffer a serious shortage of specialists to perform complex operations, at least within public healthcare systems.

That's my primary concern. Keeping the quality of healthcare in the US high. 

And you ask, if it's so awesome, why is your life expectancy from birth lower? (Life expectancy in the US is actually higher than most other countries from age 65).

Well, it's because people are scared of hospital bills and avoid seeking care and they die. And that's something that needs to change.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 28, 2012)

We excel in emergency care and procedures, Blue, but we are severely lacking in the preventive care. There's more money in being a doctor here because we spend so much more per person on healthcare, mainly because people wait out of concerns of the costs of preventive care. We don't have a third-world level healthcare system, but it's not a lie to state that compared to industrialized nations we fall very short. I don't see why we couldn't have a public/private system in place for citizens like the countries with the more successful healthcare systems do, save for some ignorant cries of "SOCIALISM/TOTALITARINISM/Whathaveyou".


----------



## Bioness (Jun 28, 2012)

How did I miss this thread?

Anyway the Health Care reform he did at the beginning of his tenure had positively affected me, I'm glad that this country is finally progressing some.


----------



## Blue (Jun 28, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> We excel in emergency care and procedures, Blue, but we are severely lacking in the preventive care. There's more money in being a doctor here because we spend so much more per person on healthcare


I don't disagree with any of this!


> mainly because people wait out of concerns of the costs of preventive care. We don't have a third-world level healthcare system, but it's not a lie to state that compared to industrialized nations we fall very short.


Overall we fall short precisely because of the lack of preventative care. This lack is directly attributable to uninsured people avoiding hospital bills they see as unnecessary. ACA changes that. And that's cool.


> I don't see why we couldn't have a public/private system in place for citizens like the countries with the more successful healthcare systems do, save for some ignorant cries of "SOCIALISM/TOTALITARINISM/Whathaveyou".


Because the government couldn't afford that without reducing the quality of care 
ACA puts the financial burden directly on individuals who can afford it by requiring they purchase insurance, and keeps the system efficient by keeping insurance companies and their legions of PhD mathematician actuaries in the loop.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Jun 29, 2012)

AlphaRooster said:


> You are unbelievable ignorant if you don't believe a party doesn't do their best to select a judge in their favor. Look how many people Bush had to bring in before the democratic majority "okay'd" his choice.



Two? And he got tons of crap from Democrats and Republicans for Harriet Miers. *Nobody* thought that she was qualified.



Mael said:


> Alpha, you made the claim they were bought out, like you were implying lobbying like they would in Congress.  Supreme Court doesn't roll that way.



Maybe not. Clarence Thomas' wife works as a policy adviser for health care opponents and took in about $1.5M. Not that his vote needed buying.



baconbits said:


> There is no slippery slope.  There are two ways for governance - one relies on freedom and personal responsibility.  The other takes away freedom and assumes the burden of personal responsibility.
> 
> One can take a position in the middle, but it's easy to see when you're moving towards one end or the other.  I'm not arguing that we will accidentally slip and become North Korea; I'm arguing that we're moving towards that side of the spectrum with policies and mindsets like this.



Maybe it's a marginal move, but it's still a silly analogy. If we're on the 50-yard line and totalitarianism is at the back of one end zone and anarchy is at the back of the other, we're still on this side of the 49 after the Supreme Court decision.

It's nearly as silly as me crying that we're slipping into anarchy because US Fish & Wildlife won't protect wolves that have left Yellowstone.

If you're concerned about totalitarianism, a much bigger concern should be the Patriot Act which has been going on under both Bush and Obama. Or some of the immigration laws. This? This is nothing more than a distraction from totalitarian tendencies.



MasterSitsu said:


> That's nice
> 
> But How can you compare the two countries and say what is right? the united states has a huge population compared to Canada's manageable 30 so on million not to mention a a larger percent of wealthy people compared to poor.
> 
> It was just removing preexisting conditions from insurances and making affordable care  I'd be down with that



Size doesn't have much to do with it as long as it's a large enough population for companies (or government) to properly assess and manage risk. Vermont is trying it on its own, but they're probably too small. And Massachusetts is pushing it.

As to the wealth, the United States has 20% more wealth per capita. But you are correct in that it's not as evenly distributed. Wealth is much more concentrated in the rich in the United States. 



Inuhanyou said:


> Of course it was. Romney did it in his state and nobody took it to court. Federal law obviously would not be any different just because it was spread, especially considering that you don't even have to pay the mandate if your state opts out of the plan to create a custom plan(which is in the bill btw)
> 
> Even i, who thought the bill was bullshit as soon as it passed knows that it was completely constitutional and even a very minute(like 1/10th of 1% of a centimeter) step in the right direction



I disagree that it was obvious. The states have much broader powers and I wouldn't have been surprised if the SCOTUS ruled that it was one of the powers relegated to the states.

Not that Romney believed that earlier since he said that his plan, including the mandate, was a model for the whole US. Before it became politically inconvenient.



martryn said:


> What countries are you referring to?  Please cite specific examples.  I know you're not talking about Great Britain because their system sucks shit ass and a lot English leave the country to pursue treatment elsewhere.



And Americans - if they're wealthy enough - travel to Costa Rica (which has universal health coverage along with private clinics) to pursue treatment there. Heck, Americans go to the the UK or Canada for health care as well. So does the US system suck shit ass?



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> First of all, I'm the administrator of a fucking anime forum. That gives me no responsibility to be a genius.
> 
> Second of all, despite that, I know a hell of a lot more about the dichotomy between socialist and individual healthcare systems, because first, I'm American. I've seen the system here and I've seen it works, unlike most of the Eurotrash who believe we let people without insurance die in the streets.
> 
> ...



I think that you're overstating the average quality of healthcare in the US. I'm on the other side of the counter and I've seen some fairly serious flaws. The quality of healthcare in the US is high for the rich - but it has problems for those of us that aren't so wealthy. I have friends that have fought with their insurance companies for months in order to get prescriptions paid for (meanwhile having to spend hundreds of dollars out of pocket) or get surgeries approved.

That disparity has a lot to do with why we're ranked #37 in the world - one spot below Costa Rica. Almost every system above ours is socialist - or at least more socialist than ours.

I can't really comment on the relative quality of our doctors, but my friends in the UK, Australia and Canada haven't ever complained about the quality of their care. However, I have had complaints in the US (but with much more friends to comment so it's hardly a fair comparison).

And they may be lacking specialists in those countries, but we're facing a shortage of generalists here. That may be why I'm feeling like I'm getting McMedical Care with my 5 minute doctor's appointment. He'd have to be pretty good to be able to figure out how to help me. Sure, in one visit a few years back, he was able to refer me to a specialist in those five minutes. And when I went to the specialist, I got an $800 procedure done to check up on me which cost me about $25. Sure, it didn't help figure out what the problem was or fix it, but it didn't cost me much and I know that they sorta tried. 

I think that's a big part of what's wrong with the medical system in this nation and why we're spending the most by a long shot for poor results. Instead of spending time with each patient, doctors are too quick to shuffle people off to tests. And it's not something that'll be addressed by the individual mandate or pre-existing conditions coverage rules. I mean, there are some provisions in the law for trying to move towards results-based medical care, but I don't have a whole lot of faith in them doing much.


----------



## navy (Jun 29, 2012)

Mitt Romney has got to be the biggest flip flopping fence sitter of all time. Seriously, you can never get a straight answer with this guy.

And John Roberts is being blasted by his own party. This is shit is hilarious.

Lol at Obama trying to say this isnt a tax, even trying to argue it in court. Good thing that justice he didnt vote for saved his ass.

LAst point, I find it highly ironic republicans are now saying this ruling was beneficial to them, because they were clearly going to make that claim regardless of what the outcome was.


----------



## MunchKing (Jun 29, 2012)

I just love how republicans bitch about the mandate while they were the ones that made sure it was put in the bill in the first place.



No more shit with pre existing conditions. That's going to be nice.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Fourth - and this by no means makes me an expert on socialist medicine systems, but it does give me the mandate to debate it on an internet forum - I've done my research. I know the disadvantages of socialist medicine, and the *biggest one is their doctors suck dick because all the good ones come to the US to practice because we actually pay them*, and they suffer a *serious shortage of specialists to perform complex operations*, at least within public healthcare systems.



I'm going to need sources if you want me to believe that. There is no way the outflow of doctors to the US is so high we would see a reduction in quality. 
On the issue of specialists, I have no idea about the situation in the EU, but I don't get how you came to the conclusion that a lack of specialists is due to a public health care system. That's more of an higher education issue to me.  

You claim to have done research, but why are you  tooting your horn about the quality of US health care when studies have shown it to be one of the most inefficient in the western world?

All the most well educated doctors and advanced equipment in the world aren't going to help you much if you can't get treated because you can't afford it. And then I'm not even talking about health insurance companies trying to suck you dry.



> That's my primary concern. Keeping the quality of healthcare in the US high.



The quality of healthcare is only high for those who have the money for the best treatment. If you don't, you're out of luck. Equity is a major problem for the US system.

Or as you put it yourself.



> And you ask, if it's so awesome, why is your life expectancy from birth lower? (Life expectancy in the US is actually higher than most other countries from age 65).
> 
> Well, it's because people are scared of hospital bills and avoid seeking care and they die. And that's something that needs to change.


----------



## Toby (Jun 29, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> That was unexpected. So, all of ya'all who believed the Supreme Court was heading irreversibly right... what now?



I think it's a mixed bag of results. Remember that when Roosevelt made the first American universal health-care bill (that got passed in Congress), SCOTUS repealed many of its measures, leaving the US with the incomplete public health insurance Medicare and Medicaid. SCOTUS fought Roosevelt a lot on his policies. He was easily the most influential president of the 20th century and the SCOTUS was the only real obstacle to his power.

Obama is different. His government has a much weaker control over Congress, so his health insurance bill was watered down, and severely altered to retain many of Clinton's own proposals. One of them, forcing people to buy _private_ health insurance, was a favorite with the industry. Obviously this made it easier to pass and for SCOTUS to approve of. If this had been a purely public option insurance system, it would probably have been scrapped. 

On another note, I think the comparisons you drew between US and Europe were general and outdated. Both the US and Europe have combined public and private options in different respects and the financial consequences are primarily determined by the population growth in young "cohorts" of women. While you can debate the level of access to care and quality therein, see the Commonwealth Fund study I already dropped in the American system thread, and past threads on the same subject. The US has a long way to go there, but only some improvements can be made to increase access, and all of them involve reforming the health insurance industry's treatment of customers and business model. The hospitals and doctors themselves are NOT the problem.

Europe has, by the way, the most complex set of different policies in existence. France has a largely public-paid contribution plan, Germany has a fixed receipt program, and Switzerland has the most unique system of all: a government-financed "floor" of health insurance, with private health insurance corporations selling larger custom-made plans for consumers, who are each placed into a customer group with a similar grouping of health-risk associated factors. So men and women who like skydiving are placed in the same group of men and women of the same age and with similar risk. Less exciting careers have lower premiums to pay. Average cost of hospital treatment? Just about 1,500 USD. 

This is to date my preferred model of health insurance, and one I hope more countries will embrace. You get the public basic coverage, and otherwise people are encouraged to live a life that reflects their level of risk. Responsibility and insurance walk hand in hand here. It's more evenly balanced than in the US where you can easily get screwed over and pay a 8K hospital bill, or in Europe where you screw _everybody else_ over with expensive prescription drugs.

PS: To date, there has not been a good cost-efficiency comparison of Switzerland to other countries however, because the financing model is so different. Cost of treatment per person varies too much to call it a "system".


----------



## lowtech redneck (Jun 29, 2012)

Inuhanyou said:


> Or are you substituting saving face by backing Obama's obviously constitutional plan with something like the blatantly corrupt Citizen's united?



Its only 'obviously Constitutional' if one operates under the assumption that the power of the federal government is unlimited, except of course by (selective interpretations of) the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately for that theory, the decision in question limited the Commerce Clause as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause through precedent, and the tax power justification was so obviously a torturous bit of crass sophistry that even Robert Reich called him on it:


----------



## Toby (Jun 29, 2012)

"government run" 

AAAAAH

Ok, might need to start a thread to clarify this. The government doesn't run hospitals here in Norway. They are paying for it, but the hospital administrator "owns" the management aspect. Private hospitals are also owned by a different set of people from those who "run" them. Often, there is a difference between the US "private" system that is in fact a private health-insurance system, and which works across public and private hospitals - and those in countries where the government is the insurance agency, and hospitals are private. Asian countries for example have a lot of these partial rebate payment structures that give low-income citizens a minimum level of access to health-care.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Jun 29, 2012)

Samehada said:


> Unlike so many who hate the bill and now think our courts are corrupt, this shows the exact opposite. Shows that regardless of part affiliation, our Supreme Justices understand their weight and disregard any political motives when creating their decisions. Especially for Justice Roberts who, when pitted against predictions and party affiliation, did the right thing by voting on what he thought was right.



No, he didn't, it means that Roberts felt compelled to betray his principles in order to buttress the percieved legitimacy of the Supreme Court-his tax power justification has been widely criticized by both conservative and liberal jurists, and was rejected by every lower court, regardless of their position on Obamacare.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 29, 2012)

roberts voting in favor of the bill was predicted months ago, i  think it's just how he rolls.


----------



## Blue (Jun 29, 2012)

Nick Soapdish said:


> And Americans - if they're wealthy enough - travel to Costa Rica (which has universal health coverage along with private clinics) to pursue treatment there. Heck, Americans go to the the UK or Canada for health care as well. So does the US system suck shit ass?


No they don't. No wealthy American goes anywhere but America and I'll need a source or two if you want me to believe otherwise. I spam this link a lot, but it's kind of an important bit of information: 


You'll notice 17 of the top 20 hospitals in the world being American, including the entirety of the top 10. 
So no, the US system does not suck shit ass. It only bears improvement with regard to the lower middle class. It's worth mentioning again that healthcare is free for the very poor.



> I have friends that have fought with their insurance companies for months in order to get prescriptions paid for (meanwhile having to spend hundreds of dollars out of pocket) or get surgeries approved.


A problem, to be sure, with the insurance companies, not with the medical system, and one that will likely be alleviated with the regulation of the insurance industry with ACA, as well as their hugely increased customer bases as insurance coverage becomes mandatory, which will greatly skew actuary tables towards easier payouts.



> I can't really comment on the relative quality of our doctors, but my friends in the UK, Australia and Canada haven't ever complained about the quality of their care. However, I have had complaints in the US (but with much more friends to comment so it's hardly a fair comparison).


Hm, nope. American satisfaction with medical care is considerably higher than other countries'. 51 percent of Americans are "very satisfied" as opposed to 41 percent of Canadians. Equal numbers (8%) are dissatisfied. ()



> And they may be lacking specialists in those countries, but we're facing a shortage of generalists here. That may be why I'm feeling like I'm getting McMedical Care with my 5 minute doctor's appointment.


It's actually not just a shortage of generalists - I can refer you to two (American) NF member friends who're generalists, in fact - but rather the very poor compensation generalists recieve compared to specialists, which the avaricious of them compensate for with high volume. But both are factors, absolutely. Hopefully a higher demand for generalists will fuel a rise in their compensation, drawing more physicians into the field.



MunchKing said:


> I'm going to need sources if you want me to believe that.





> And the United States [...] is also the world’s most powerful magnet for doctors, attracting more every year than Britain, Canada and Australia — the next most popular destinations for migrating doctors — combined.







> There is no way the outflow of doctors to the US is so high we would see a reduction in quality.


It's not an outflow. It's the lack of inflow that would hurt.



> You claim to have done research, but why are you  tooting your horn about the quality of US health care when studies have shown it to be one of the most inefficient in the western world?


Inefficient does not equal ineffective. The American medical industry is very brute-force; by throwing colossal amounts of money at medical practitioners, we retain what is without question the most advanced and capable medical establishment in the world. Its only fault lies in the inequitable situations those who can't afford insurance and aren't poor enough - or old enough - to receive medicare/medicaid face.




> Or as you put it yourself.


Yes, as I put it myself. Why are you arguing with me? 



Toby said:


> If this had been a purely public option insurance system, it would probably have been scrapped.


As well it should have been. A public insurance system would be absolutely untenable considering the state of the American medical and financial systems at the present; it would either consume an absolutely unsustainable portion of the budget or reduce the quality of medical care to such an intense degree - far below other public-option countries - that private care would seem the more attractive option. It would also disenfranchise the insurance industry to a huge degree, a prospect that many people find attractive, but would likely change their minds about when the consequences were clear.



> Switzerland has the most unique system of all: a government-financed "floor" of health insurance, with private health insurance corporations selling larger custom-made plans for consumers, who are each placed into a customer group with a similar grouping of health-risk associated factors. So men and women who like skydiving are placed in the same group of men and women of the same age and with similar risk. Less exciting careers have lower premiums to pay. Average cost of hospital treatment? Just about 1,500 USD.


Shunting the money through the government via taxes rather than having the consumers interact directly with the insurance companies; it's basically the same system - a good one; less complicated by an order of magnitude, to be sure, but with the current political climate in the US being extraordinarily opposed to tax increases - one or more of which would be necessary to pay for such a system - ACA is the more practical solution.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 29, 2012)

Wahington Center
Massachussets General
Jon Hopkins
Cleveland Clinic


Lol


Too bad so many of the actual hospitals you quote are notorious luxury hospitals designed to treat the very rich rather than an actual indicator of the american health system where the ranking of avoidable deaths and infant survival rate is in the gutter



In b4 more inane blue condescension


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 29, 2012)

I guess middle eastern citizens taking shits in outhouses are living it up like the swiss


----------



## Roman (Jun 29, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> No they don't. No wealthy American goes anywhere but America and I'll need a source or two if you want me to believe otherwise. I spam this link a lot, but it's kind of an important bit of information:
> 
> 
> You'll notice 17 of the top 20 hospitals in the world being American, including the entirety of the top 10.
> So no, the US system does not suck shit ass. It only bears improvement with regard to the lower middle class. It's worth mentioning again that healthcare is free for the very poor.



And just because you have the world's best hospitals doesn't mean you have the world's best healthcare system. Healthcare isn't only about how great your hospitals are, which isn't something people are denying here. Healthcare is also about how ACCESSIBLE and AFFORDABLE these hospitals are, something many people have said in response to your link. It's good to have great hospitals, but if people can't use it, that in itself speaks volumes about how well your healthcare system works.

People are suffering from all kinds of problems in front of these hospitals while no one allows them entry because they're either not wealthy enough or don't fit the requirements the hospital needs in order to treat you, and it doesn't matter if you're on death's door or not. And despite what you may say about how healthcare is free for the very poor (I'm guessing you're referring to Medicaid), you're forgetting that the requirements for it are enormous, and one of them is that you need to be earning less than 20k a year. Most in the US who are poor are in fact earning something just above that, which makes it harder even for the poor to get a service that's meant for them. If it's not a requirement to be under permanent, full-time employment, then you would have a point.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> A problem, to be sure, with the insurance companies, not with the medical system, and one that will likely be alleviated with the regulation of the insurance industry with ACA, as well as their hugely increased customer bases as insurance coverage becomes mandatory, which will greatly skew actuary tables towards easier payouts.



Health insurance companies ought to be considered as part of the healthcare system because they have bearing over how accessible your definition of the healthcare system is. Don't try to differentiate the two.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Hm, nope. American satisfaction with medical care is considerably higher than other countries'. 51 percent of Americans are "very satisfied" as opposed to 41 percent of Canadians. Equal numbers (8%) are dissatisfied. ()



51% of Americans who have access or 51% of ALL Americans, employed and unemployed alike, irrespective of age or gender?



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Inefficient does not equal ineffective. The American medical industry is very brute-force; by throwing colossal amounts of money at medical practitioners, we retain what is without question the most advanced and capable medical establishment in the world. Its only fault lies in the inequitable situations those who can't afford insurance and aren't poor enough - or old enough - to receive medicare/medicaid face.



And that IS a problem with the healthcare system.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> As well it should have been. A public insurance system would be absolutely untenable considering the state of the American medical and financial systems at the present; it would either consume an absolutely unsustainable portion of the budget or reduce the quality of medical care to such an intense degree - far below other public-option countries - that private care would seem the more attractive option. It would also disenfranchise the insurance industry to a huge degree, a prospect that many people find attractive, but would likely change their minds about when the consequences were clear.



So it's an issue of maintaining unparalleled quality for the few rather than accessibility for those who need it?


----------



## Blue (Jun 29, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> In b4 more inane blue condescension



It must be hard being autistic, hammer; I feel for you, I really do.

Ignoring your second post, which unsurprisingly makes no sense, American hospitals, unlike private care facilities in Canada and elsewhere, do not cater to the very rich; rather they cater to those with serious ailments that wouldn't be treatable in lesser hospitals. You can walk in the door of John Hopkins with a billion dollars in gold bullion; if you have a hangnail, you'll get turned away.

It's true that the medical staff there commands among the highest salaries in the world, but that's because nobody else can do what they do; they're the foremost experts in oncology, cardiology, and other leading-edge disciplines in the world, and many insurance plans do allow you to choose which hospital to go to; so if the Mayo Clinic accepts you as a patient, your insurance will pay for it.

The exceptions are HMOs, which are cancer and should be burned. But that's almost beside the point.


----------



## αce (Jun 29, 2012)

> I can't really comment on the relative quality of our doctors, but my  friends in the UK, Australia and Canada haven't ever complained about  the quality of their care



Meh. I live in Canada. If the treatment is minor then the healthcare here is top notch. Just walk into a hospital and you get treated for, then go back home and start your fap session.

However, my Dad did have a problem in one of his eyes that required surgery to take care of. It was fairly serious. He had to wait about 3 months to get the operation. Now, the operation and the procedure was handled very well and I've yet to hear many horror stories about the quality of healthcare in Canada.

The main problem with Canadian healthcare is the waiting times. They can really be frustrating. If your surgery can be delayed (if it's not pancreatic cancer and just an ocular problem), they will delay it. The quality is fine and all although American quality is probably better. However, the access is much easier than the American system if I recall correctly. My parents moved from the states because they couldn't get coverage from anywhere. They came to Canada and none of that mattered.


----------



## Mael (Jun 29, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Meh. I live in Canada. If the treatment is minor then the healthcare here is top notch. Just walk into a hospital and you get treated for, then go back home and start your fap session.
> 
> However, my Dad did have a problem in one of his eyes that required surgery to take care of. It was fairly serious. He had to wait about 3 months to get the operation. Now, the operation and the procedure was handled very well and I've yet to hear many horror stories about the quality of healthcare in Canada.
> 
> The main problem with Canadian healthcare is the waiting times. They can really be frustrating. If your surgery can be delayed (if it's not pancreatic cancer and just an ocular problem), they will delay it. The quality is fine and all although American quality is probably better. However, the access is much easier than the American system if I recall correctly. My parents moved from the states because they couldn't get coverage from anywhere. They came to Canada and none of that mattered.



Well now there will be more people coming to Canada for those wait times now that the SCOTUS upheld the healthcare mandate.


----------



## Roman (Jun 29, 2012)

Mael said:


> Well now there will be more people coming to Canada for those wait times now that the SCOTUS upheld the healthcare mandate.



Better to be in a waiting line knowing you will get treatment with absolute certainty than it is to get rejected outright because you don't fit the bill.


----------



## αce (Jun 29, 2012)

Well it's dependent on province. Move to New Brunswick and I doubt your wait times will be long. Move to Ontario, Queshit or B.C. then you may get frustrated. 

If you have money in Canada, you may as well go to the States to get major surgery if you can't wait. I'm not saying it's totally shit as some people may think I'm implying, but that's just the downfall of having socialized resources. Amazing access, but with that many people accessing the system you have to wait longer.

That being said I'll take my Canadian system over the American one, simply because insurance corporations are the monsters in the abyss.


----------



## Mael (Jun 29, 2012)

I wonder what Newfoundland healthcare is like.


----------



## Blue (Jun 29, 2012)

I don't really want to argue with you Freedan, because you're just trying to beat me up with the "not everyone has equal care in America Q_Q" shit which I've already admitted is a problem several times and which will hopefully be largely alleviated by ACA. But let me correct a few misconceptions you have.



Freedan said:


> People are suffering from all kinds of problems in front of these hospitals while no one allows them entry because they're either not wealthy enough or don't fit the requirements the hospital needs in order to treat you, and it doesn't matter if you're on death's door or not. And despite what you may say about how healthcare is free for the very poor (I'm guessing you're referring to Medicaid), you're forgetting that the requirements for it are enormous, and one of them is that you need to be earning less than 20k a year.


That's only one criteria. You can be earning whatever you want a year; it varies from state to state, but if you have less than around $2000 in personal assets, you're eligible. This, of course, would mean the entirety of your income is going to medical bills, which is unfortunate. 
This is referred to as "spend-down" and its the recommended course of action for lower and lower-middle class people who are facing large medical bills. This is what should be changed. People should not be forced to make themselves destitute to qualify for medicaid. There are ways to hide money until you can get it back - gifts to relatives, for instance, or buying an expensive home, which is one of the many forms of property which do not count towards your total assets - but it's unwieldy.


> If it's not a requirement to be under permanent, full-time employment, then you would have a point.


It's not. Are you looking at welfare or something? How is someone who's hospitalized supposed to have full-time employment?


> Health insurance companies ought to be considered as part of the healthcare system because they have bearing over how accessible your definition of the healthcare system is. Don't try to differentiate the two.


An insurance company regulated by the government - which is what ACA proposes - would not.


> 51% of Americans who have access or 51% of ALL Americans, employed and unemployed alike, irrespective of age or gender?


All Americans, obviously.


> And that IS a problem with the healthcare system.


Yes. Can I frame another argument for you, sir?


> So it's an issue of maintaining unparalleled quality for the few rather than accessibility for those who need it?


It's not the few that have access to the quality; it's the few who don't.

The healthy, which is almost everyone: Can easily afford insurance. I don't have insurance myself, but if I wanted some, it would cost me $15/mo.
The poor: Get medicaid
The old: Get medicare
The employed: Get health coverage

Lastly you have the unhealthy (with preexisting conditions) who aren't poor enough to get medicaid, aren't old enough to get medicare, aren't wealthy enough to afford insurance rates, and aren't employed at a company with a health plan.

That's a small group of people, but they shouldn't be disregarded.

The solution is to force the insurance industry to offer them affordable rates. This would put the insurance companies out of business - unless we balance the actuarial tables with healthy people who are required to join as well. Which is ACA.


----------



## αce (Jun 29, 2012)

You'd freeze to death before getting to the hospital.


----------



## Roman (Jun 29, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> That's only one criteria. You can be earning whatever you want a year; it varies from state to state, but if you have less than around $2000 in personal assets, you're eligible. This, of course, would mean the entirety of your income is going to medical bills, which is unfortunate.



How does it work then? How many criteria need to be satisfied to be eligible exactly? And what do you mean by "the entirety of your income is going to medical bills?" Do people under a certain coverage plan still have to pay for a service that's supposed to be free?



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> An insurance company regulated by the government - which is what ACA proposes - would not.



How so? It still has bearing over the healthcare system and who has access to it. It should be considered a part of it, govt regulated or not.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> It's not the few that have access to the quality; it's the few who don't.
> 
> The healthy, which is almost everyone: Can easily afford insurance. I don't have insurance myself, but if I wanted some, it would cost me $15/mo.
> The poor: Get medicaid
> ...



Well, since it's govt regulated, it's good to see some sense coming into the whole picture for once and realizing that the private sector can't supply what is meant to be for the entire population and not just a select quantity of it.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 29, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> It must be hard being autistic, hammer; I feel for you, I really do.


You sure do
In fact, I'd say you feel it first hand



> Ignoring your second post, which unsurprisingly makes no sense, American hospitals, unlike private care facilities in Canada and elsewhere, do not cater to the very rich; rather they cater to those with serious ailments that wouldn't be treatable in lesser hospitals. You can walk in the door of John Hopkins with a billion dollars in gold bullion; if you have a hangnail, you'll get turned away.






			
				Forbes said:
			
		

> A portrait of Dr. William Stuart Halsted, first chief of surgery, welcomes you to the Marburg Pavilion, with 15 rooms and the potential for three suites priced at $325 to $1,300 out-of-pocket. Third-floor views of historic Johns Hopkins campus and downtown Baltimore are nice enough. Attendants are trained in-house based on customer-service principles from Disney and Ritz-Carlton. Highlights include waffle-weave robes, oriental throw rugs, and cherry headboards on beds. There are no DVD players, but each room gets a fax machine and a CD player in the clock radio. The unit is not locked but is secure with I.D. card-access only. All unit nurses are registered, and a tuxedoed waitstaff serves gourmet food from a daily menu.




Such lavish medical experience they must have at Ritz-Carlton


----------



## Danchou (Jun 29, 2012)

In your face bitches.

Srsly, this is going to turn out for the better on US national health in the long run.

The fact that millions of people couldn'tt even afford the most basic forms of health care is undeserving of the USA's status.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 29, 2012)

ban, freedan, why are you guys arguing with blue when you basically all agree


----------



## Blue (Jun 29, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> ban, freedan, why are you guys arguing with blue when you basically all agree



Someone's gotta argue with someone in this thread and the Republicans aren't showing up in force


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 29, 2012)

Conflict is the spice of life.


----------



## drache (Jun 29, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Someone's gotta argue with someone in this thread and the Republicans aren't showing up in force



it's the cafe most of the so called conservatives are long gone, probably tired of being wrong and outnumbered. Doesn't help that the internet as a whole isn't really kind to the modern regressive definition of 'conservative'

as to your argument, I've been on both sides. I had to pay out the nose becase ADD is a 'preexisting condition' (yeah because I choose to be born with it) but you're right if you have the money our system delivers great care but the fact is healthcare and education are far outstripping every other form of spending. This is clearly untenable. The conservatives 'answers' is everyone for themselves.

I not only disagree but I find this an absolutely stupidly unethical choice. Course I dare republicans to run on repealing Obama care because the mandate isnt' in effect yet but the under 26 is as is a number of other really popular provisons.


----------



## Rashou (Jun 29, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> No they don't. No wealthy American goes anywhere but America and I'll need a source or two if you want me to believe otherwise. I spam this link a lot, but it's kind of an important bit of information:



If you spam this in relation to points about quality of care or overall performance of doctors, you should really stop--  gives the precise breakdown of the ranking methodology and it's mostly based on backlinks to the site. Only 30% of the formula relates directly to anything even close to important for these discussions, and this 30% is still just the efficacy of _research_ handled at these facilities (again, judged by quantitative means instead of qualitative means). Not going to say it's useless, but it doesn't prove any of those hospitals provides a level of care above any other on the list on its own.


----------



## hammer (Jun 29, 2012)

IM NOT AUTI- oh you meant the other hammer


also why isnt this posted yet?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1vY2IQATs&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 29, 2012)

i hear that one of the butt hurted republicans compared the decision to 9/11.

show you how retarded the far right is.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2012)

Linkdarkside said:


> i hear that one of the butt hurted republicans compared the decision to 9/11.
> 
> show you how retarded the far right is.



If it went the other way you might get a Holocaust reference but this time with the uninsured.  Stupidity doesn't discriminate in politics.

But it's a shame to see the FOPGOP act like little princess brats because something didn't work out for them.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 30, 2012)

Ninja Cheetos said:


>



Let them come up here they will be in for a rude awakening . .


----------



## Mider T (Jun 30, 2012)

That fact that the GOP is STILL trying to repeal this should be a testament to everyone that they have no intention of compromise.  Or any respect for the Executive or Judicial branches.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 30, 2012)

Mael said:


> If it went the other way you might get a Holocaust reference but this time with the uninsured.  Stupidity doesn't discriminate in politics.



of course only one decision would've led to people dying...


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 30, 2012)

*The Internet has a field day with Supreme Court ruling aftermath*



> The Supreme Court's ruling on the health-care law Thursday created an unparalleled social media firestorm. At one point, there were more than 13,000 tweets every minute about the decision. So it should come as no surprise that some people made incorrect statements.
> 
> One notable trend on Twitter involved people threatening to move to Canada to escape America's new health-care law. The big problem with that decision? Canada already has universal health care, which is even more involved than the newly mandated U.S. law. There was even an 18% increase in Yahoo searches for "Canadian immigration" yesterday.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trendin...supreme-court-ruling-aftermath-171111958.html


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 30, 2012)

care cat is watching you care


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 30, 2012)

9gag has great stuff


----------



## Pocket4Miracles (Jun 30, 2012)

I did not know that Rommey care is the same thing as Obama care.  Rommeny needs to thank Obama.


----------



## αce (Jun 30, 2012)

45% atheist? That doesn't seem right.


----------



## Mael (Jun 30, 2012)

Move to Canada, ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).  Don't need you here.


----------



## martryn (Jun 30, 2012)

Banhammer: Your comic hits home... except for the last panel.  It's the part where we're required to be insured, or face a tax penalty if we're not.  It's the part that limits the growth of business.  It's the part that seems like it would drive private insurers out of business in the next decade as they can't raise premiums but have to provide coverage for people who will be definitely using their service.

Health Insurance companies make money by charging more than a person is going to use.  It's the same way Life Insurance companies make money on Term plans.  It's insurance.  You get it in case you need it, but expect not to.  That's the way it works.  By allowing anyone to pick it up, even those that are going to be using it with a certainty, and by not allowing the insurance companies to raise premiums to pay for these people, the insurance company loses money and fails.  Eventually the entire industry will be run by the government, which goes against what America stands for.

Yeah, kids should have coverage from birth.  Yeah, coverage should never be dropped after you develop a condition.  Yeah, premiums shouldn't raise beyond what your age, gender, and general health dictate they should be, and shouldn't be raised once you develop a condition.  That's the health care reform Republicans want.  This other stuff takes it too far, and that's where the uproar is.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 30, 2012)

Okay, I'll play Insurance Company advocate here.



martryn said:


> Yeah, kids should have coverage from birth.


Why?  A newborn that is being properly taken care of has "well child" appointments at 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months.

These cost around $200 each, so a newborn child (that is healthy and has no problems) is going to cost an Insurance company $2000 in the first two years assuming _nothing is wrong_.  Plus $15000 for the delivery and related items during their hospital stay.  Plus vaccinations, checkups every time the infant gets a cold, ear infections, etc.

To cover an infant that is otherwise healthy probably ends up at $20,000 for the first two years expenses.  Why shouldn't they charge $2000/month for anyone that wants a newborn covered? 




martryn said:


> Yeah, coverage should never be dropped after you develop a condition.


Why not?  Insurance is, as you say, gambling that what the customer pays in will be more than what the customer costs.  If a customer develops a condition that is either reoccurring or likely to cause other conditions (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc) the company already "loses" based on the initial treatment.  Shouldn't the struggling insurance companies have the right to drop these customers they know will be costing them money?



martryn said:


> Yeah, premiums shouldn't raise beyond what your age, gender, and general health dictate they should be.


So you'd ask the government to dictate what a business charges for their product?  Communist.



martryn said:


> That's the health care reform Republicans want.  This other stuff takes it too far, and that's where the uproar is.


Actually Republicans came up with the idea of the individual mandate back in the 90's as an alternative to "Hillarycare."

It was a concession against the single-payer system where the government would basically act as a giant insurance company (paid for by taxes) that eliminates most of the BS from the system.

Unfortunately both parties have slipped very far to the right since then..


----------



## Raiden (Jun 30, 2012)

Republicans blitzing the hell out of the ruling .

Where are Democrats? Months before the Presidential election and there's no firing line.


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 30, 2012)

martryn said:


> Eventually the entire industry will be run by the government, which goes against what America stands for.



Ummm no it doesn't.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jun 30, 2012)

*5 cringe-worthy GOP reactions to the ObamaCare ruling*



> Some conservatives are lashing out over the Supreme Court's decision to uphold ObamaCare ? in extreme, eyebrow-raising ways
> 
> In upholding ObamaCare, the Supreme Court dropped a bombshell on the conservative movement, which made historic gains in the 2010 congressional elections thanks to a Tea Party-fueled backlash to the health-care overhaul. To add insult to injury, the deciding vote came from Chief Justice John Roberts, an erstwhile conservative hero who has since fallen from grace. The conservative reaction was swift and, in some cases, unhinged, with many vowing to move to Canada, perhaps forgetting that Canada's top-notch health care system is a bastion of socialized medicine. While liberals have also reacted to the ruling in embarrassing ways ? "It's constitutional. Bitches," tweeted a high-ranking yet childish DNC official ? their peers on the far right have arguably outdone them. Here, five cringe-worthy reactions from conservatives to the Supreme Court's landmark decision:
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/5-cringe-worthy-gop-reactions-obamacare-ruling-135400902.html


----------



## MasterSitsu (Jun 30, 2012)

Oh dear.... Nancy looks insane as always


----------



## Petes12 (Jun 30, 2012)

its kind of amazing when you think about it, how strongly republicans are opposed to the mandate on moral grounds (FREEDOM) when it was their idea in the first place


----------



## very bored (Jul 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> its kind of amazing when you think about it, how strongly republicans are opposed to the mandate on moral grounds (FREEDOM) when it was their idea in the first place



Isn't freedom their default objection to everything?


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jul 1, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Why?  A newborn that is being properly taken care of has "well child" appointments at 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months.
> 
> These cost around $200 each, so a newborn child (that is healthy and has no problems) is going to cost an Insurance company $2000 in the first two years assuming _nothing is wrong_.  Plus $15000 for the delivery and related items during their hospital stay.  Plus vaccinations, checkups every time the infant gets a cold, ear infections, etc.
> 
> To cover an infant that is otherwise healthy probably ends up at $20,000 for the first two years expenses.  Why shouldn't they charge $2000/month for anyone that wants a newborn covered?



What if you only make 3000 a month? Or even 2000 a month? Since republicans are trying to outlaw abortion pretty much everywhere, that would go for all people everywhere. Rape/i*c*st victims, people who don't want their children, people who can't afford children.



> Why not?  Insurance is, as you say, gambling that what the customer pays in will be more than what the customer costs.  If a customer develops a condition that is either reoccurring or likely to cause other conditions (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc) the company already "loses" based on the initial treatment.  Shouldn't the struggling insurance companies have the right to drop these customers they know will be costing them money?



Wait, you want insurance companies to be able to drop people because they develop something they would require the insurance for? So if I'm insured for 4 years and I develop lung cancer, my insurance company, that I spent the past 4 years paying into, should be able to say 'Hey! Thanks for that money for so long. good luck with that cancer thing' and drop me? Insurance is a gamble. You are gambling you'll need it and the providers are gambling that you won't. If they have the latitude to cancel your policy just because you now need it why don't you have the latitude to demand your money back because you don't need it?


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 1, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> 9gag has great stuff



They forgot to put gun laws and no death penalty.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 1, 2012)

They forgot to mention that Mary Jane is technically legal up here in that 9gag  .


----------



## stream (Jul 1, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Why not?  Insurance is, as you say, gambling that what the customer pays in will be more than what the customer costs.  If a customer develops a condition that is either reoccurring or likely to cause other conditions (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc) the company already "loses" based on the initial treatment.  Shouldn't the struggling insurance companies have the right to drop these customers they know will be costing them money?



Heh.


----------



## Wolfarus (Jul 1, 2012)

The only part of this that concerns me (for the moment) is the mandate that forces people to buy insurance or be fined.

The point being that if they are too poor to buy it in the first place, forcing them to pay either way is a dick move.. unless they are going to set up government-backed, affordable plans that pretty much EVERYbody (regardless of income, unless you're flat out jobless and homeless) can afford.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't actually support the Health Insurance industry at all.  Personally we'd scrap them all and go with a government sponsored insurance.  But again, for the sake of argument and to illustrate my point:


Blitzomaru said:


> What if you only make 3000 a month? Or even 2000 a month? Since republicans are trying to outlaw abortion pretty much everywhere, that would go for all people everywhere. Rape/i*c*st victims, people who don't want their children, people who can't afford children.


How is that the insurance company's fault?  I can't afford the mortgage payments on a $10M house or a $2M car so I live and drive what I can afford.

If you can't afford kids then either don't have them or just be prepared for them to die from easily preventable diseases and conditions that you can't afford to get checked out.




Blitzomaru said:


> Wait, you want insurance companies to be able to drop people because they develop something they would require the insurance for? So if I'm insured for 4 years and I develop lung cancer, my insurance company, that I spent the past 4 years paying into, should be able to say 'Hey! Thanks for that money for so long. good luck with that cancer thing' and drop me? Insurance is a gamble. You are gambling you'll need it and the providers are gambling that you won't. If they have the latitude to cancel your policy just because you now need it why don't you have the latitude to demand your money back because you don't need it?


Insurance companies should have to pay for conditions you develop while insured yes.  However cancer goes into patterns of remission and occurrence.  When your policy comes up for review (annually in every case I'm aware of) why shouldn't they have the right that every other business has to refuse service to customers that they think are likely to not work out for them?

This results in lower premiums for all their healthy patients, why do you want to inflict hardship on these people?


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 1, 2012)

*Court ruling ups support for Obamacare*



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Voter support for President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul rose after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it but most people still oppose the law, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Sunday.
> 
> The online survey showed increased backing from Republicans and, crucially, the political independents whose support will be essential to winning the November 6 presidential election.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/ruling-ups-support-obama-healthcare-still-unpopular-040755810.html


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

Wolfarus said:


> The only part of this that concerns me (for the moment) is the mandate that forces people to buy insurance or be fined.
> 
> The point being that if they are too poor to buy it in the first place, forcing them to pay either way is a dick move.. unless they are going to set up government-backed, affordable plans that pretty much EVERYbody (regardless of income, unless you're flat out jobless and homeless) can afford.



if you're below the poverty line the government helps pay for it. some people won' have to pay at all


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Insurance companies should have to pay for conditions you develop while insured yes.  However cancer goes into patterns of remission and occurrence.  When your policy comes up for review (annually in every case I'm aware of) why shouldn't they have the right that every other business has to refuse service to customers that they think are likely to not work out for them?
> 
> This results in lower premiums for all their healthy patients, why do you want to inflict hardship on these people?



because I think everyone paying eversoslightly more is worth not having people with cancer go broke paying for treatments? where's your empathy for the people with cancer?


----------



## TSC (Jul 1, 2012)

had argument over this with my retarded redneck uncle. He doesn't get it. He's the facebook convo:



I haven't reply back yet as it's not worth my time.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

I'd probably just tell them they're retarded and it's clear they've got no idea what the ACA actually does.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

not to mention that the supposedly incredibly invasive mandate tax thing was pushed by the republicans, and was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation- a very conservative think tank, whom Romney is a member or backer of I believe. Also happens to be a good idea for once


----------



## TSC (Jul 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> I'd probably just tell them they're retarded and it's clear they've got no idea what the ACA actually does.



are you replying to my post or someone else?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 1, 2012)

[Standard Disclaimer]I don't actually support the Health Insurance industry at all.   Personally we'd scrap them all and go with a government sponsored  insurance.  But again, for the sake of argument and to illustrate my  point:[/Standard Disclaimer]



Petes12 said:


> because I think everyone paying eversoslightly more is worth not having people with cancer go broke paying for treatments? where's your empathy for the people with cancer?


So you're a socialist, that's nice.

But why should you get to dictate how the insurance industry does business?  Why should you get to dictate that mostly healthy customers pay more?

Let me give you an example:

Suppose John Doe goes out to Red Lobster tonight.  He orders a Coke (with free refills) and an order of the lobster-artichoke dip (total cost: $11.00).  Now suppose that he sits at his table and pokes at his dip for 6 hours all the while demanding refills on his coke and asking questions to the waitress monopolizing her time (total cost to Red Lobster for using up 6 hours of a waitress' time, assuming he doesn't tip: $43.50 = $7.25*6).

Now when he goes back tomorrow which scenario makes more sense to you:

A) The manager tells him that if he's not welcome at their restaurant if he's going to act in that manner.
B) That the Red Lobster raise all their prices by 20% in order to cover this guy's monopolization of resources.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 1, 2012)

TSC said:


> had argument over this with my retarded redneck uncle. He doesn't get it. He's the facebook convo:


A friend of a friend posted this on Facebook in response to the "brace yourselves, everyone on Facebook is about to become a constitutional scholar" meme:

"Bluntly put, you liberals  have just started a civil war and you're too dumb to know it yet.  Have  fun with the bloodbath on both sides, you deserve it."

I didn't respond but I thought this one summed it up best:
"Hey, on the upside? Everyone harmed in the civil war will have healthcare coverage YAY"


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 1, 2012)

*Pelosi: GOP repeal of Obamacare is 'unrealistic'*




> WASHINGTON (AP) ? Minority leader Nancy Pelosi says House Democrats are happy to debate dismantling Obamacare, but repeal is unrealistic.
> 
> In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" slated to air Sunday, Pelosi says Republicans from Mitt Romney to members of Congress are "being the mouthpiece of the health care industry" when they talk about reversing the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-gop-repeal-obamacare-unrealistic-232841150.html


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> [Standard Disclaimer]I don't actually support the Health Insurance industry at all.   Personally we'd scrap them all and go with a government sponsored  insurance.  But again, for the sake of argument and to illustrate my  point:[/Standard Disclaimer]
> 
> 
> So you're a socialist, that's nice.
> ...



because people's lives and livelihood are at stake. this is how taxes work, it's not socialism anymore than a lack of individual mandate is anarchy


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

TSC said:


> are you replying to my post or someone else?



yours

should not let them go for saying such stupid shit without letting them know!


----------



## TSC (Jul 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> yours
> 
> should not let them go for saying such stupid shit without letting them know!



Since he's my uncle i'd rather say that in his face preferably. lol.

In case you don't know the story. My uncle has no job(or rather too lazy to get one we think) and is poor in rural area of NJ. And has a son who has down syndrome.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

so hes exactly the type of person he hates, allegedly


----------



## TSC (Jul 1, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> so hes exactly the type of person he hates, allegedly



Pretty much. Doesn't want to think he is though.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 1, 2012)

[Standard Disclaimer]I don't actually support the Health Insurance  industry at all.   Personally we'd scrap them all and go with a  government sponsored  insurance.  But again, for the sake of argument  and to illustrate my  point:[/Standard Disclaimer]



Petes12 said:


> because people's lives and livelihood are at stake. this is how taxes work, it's not socialism anymore than a lack of individual mandate is anarchy



So you're for the government dictating to the restaurant and supermarket industries what prices they charge and who and how they sell their products?

Or is food somehow less important to "lives and livelihood" than healthcare?

Especially to the point since they wouldn't be dictating to the food-growing industry just the food-selling industry.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 1, 2012)

*Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare despite Supreme Court ruling*



> The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law on Thursday, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
> 
> "We're not going to start implementing Obamacare," Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "We're committed to working to elect Gov. Romney to repeal Obamacare."
> 
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...es-implement-obamacare-despite-152429092.html


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2012)

Most Republican governors are, in fact, not implementing Obamacare in the hope that Romney is elected and they won't have to.

Kind of cheeky for this guy to make noise about it, however.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> So you're for the government dictating to the restaurant and supermarket industries what prices they charge and who and how they sell their products?



I'm perfectly fine with regulations on how we sell food, for example shit like cornsyrup should at least get a warning label. 

I wasn't aware the only role government served was to blow up other countries


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 1, 2012)

[Standard Disclaimer]I don't actually support the Health Insurance   industry at all.   Personally we'd scrap them all and go with a   government sponsored  insurance.  But again, for the sake of argument   and to illustrate my  point:[/Standard Disclaimer]



Petes12 said:


> I'm perfectly fine with regulations on how we sell food, for example shit like cornsyrup should at least get a warning label.


False equivalency there.

In this case you're having the government specifically tell the insurance industry not only who they must accept as a client but also what they are allowed to charge them.

You're saying that the government should tell McDonalds that the Big Mac is going to cost $1.25 and that they're not allowed to kick out the bums from off the street that want to spend the whole day at a table because they bought a $0.65 cup of coffee.

And interestingly the Big Mac's going to continue to be $1.25 even if demand causes the cost of beef to double.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 1, 2012)

yeah I don't really care, it's the right thing to do


----------



## Ceria (Jul 1, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Most Republican governors are, in fact, not implementing Obamacare in the hope that Romney is elected and they won't have to.
> 
> Kind of cheeky for this guy to make noise about it, however.



Florida's Governor isn't putting up with obamacare either, frankly speaking after the travesty in the supreme court this was a relief.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 1, 2012)

Rick Scott is under heat for a whole heap of other troubles though, as he should be.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 1, 2012)

Ceria said:


> Florida's Governor isn't putting up with obamacare either, frankly speaking after the travesty in the supreme court this was a relief.



I don't know specifically about ACA but generally speaking states don't have to follow federal regulations.

They just give up money to do so.

So if the residents of the states are fine with having the same drawbacks ("the mandate") without as many benefits more power to them I guess.


----------



## drache (Jul 1, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Okay, I'll play Insurance Company advocate here.
> 
> 
> Why?  A newborn that is being properly taken care of has "well child" appointments at 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months.
> ...



of all the idiotic arguments I hate these the most

let's be clear *preventive* care in the long run *saves* money by catching illness early and allowing people to respond to things

I am sick of the stupid argument that you should effectively wait till your house is on fire to get a smoke detector

And those 'conditions till this law was so broad a catogery that it was mind boggling. You realize things like ADD and ADHD were counted? As was depression, cancer and a whole host of things. Basically as others have said the insurance companies wanted the money but not to provide coverage.

Please stop spreading GOP lies, it's annoyning


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2012)

It will be hilarious if Obama is reelected and to see the look on those governors' faces.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 2, 2012)

So the South is showing utter disrespect for the Supreme Court, and the constitutionality of the ACA now that things didn't go their way? Gee, this hasn't happened before...


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

drache said:


> let's be clear *preventive* care in the long run *saves* money by catching illness early and allowing people to respond to things


This is true, one thing I've never understood is why many health insurance policies charge a co-pay for preventative care visits.  One would think it's in everybody's best interests to cover these.



drache said:


> And those 'conditions till this law was so broad a catogery that it was mind boggling. You realize things like ADD and ADHD were counted? As was depression, cancer and a whole host of things. Basically as others have said the insurance companies wanted the money but not to provide coverage.


Again, health insurance is pooled risk.  That's how it works.

In theory the premium I pay is based off of how likely on average it is that I'll cost the people paying for insurance money.  So that as an average the pool doesn't run out of money.

Conceptually this works so that if I have an accident or unexpected illness I can draw from the pool now and in good years where I don't get sick I make up for this.

However if someone _knows_ they have an illness this doesn't work.  It's no longer equally shared risk.  Imagine someone gets diagnosed with a disease that requires bone marrow replacement treatments annually (at a cost of ~$185,000 a pop).

Should they really be able to go to a random insurance company and sign up for the same $600/month policy as anyone else?  Why would the insurance company be okay with that?  The "gamble" such as it is is a given loss for the company.

The same is true for lesser conditions, if they know you have it when you sign up they know you are going to cost them more money than the average person.  It follows logically that they'll either want to charge you more or simply turn you away.

As to your ADHD example, in addition to the medicine used to treat it there are complications.  ADHD sufferers are more prone to accidents (thus more likely to have ER visits or require medical care for these accidents), they're also more prone to a number of different psychological disorders (which may require separate treatments, medicines, or in turn lead to other disorders).  While far less extreme than the cancer example these things mean that an ADHD sufferer's policy is a riskier gamble than the average (thus they would like to charge more or be free from paying for the complications of the condition).




drache said:


> Please stop spreading GOP lies, it's annoyning


If you're going to argue on this topic you need to be able to address these points.  They're not lies they're easy to point out and confirm points as to how the Health Insurance industry is now different than pretty much any other industry in the country.

If you want to sway people's opinions you need to be able to defeat these arguments (and remember I'm not even a passionate defender of the insurance industry, I'm just a casual devil's advocate).



Since we've gone about this for a while now let me ask a simple question from the other side of the equation.  If everyone is now required to have insurance, essentially putting the whole country in one giant "risk pool," exactly what value do the insurance companies add to the system?


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 2, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> However if someone _knows_ they have an illness this doesn't work.  It's no longer equally shared risk.  Imagine someone gets diagnosed with a disease that requires bone marrow replacement treatments annually (at a cost of ~$185,000 a pop).
> 
> Should they really be able to go to a random insurance company and sign up for the same $600/month policy as anyone else?



yes. those are the people who need help covering this stuff more than anyone else. this is why the individual mandate is in place, so that insurance companies can still be profitable overall even with some unprofitable customers. 

y u so dumb?




EvilMoogle said:


> Since we've gone about this for a while now let me ask a simple question from the other side of the equation.  If everyone is now required to have insurance, essentially putting the whole country in one giant "risk pool," exactly what value do the insurance companies add to the system?



more ambiguous, but competition among insurance providers can lead to better service overall, as different insurers will do their best to provide the best service or value to people they can


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jul 2, 2012)

The Southern states are rather hypocritical by claiming they have a strong "Christian" character and have Southern hospitality.  

They are willing to let the poorest members of society suffer more by refusing to take part in the Medicaid expansion (despite the federal government paying most of newcomer's expenses) all because of politics?


I do not believe in God, but if he were real....he would be disgusted, most likely.


And to think I used to live there .....


----------



## Mizura (Jul 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> yes. those are the people who need help covering this stuff more than anyone else. this is why the individual mandate is in place, so that insurance companies can still be profitable overall even with some unprofitable customers.


Well, it kind of depends on how he meant it. To take an extreme example, if nobody buys health insurance UNTIL they find out that they're sick, then the risk isn't being pooled among the whole population, only among those who are sick, which badly skews things for the health insurance company.

Well, that's why insurance only works when everybody is paying for it.


----------



## drache (Jul 2, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> This is true, one thing I've never understood is why many health insurance policies charge a co-pay for preventative care visits.  One would think it's in everybody's best interests to cover these.



because as I said insurance companies want to make profit it's not profitable to cover preventive care but now they have to because of Obama and this law.




EvilMoogle said:


> Again, health insurance is pooled risk.  That's how it works.
> 
> In theory the premium I pay is based off of how likely on average it is that I'll cost the people paying for insurance money.  So that as an average the pool doesn't run out of money.
> 
> ...



bullshit because people didn't *choose* to be born with ADD or any of the other things you can have that deny you coverage that you had no choice on, the fact is people pay for care and 'preexisting conditions' like I said is too vague.

I could see your point if for example a chronic smoker suddenly wanted insurance because of cancer but that was a  choice.

And the fact is that before this law your 'theory' didn't even work insurance companies routinely implemented so called 'life time ceilings' where in there was a maximium coverage you could have for the entirity of your life or some other way to limit their pay out.



EvilMoogle said:


> Should they really be able to go to a random insurance company and sign up for the same $600/month policy as anyone else?  Why would the insurance company be okay with that?  The "gamble" such as it is is a given loss for the company.



entirely not waht I am talking about



EvilMoogle said:


> The same is true for lesser conditions, if they know you have it when you sign up they know you are going to cost them more money than the average person.  It follows logically that they'll either want to charge you more or simply turn you away.



we're not talking about that we're talking about denying coverage period



EvilMoogle said:


> As to your ADHD example, in addition to the medicine used to treat it there are complications.  ADHD sufferers are more prone to accidents (thus more likely to have ER visits or require medical care for these accidents), they're also more prone to a number of different psychological disorders (which may require separate treatments, medicines, or in turn lead to other disorders).  While far less extreme than the cancer example these things mean that an ADHD sufferer's policy is a riskier gamble than the average (thus they would like to charge more or be free from paying for the complications of the condition).



i would love to see you actually support any of this




EvilMoogle said:


> If you're going to argue on this topic you need to be able to address these points.  They're not lies they're easy to point out and confirm points as to how the Health Insurance industry is now different than pretty much any other industry in the country.



actually they are lies or at best a complete albeit honest misunderstanding of how 'health care' in America actually works



EvilMoogle said:


> If you want to sway people's opinions you need to be able to defeat these arguments (and remember I'm not even a passionate defender of the insurance industry, I'm just a casual devil's advocate).



if facts can't sway people then I wash my hands of them, you can't make someone agree but then their agreement is also not inherently necessary. We live in a majority rules (with key exceptions) democracy. You can passionately disagree if you want or just do 'devil's advocate' but right now that opinion is in the minority.



EvilMoogle said:


> Since we've gone about this for a while now let me ask a simple question from the other side of the equation.  If everyone is now required to have insurance, essentially putting the whole country in one giant "risk pool," exactly what value do the insurance companies add to the system?



honestly they do what they were intended to do but then if I could choose I'd get rid of them all together but the insurance companies have too much influence and too much money for that so we get this solution instead.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 2, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> Do you support then the rejection of people from hospitals if they are unable to pay for their medical treatment? Even if that rejection leads to their death?



That's not even a part of the law without Obamacare.  Who would support such a thing?  I suspect that this is more likely to occur under a governmental system than a privatized one.



First Tsurugi said:


> Roberts had to do some serious legal gymnastics to save the mandate.
> 
> Commendable, but undoubtedly a case of judicial activism.



Agreed.  He had to read a tax into a bill that never mentions the words.  The entire time Obama was pushing this bill the bill was "not a tax".  When it gets to court he suddenly argues that it is a tax.

One thing everyone should note is that the biggest winner in this decision is Romney.  I think this galvanizes the party behind him and makes all of the legislative races national.  Every month or so we hear about something that was in Obamacare that we never knew about before.  I suspect that these developments will continue and these revelations will not be good for the President's re-election chances.

Many Republicans were secretely hoping the SCOTUS would rule this way for cynical political reasons.



Bioness said:


> How did I miss this thread?
> 
> Anyway the Health Care reform he did at the beginning of his tenure had positively affected me, I'm glad that this country is finally progressing some.



Note to Bioness: it hasn't been implemented yet, so any benefits you received had nothing to do with Obamacare.

Carry on.



Mider T said:


> That fact that the GOP is STILL trying to repeal this should be a testament to everyone that they have no intention of compromise.  Or any respect for the Executive or Judicial branches.



Lol.  Repealing a bill doesn't mean disrespect at all.  The executive passed a bill we don't like so we can repeal it if the voters give us power.  The SCOTUS only said the bill is constitutional - they didn't say it was a good law or good policy.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

[Standard Disclaimer]I don't actually support the Health Insurance    industry at all.   Personally we'd scrap them all and go with a    government sponsored  insurance.  But again, for the sake of argument    and to illustrate my  point:[/Standard Disclaimer]


Petes12 said:


> yes. those are the people who need help covering  this stuff more than anyone else. this is why the individual mandate is  in place, so that insurance companies can still be profitable overall  even with some unprofitable customers.


Again, there are lots of people that need help.  Why is this the insurance companies fault?

There are hungry that need food, why doesn't McDonalds give them food for free when they enter the restaurant?

There are homeless that need homes, why don't building companies build them houses?

And yes, there are sick that need care, but why is it the place for insurance companies to be the ones to provide them with charity?



Petes12 said:


> y u so dumb?


If that's the best argument you can offer you'll never convince anyone of anything.  You do more harm to your cause than you help.




drache said:


> because as I said insurance companies want to make profit it's not profitable to cover preventive care but now they have to because of Obama and this law.


Actually since catching illness earlier makes it cheaper to treat it's better for insurance companies to provide preventative care.  Like I said this is a pure mystery to me.



drache said:


> bullshit because people didn't *choose* to be born with ADD or any of the other things you can have that deny you coverage that you had no choice on, the fact is people pay for care and 'preexisting conditions' like I said is too vague.


Of course they didn't.  Likewise a lot of homeless don't _choose_ to live on the street.  Most jobless don't _choose_ to be unemployed.

But at the same time the insurance industry didn't put them in this position.  You're asking -- nay requiring by law -- for them to donate money to the unfortunate.  It is a mathematical certainty that they lose money on these customers.  

It's no different than telling an apartment complex that if the homeless come up and ask them from an apartment they have to give it to them for free.



drache said:


> And the fact is that before this law your 'theory' didn't even work insurance companies routinely implemented so called 'life time ceilings' where in there was a maximium coverage you could have for the entirity of your life or some other way to limit their pay out.


Yes, the insurance industry has failsafes built in to the agreement you sign with them when you get a policy.  I have accidental damage coverage on my phone.  But if they have to replace it twice they'll cancel the policy.

A healthy person that pays $600/month for insurance for 80 years of their life will contribute in a bit over half a million dollars in their lifetime.  Insurance companies hedging their bets and capping their payout at $1M or $2M so they don't "lose" too much is simply business.



drache said:


> i would love to see you actually support any of this


Here's what the Mayo clinic has to say:


Was the source for my above statements.




drache said:


> actually they are lies or at best a complete albeit honest misunderstanding of how 'health care' in America actually works


Then it should be easy to defeat the argument.  But instead you deflect with things like "people didn't *choose* to be born with ADD" or simply "stop spreading GOP lies, it's annoyning" these aren't arguments.

If you like the ACA and you want to stop these arguments than present the case!  As I said I'm not a passionate defender of the insurance industry (rather I'd like to see it utterly eliminated).  If you can't make an argument that defeats my casual comments then maybe your position isn't as solid as you think it is.




drache said:


> honestly they do what they were intended to do but then if I could choose I'd get rid of them all together but the insurance companies have too much influence and too much money for that so we get this solution instead.


I'll be honest for a moment.

I like the ACA act for one thing more than everything else:  It's movement.  For 60 years America has hummed and hawed over whether it's right to provide healthcare to people with various degrees of "it's just not the right time" and "your solution has problems lets wait for something perfect."

ACA not provides momentum.  Nobody I'm aware of thinks it's a perfect solution, but it gives a crystal clear direction of where things will go left to themselves.  I have no doubt regardless of who wins the election in November healthcare will be on the table to discuss again in 2013.

Personally I'd like a single-payer system to go in and just let the insurance industry fade away into a relic of the past.  But the important thing is we _have_ to discuss it now, there's no more waiting for "the right time."


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 2, 2012)

You keep asking why the insurance companies should have to do this, but they get a pretty nice trade-off. They'll make more money and save lives, oh and the ACA is expected to reduce the national deficit too. Wheres the downside?

You keep bringing up 'should mcdonalds feed everyone who cant afford food' but that's basically what food stamps are.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

[Standard Disclaimer]I don't actually support the Health Insurance     industry at all.   Personally we'd scrap them all and go with a     government sponsored  insurance.  But again, for the sake of argument     and to illustrate my  point:[/Standard Disclaimer]


Petes12 said:


> You keep asking why the insurance companies should have to do this, but they get a pretty nice trade-off. They'll make more money and save lives, oh and the ACA is expected to reduce the national deficit too. Wheres the downside?


Pretty simple answer here.  If what you are saying is true then why would the Insurance industry be backing candidates looking to repeal ACA?

But lets hold off on that for a moment and look at your next point:



Petes12 said:


> You keep bringing up 'should mcdonalds feed everyone who cant afford food' but that's basically what food stamps are.


Find me a McDonald's that takes food stamps.

For that matter McDonalds has the right to refuse service to anyone - able to pay or not (granted save for a few restricted reasons).

Suppose Bill Gates' car breaks down in the middle of nowhere, his cell phone's battery's dead, and he gets sprayed by a skunk walking to the nearest town to call someone for help.

At the next exit to the interstate he finds a McDonalds and heads over to see if someone there has a phone he can borrow to call to get picked up.  McDonalds has every right to say "wow, you smell like ass and will scare away our customers, go away."  And Bill Gates will have to go away (probably making a note to buy this particular McDonald's franchise and fire everyone at it once he gets home).

Before 2014 insurance companies can tell someone with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and ADHD who comes up to ask for insurance "we're sorry but you'll cost us $1,000,000 a year at least and will only pay us a few hundred dollars a month.  It's not fair to our other customers to cover you." 

After 2014 they'll be required to insure this person (possibly extending their life) and will have to spread the cost on to the other people they insure by raising their rates.

Wait a moment, scratch that last part.  They aren't going to be able to change the rates they charge.  So their income essentially stays the same but their costs dramatically go up.

_Maybe_ that's the part that insurance companies are objecting to?

Is this fair to the people dieing because they can't afford to pay for the care they require?  No.  Not at all.  That really sucks.  But at the same time I don't know why we focus on the insurance companies as the source of the problem.

I liken this to the fact that we have people starving in the street but McDonald's still charges for a Big Mac.  Would it be nice for McDonald's to open their doors and feed the poor?  Of course it would.  It would also hurt their bottom line.  Personally rather than focus on McDonald's lack of charity I would focus on the farmers that are currently being paid _not to grow food_.  Why don't we pay them to grow food instead, and give that food away to the hungry?

Why don't we simply say the government will pay for certain medical services, and make insurance something that is only supplemental for people who want more coverage than the government provides?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 2, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Before 2014 insurance companies can tell someone with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and ADHD who comes up to ask for insurance "we're sorry but you'll cost us $1,000,000 a year at least and will only pay us a few hundred dollars a month.  It's not fair to our other customers to cover you."
> 
> After 2014 they'll be required to insure this person (possibly extending their life) and will have to spread the cost on to the other people they insure by raising their rates.



That's a short term problem as a result of a long term solution.  With people being required to buy insurance this will introduce a lot of sick people into the system but also introduce a lot of healthy people into the system to help support it.

After the mandate is in place there will be no masses of uninsured people being introduced into the system, its a one time thing.  In the long term more people will have insurance when they're healthy and thus be able to see a doctor when their diseases are in the earliest (and cheapest) stages, thus saving us all a lot of money and saving a lot of lives.


----------



## Mael (Jul 2, 2012)




----------



## αce (Jul 2, 2012)

HAHAHAHAAH


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Jul 2, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> No they don't. No wealthy American goes anywhere but America and I'll need a source or two if you want me to believe otherwise. I spam this link a lot, but it's kind of an important bit of information:
> 
> 
> You'll notice 17 of the top 20 hospitals in the world being American, including the entirety of the top 10.
> So no, the US system does not suck shit ass. It only bears improvement with regard to the lower middle class. It's worth mentioning again that healthcare is free for the very poor.



You'd complained before about being tired of Europeans badmouthing the American system, based on poor information. Similarly, I am tired of Americans bashing the British or Canadian systems based on anecdotal evidence and thin logic, such as martryn (although I don't know if he's American).

So the language was just reflecting his. I think that our system is ok, but the costs are out of control.

As to medical vacations,  and it's not the super-wealthy that are taking them. When I went to Costa Rica, one of the guys in my b&b was coming for a surgery and having to take a month off for it. I think that to be able to take off for a month for a surgery and fly abroad to stay elsewhere for that month when insurance isn't paying for any of that, you'd have to be at least be comfortably in the upper middle class. He claimed that his reasons were the cost because it'd save him tens of thousands of dollars and the wait time. Rush Limbaugh also wants to have all his medical care in Costa Rica, but that's probably not helping my argument.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Hm, nope. American satisfaction with medical care is considerably higher than other countries'. 51 percent of Americans are "very satisfied" as opposed to 41 percent of Canadians. Equal numbers (8%) are dissatisfied. ()



 are   that say differently. They're all dated. The two Gallup polls were published in 2003 and 2006 and the Commonwealth poll is from 2007. And the second Gallup poll was very close for all three with just a 3% difference between the three nations (the US in the middle). But your survey was also dated from 2007.

It's only four surveys, all of which are somewhat dated, with mixed results so all that I'd assert is that the American satisfaction with our system is not higher than that of the UK or Canada.

Another question is whether - assuming that Canadians are 20% less satisified than Americans (50% to 40%) - it's worth it for them to spend half as much on their health care.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Inefficient does not equal ineffective. The American medical industry is very brute-force; by throwing colossal amounts of money at medical practitioners, we retain what is without question the most advanced and capable medical establishment in the world. Its only fault lies in the inequitable situations those who can't afford insurance and aren't poor enough - or old enough - to receive medicare/medicaid face.



And that's another reason that our health care costs are skyrocketing. Doctors seem to be pushing treatments on patients, regardless of cost. And in America, we seem to have been conditioned since birth to do whatever for your health. ("If you don't have your health, ...") So when it comes to our health, cost doesn't matter. And a lot of times, it doesn't because it's being paid by the insurance company. (Yeah, I'm actually criticizing insurance companies for being too liberal in spending.)

When I had a flexible endoscopy, I asked the specialist whether it was likely to help figure anything out. He kinda demurred, but seemed to be asking if I really wanted to take the risk because it's my own health. And maybe that was just my own conditioning reading things into his response, but my feeling was that the answer was "no, but I recommend it anyway". Honestly, if I'd known that it was $800 (again! maybe my insurance company just cut a bad deal with specialists), I would've taken that as an excuse to pass. And as it turned out, we learned nothing. But I got better on my own. If it was something like a 5% co-pay, but with the prices listed (do *any* doctor's offices in the US list prices?), I think that people would think more carefully about whether they want to go through an expensive procedure - even if the costs to them are the same.

Consumers may not be making rational decisions, but how can we, when we don't have access to the information?

I know that having doctors post prices was one of the proposals of ACA, but I'm pretty sure that it got killed quick.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The healthy, which is almost everyone: Can easily afford insurance. I don't have insurance myself, but if I wanted some, it would cost me $15/mo.
> The poor: Get medicaid
> The old: Get medicare
> The employed: Get health coverage.



That's *really* cheap. I'm spending $50 a month and my employer pays the other 90%. When I was on my own, I was spending about $80/month (5 years ago) through Blue Cross/Blue Shield and had much worse coverage. It basically covered routine visits and some urgent care, but with a pretty strict limit. I think it would've been great for my broken foot, but a hospital stay (even one night if I took the ambulance there) would've wrecked me.



Ceria said:


> Florida's Governor isn't putting up with obamacare either, frankly speaking after the travesty in the supreme court this was a relief.



I don't think that Rick Scott has much room to be saying anything about how to save money in health care - despite his experience with health care fraud, or more precisely, because of that.



baconbits said:


> Note to Bioness: it hasn't been implemented yet, so any benefits you received had nothing to do with Obamacare..



A couple dozen provisions already have, including mandating that those under 26 be allowed to get coverage under their parents' policy.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> After the mandate is in place there will be no masses of uninsured people being introduced into the system, its a one time thing.


True enough.  Lets look at the one time thing in detail a moment shall we?

Cost of a round of chemotherapy = $31,177
Average rounds of chemotherapy per treatment cycle = 5
Cost of radiation therapy = $26,940

Prevalence of cancer in the general population: ~12M cases

Cost added to the system for treating cancer:
$2,193,900,000,000

Number of uninsured in the nation: ~51M
Average cost of insurance: $183/month

Money added to the system by requiring insurance from all Americans (assuming government covers those that can't afford it):
$111,996,000,000 a year.

Time it will take for the newly insured to pay for the cancer treatments assuming no cases of cancer recur and no one else gets sick with anything during the "catch up" period:
19 years, 7 months.

Sources:


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jul 2, 2012)

Is that also factoring in the savings from people who will now have their cancers caught in stage 1 rather than stage 4?  Or the myriad of other diseases like diabetes which will now be caught early rather than when someone requires an expensive amputation surgery?

Because I would hardly call our old system sustainable.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Is that also factoring in the savings from people who will now have their cancers caught in stage 1 rather than stage 4?  Or the myriad of other diseases like diabetes which will now be caught early rather than when someone requires an expensive amputation surgery?
> 
> Because I would hardly call our old system sustainable.


It factors in only cancer, it doesn't address costs associated with people that have diabetes or heart conditions or other such issues at all.  They will likely be a further expense.

That's factoring in people that have cancer now, the immediate problem.  Along with the current averages for the costs of treatment (which hopefully will go down assuming we have a healthier populace that gets the appropriate preventative care).

Yes down the line this may balance out when we start catching cancer earlier (hopefully!).  However it is an unfortunate truth that we have to address the "what do we do now" before we can get to "it will be better later."

That number above is over _Two Trillion Dollars_.  I honestly don't know if the insurance industry in the US has that much money between them.  Which brings up the very sobering question, what does a business do when they're mandated to perform a service that they cannot afford to do?

The only options I see are:
A) Take out a loan to cover the expense (in hopes of getting to the "better later").  $2T in loans.That's 13.7% of the GDP of the country.

B)  Beg the government for a bailout.  Of $2T (that would be 53% of the 2013 budget).  Which would require the US to get the money from somewhere.

C) Close their doors, passing the problem on to other insurance companies doing "A" or "B"​That's a really serious problem.  

And yes, the current system is crap and doesn't do a good job of helping people at all.  But at the same time there are very major problems to address with the new system.  If it drives the insurance industry out of business then the ACA doesn't really do anything to help people (other than mandate they buy a product that is no longer sold, which is an interesting issue).


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 2, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Before 2014 insurance companies can tell someone with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and ADHD who comes up to ask for insurance "we're sorry but you'll cost us $1,000,000 a year at least and will only pay us a few hundred dollars a month.  It's not fair to our other customers to cover you."


 so this, to you, is a good thing. 



> After 2014 they'll be required to insure this person (possibly extending their life) and will have to spread the cost on to the other people they insure by raising their rates.
> 
> Wait a moment, scratch that last part.  They aren't going to be able to change the rates they charge.  So their income essentially stays the same but their costs dramatically go up.


 and this is bad.

yeah, you're being an idiot.


and i find it amazing that you think having to pay for the service they are supposed to be providing won't be offset by everyone buying insurance cost wise


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 2, 2012)

The costs being quoted are actually _prices_, grossly inflated partly due to the uninsured. Hospitals take the costs of providing care to the uninsured and increase prices for the insured by the amount necessary. That is part of the reason care costs so much. Medicare/Medicaid already dictates to care providers the price they will charge. 

The most important part of this is health care cost control (price control really). Medicare and Medicaid are a good form of price control. Corporations have to show large increases in revenue to keep share prices high. Those revenue increases are achieved through the increase of premiums, even when there is no corresponding increase in cost. The flaw I'm seeing in this debate is assuming that prices (inflated by the uninsured, by an inefficient system, and by corporate profits) = cost. They do not. 

This profit is no longer sustainable. We spend over 17% of GDP on healthcare which is far more than comparable nations. Eventually it will bankrupt us. Our debt is ballooning to support our current healthcare system, which is taking too much of our national resources. It is reaching unstable levels. People can debate day and night the fairness of depriving insurance companies of profit, but the plain truth is, unless we reign in those profits, until we lower the salaries of doctors and the prices of treatments and drugs, we are facing fiscal doom as a nation. 

What is going to happen ultimately is that our nation will either choose or be forced to control these costs. Doctors and other specialists will have to see their salaries come down to sustainable levels. Surgeons cannot make $600k per year, that is grossly inefficient. Eventually you devote so much in resources that it deprives the nation of productivity. The ACA starts us on a path of cost control by providing Medicaid for people who are 26+ and at 133% of the federal poverty level. In essence, it's program creep. Just keep expanding incrementally until we eventually have Medicare for everyone. That is the natural way to fiscal stability.


----------



## Toby (Jul 2, 2012)

Shinigami Perv styling as usual. It's all about cost control. ACA is a good step forward, but reigning in and whipping the health insurance industry is imperative to fixing this grossly overpriced form of treatment. The US lies about 3 times over the OECD median cost of hospital discharge. You can't even attribute a tenth of the cost increase to markup, so most of the costs reflect the absence of a larger pool of consumers paying into a collective fund. 

Well, even if there were only 3 major health insurance agencies in the US, their current business model needs the government to pay for the lowest income groups due to vastly inequal wealth distribution. I look forward to how Democrats handle that.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 2, 2012)

Internet, I'mma gonna go and bet a nickel with you that now that you can't just cut costs by letting people to die in a gutter as easly, we're suddenly going to start seeing a lot cures popping up to conditions we previously thought could only be manageable


----------



## drache (Jul 2, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Actually since catching illness earlier makes it cheaper to treat it's better for insurance companies to provide preventative care.  Like I said this is a pure mystery to me.



and as I said the only reasonable explaination is insurance companies are about making profit not providing care and my later points support this.



EvilMoogle said:


> Of course they didn't.  Likewise a lot of homeless don't _choose_ to live on the street.  Most jobless don't _choose_ to be unemployed.
> 
> But at the same time the insurance industry didn't put them in this position.  You're asking -- nay requiring by law -- for them to donate money to the unfortunate.  It is a mathematical certainty that they lose money on these customers.
> 
> ...



then do you support the right to refuse care? Because hospitals are bound by law to treat anyone that shows up which is different then the homeless as apartments are not bound by law to give away houses

your analogy has a hole large enough to drive a truck though



EvilMoogle said:


> Yes, the insurance industry has failsafes built in to the agreement you sign with them when you get a policy.  I have accidental damage coverage on my phone.  But if they have to replace it twice they'll cancel the policy.
> 
> A healthy person that pays $600/month for insurance for 80 years of their life will contribute in a bit over half a million dollars in their lifetime.  Insurance companies hedging their bets and capping their payout at $1M or $2M so they don't "lose" too much is simply business.



you keep saying your disclaimer then say things like this, which one should I believe? Because denying care because you hit a yearly, decade or even lifetime limit is unacceptable. You pay for care period end of discussion

But then as I said insurance companies are about making money not helping people.



EvilMoogle said:


> Here's what the Mayo clinic has to say:
> 
> Was the source for my above statements.



that says 'tends to' it doesn't say 'are' I know the definitions for symptoms they are not absolutes and often for illnesses like ADD it's about the totality and not a specific symptom. Which doesn't prove your point at all.



EvilMoogle said:


> Then it should be easy to defeat the argument.  But instead you deflect with things like "people didn't *choose* to be born with ADD" or simply "stop spreading GOP lies, it's annoyning" these aren't arguments.



I have yet to see an agrument from you besides one about life time limits (I replied to) and prexisting conditions (I replied to) if I missed something I am all ears and will respond to it. But I don't think I did which makes this a rather cheap rhetorical trick



EvilMoogle said:


> If you like the ACA and you want to stop these arguments than present the case!  As I said I'm not a passionate defender of the insurance industry (rather I'd like to see it utterly eliminated).  If you can't make an argument that defeats my casual comments then maybe your position isn't as solid as you think it is.



I have if you don't want to listen that's up to you



EvilMoogle said:


> I'll be honest for a moment.
> 
> I like the ACA act for one thing more than everything else:  It's movement.  For 60 years America has hummed and hawed over whether it's right to provide healthcare to people with various degrees of "it's just not the right time" and "your solution has problems lets wait for something perfect."
> 
> ...



I doubt health care will be on the table unless romney wins and that's only to destroy it. I agree with you to an extent but with everything that needs to be done healthcare won't be on the table again till 2016


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> so this, to you, is a good thing.


Do I think it's good that the person with cancer dies?  No of course not.  But at the same time it is counter intuitive to me to ask a third party to pay for their care.

If we as a society want to say "it's bad that people die of cancer" or even "it's bad when people die of easily treatable conditions" (both sentiments I agree with), it makes more sense to me to say "we as a society will pay for people to be treated for cancer/easily treatable conditions."

It doesn't make sense to me to say "we'll mandate that that company over there that pays for some people to be treated also pay for these people to be treated in a manner that breaks the business logic they have set up."  That is short-sighted and full of flaws.



Petes12 said:


> and this is bad.


Yes I think that mandating people buy a product and then mandating what the company that sells the product can charge without respect for the consequences of these two actions is bad, yes.

As it will quite quickly lead to a situation where the company goes out of business.  I think mandating people buy a product that is no longer sold is bad.  I honestly can't fathom why someone would consider this "good."

Though there is hope that when this problem surfaces it will force a single-payer or government provided health care option forward.  Personally however I would prefer to not be rushed into a situation where that is formed but rather have it come from the result of well reasoned debate of representatives that care about the needs of their constituents.



Petes12 said:


> and i find it amazing that you think having to pay for the service they are supposed to be providing won't be offset by everyone buying insurance cost wise


The numbers and sources I used are up in my reply to Tsukiyomi above.  If you have better sources by all means provide them.

But just saying "don't worry it will all work out" isn't an argument, it's wishful thinking.  Doing some rough math on the numbers from that we'd need to raise premiums by about $495/person/month to cover the cancer costs (ouch).


----------



## Toby (Jul 2, 2012)

I figured my wall of text was too much for y'all to handle so I just posted my shit on my blog instead.

Moogle, that's an average figure. Surely you agree that ACA's problem is that it doesn't distribute risk among consumers appropriately? With the current wealth distribution in the US, high-income families must either accept higher income taxes, or that they pay higher premiums to carry the risk of low-income families better. There will never be a fair market rate either without a central statistics agency that compiles all data required to measure risk among Americans either. This requires a government-sponsored program. There's no way around it as far as I can tell.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

drache said:


> then do you support the right to refuse care? Because hospitals are bound by law to treat anyone that shows up


We're not talking about hospitals though.  We're talking about insurance companies.  Who (prior to the ACA) were not committed to provide their service to anyone.



drache said:


> which is different then the homeless as apartments are not bound by law to give away houses


Your argument was "because didn't choose to be born with ADD" insurance companies should cover them at a loss.

I retorted that most homeless people do not choose to be homeless, so apartment complexes should house them at a loss.



drache said:


> you keep saying your disclaimer then say things like this, which one should I believe? Because denying care because you hit a yearly, decade or even lifetime limit is unacceptable. You pay for care period end of discussion


I'm providing an argument based on what insurance companies would advocate.  I've said my personal beliefs are counter to this a number of times.

To that end here when you sign up for insurance now they clearly state any annual or lifetime limits on the policy.  If you have a problem with this then pick a different insurance (unlimited policies do exist, they're just very expensive due to the larger risk they represent to the insurance company).

Using the apartment comparison, you're basically saying "you pay for housing period.  So if you have a couple kids you should be able to knock out the neighboring walls and expand your unit - at no cost!"



drache said:


> But then as I said insurance companies are about making money not helping people.


I've never denied this.  In fact I think that's one of the primary problems with the current health care situation.

But at the end of the day most health insurance companies are for-profit industries that are explicitly out to make money.




drache said:


> that says 'tends to' it doesn't say 'are' I know the definitions for symptoms they are not absolutes and often for illnesses like ADD it's about the totality and not a specific symptom. Which doesn't prove your point at all.


Insurance runs by statistics.  That's where they come up with the amount they charge.  They know how much it costs to treat a broken leg, and how likely people are to get a broken leg in any given year.

With a large number of people it averages out and they can run with limited risk.

Compare it to a slot machine in Vegas.  They can have a slot machine that pays out a $65,000,000 grand prize because they know that this will only come up once a year and that machine will make $500,000,000 on average before it does.  It's still a "win" for whomever gets it, but doesn't break the bank.

Once you start allowing groups into an insurance pool with a different standard of care the equation changes.  Not all ADHD people are more accident prone, however on an average for large numbers as a group they are.

If those accidents require medical treatment then the average ADHD sufferer will cost more for care than the average non-ADHD sufferer.  Thus if the insurance company wants to cover them they will need to get more money from _somewhere_.  Either from charging a significantly higher premium to them or charging a slightly higher premium to everyone.



drache said:


> I doubt health care will be on the table unless romney wins and that's only to destroy it. I agree with you to an extent but with everything that needs to be done healthcare won't be on the table again till 2016


We'll see.  I think that if Obama wins the insurance lobby will put a lot of pressure to make it a public issue.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jul 2, 2012)

Toby said:


> I figured my wall of text was too much for y'all to handle so I just posted my shit on my blog instead.
> 
> Moogle, that's an average figure. Surely you agree that ACA's problem is that it doesn't distribute risk among consumers appropriately? With the current wealth distribution in the US, high-income families must either accept higher income taxes, or that they pay higher premiums to carry the risk of low-income families better. There will never be a fair market rate either without a central statistics agency that compiles all data required to measure risk among Americans either. This requires a government-sponsored program. There's no way around it as far as I can tell.


Yeah, the math just doesn't work out as it is.

I think ultimately we'll need to either have a government sponsored program (paid for by taxes), have a government run program (paid for by taxes) or we go back to our old "go die in the street" system.


----------

