Obama Care Could Be Deadly

Well, it's a good thing that our government believes in this new health care reform so much that they exempted McDonald's from it.

Can *any* of our fellow HCR fanatics give a good reason for this exemption?

The thing I wonder the most about is how many small businesses have a similar health care plan but will not receive any kind of exemption because they don't have the numbers for political advantage that McDonald's has.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] Can *any* of our fellow HCR fanatics give a good reason for this exemption?[/QUOTE]

This guy can:

[quote name='UncleBob']because they have the numbers for political advantage that McDonald's has.[/QUOTE]
 
I'm curious what our "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS ILLEGAL" think about the federal ruling that it is constitutional.

I'm assuming they actually read it. I'm assuming they actually gave a shit in the first place.

I'm just talking to myself again.
 
[quote name='IRHari']This guy can:[/QUOTE]

That's not really a "good" reason, now is it?

[quote name='speedracer']I'm curious what our "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS ILLEGAL" think about the federal ruling that it is constitutional. [/quote]

So, are you saying that you 100% agree with every Federal Ruling ever?

I suppose you're a big fan of their ruling for Dred Scott v. Sandford.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm curious what our "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS ILLEGAL" think about the federal ruling that it is constitutional.

I'm assuming they actually read it. I'm assuming they actually gave a shit in the first place.

I'm just talking to myself again.[/QUOTE]

The bill has what amounts to exemptions for states that think they can do better.

None of the tea tantrum crowd or almost anyone that passes for a normal conservative in the entire country is going that route, they have zero ideas literally other than denying people care.

The complaints are from abjectly stupid and/or dishonest who hide the facts of the matter behind bloviating and excruciatingly imbecilic rhetoric.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/the_real_problem_was_the_statu.html#comments

"Here's the play: Someone somewhere reports that the Affordable Care Act will require some change in the status quo. Maybe it's that insurers can no longer discriminate against sick children, and so some of them are pulling products that were only financially viable so long as they could discriminate against sick children. Maybe it's that McDonald's won't be able to offer miniature health-care "coverage" that caps annual benefits at $2,000, a form of insurance that wouldn't protect anyone from a real illness and that Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley once described as "not better than nothing."

"With each new disruption come loud claims -- some from insurance executives -- that the health overhaul is damaging American health care," writes David Leonhardt, who's been looking at the same stories. "On the surface, these claims can sound credible. But when you dig a little deeper, you often discover the same lesson that the McDonald’s case provides: the real problem was the status quo.""

Conservatives never really had a problem with an insurance mandate until they figured they could get their dumbshit base riled up:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/health-care_reform_wins_its_fi.html#comments

"wanted to write a long post on the Michigan judge who, in the first ruling on the subject, declared health-care reform -- and the individual mandate -- comfortably constitutional...

I'll only add that the arguments being tossed around by the two sides are essentially meaningless. There's no "right" argument here. No one doubts that health-care reform would be constitutional if Antonin Scalia decided to pursue his passion for beekeeping and allowed President Obama to appoint his replacement. The only reason there's any question about the law's constitutionality is that conservatives appointed five of the nine sitting justices, and conservatives have organized against the constitutionality of a proposal they once considered not just constitutional, but desirable as a matter of public policy."

The constitutionality is being and most likely will be upheld, if conservatives ever get back power they would not go after the mandate because there is money in it for insurance companies, they would go after the funding subsidies for poor and/or people or the money used for enforcement of the relatively light rules insurance companies would have to follow.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, are you saying that you 100% agree with every Federal Ruling ever?

I suppose you're a big fan of their ruling for Dred Scott v. Sandford.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is the logical conclusion. He agrees with one federal ruling therefore he agrees with 100% of them, including Dred Scott.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yes, that is the logical conclusion. He agrees with one federal ruling therefore he agrees with 100% of them, including Dred Scott.[/QUOTE]

I see you avoided the McDonald's exemption.

But the point being, to address speedracer's concerns, no, the courts aren't always right. History has proven that and I'm sure both parties can find examples where the courts have made bad decisions. So, for someone to come forth with "Well, the court says it, so it must be true" is pretty disingenuous. But I'm not surprised at all.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But the point being, to address speedracer's concerns, no, the courts aren't always right. History has proven that and I'm sure both parties can find examples where the courts have made bad decisions. So, for someone to come forth with "Well, the court says it, so it must be true" is pretty disingenuous. But I'm not surprised at all.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say they were right? The question was how the judge decided it and whether you agreed or disagreed and on what ground. You know, the thinking part of freedom of speech.
[quote name='Msut77']The complaints are from abjectly stupid and/or dishonest who hide the facts of the matter behind bloviating and excruciatingly imbecilic rhetoric.[/quote]
I was trying to tease an idea out of what they disagreed with in the ruling since they had made up their mind months ago. You saw how well that concept went. Whoosh goes the airplane.

And great links.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You saw how well that concept went. Whoosh goes the airplane.[/QUOTE]

When you sum up your opponent's argument as "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS ILLEGAL", it's clearly obvious that you are in no way interested in having a serious conversation with those who disagree with you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']When you sum up your opponent's argument as "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS ILLEGAL",[/QUOTE]

He isn't saying everyone who disagrees with him holds that argument. He's talking about people who say things like 'Obamacare will trash our current system' and then offer no arguments to back that up.

I don't *think* you're in that category so don't cry about it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']He isn't saying everyone who disagrees with him holds that argument. He's talking about people who say things like 'Obamacare will trash our current system' and then offer no arguments to back that up.

I don't *think* you're in that category so don't cry about it.[/QUOTE]

I'll cry about it if I want.

Someone who comes onto this board and posts crap like that should not be encouraged or tolerated. There is no debate or discussion with someone who posts like that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'll cry about it if I want.

Someone who comes onto this board and posts crap like that should not be encouraged or tolerated. There is no debate or discussion with someone who posts like that.[/QUOTE]

He wasn't posting like that. He was wondering what the mindset was behind people that post like that.

Did you even read what he wrote or did you automatically assume it was about you?
 
[quote name='depascal22']He wasn't posting like that. He was wondering what the mindset was behind people that post like that.

Did you even read what he wrote or did you automatically assume it was about you?[/QUOTE]

Show me one post from anyone on this forum that posts like that.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Just keep telling yourself, its a religion of peace...


Hot on the heels of "we'll blow up your shit if you burn our book," we now have "we'll blow up your shit if you move the site where we want to build our church:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39073267/ns/us_news

Aside from the fact that this will galvanize the opposition to the church, it severely weakens the Imam's case (and anyone in this thread's case) about components of peace in the religion.


I mean, I'm sure if any other religion were planning building a church 2 blocks from where thousands of civilians were murdered by extremists of that same religion, asking a leader from that religion to move that site would of course naturally mean that more civilians should be murdered.[/QUOTE]



This guy is just sarcastically saying Islam is a religion of peace. He's only implying Islam is a religion of war.

Oh wait but they're not the same thing at all. Apples and oranges. One guy is shouting omg REPUBLICANS CAPITAL LETTERS. The other guy is typing in a moderate voice but saying something equally offensive. Conveying the idea that all Muslims condone violence against someone who burns the Koran.

Are you really only offended by speedracer's tone Bob? Or do you care at all about the content of what is said as well? My point is that even the guy above didn't post 'like that' but posted in a moderate fashion, yet he said something that should definitely not be encouraged or tolerated. I think you'll agree with me on that at the very least.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'll cry about it if I want.

Someone who comes onto this board and posts crap like that should not be encouraged or tolerated. There is no debate or discussion with someone who posts like that.[/QUOTE]
I was looking for someone who disagrees with the federal judge that HCR is unconstitutional. I wanted to know exactly what part of his decision someone would take umbrage with.

I know, I know. This line of thinking cannot be tolerated. You been hittin the bottle a little harder than normal lately bob?

[quote name='UncleBob']When you sum up your opponent's argument as "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS ILLEGAL", it's clearly obvious that you are in no way interested in having a serious conversation with those who disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I get it. You're a special and unique snowflake today. Let me back up.

--------------------------------------------------
Good evening, bob. I certainly didn't ask for you by name, but you seem to believe that HCR is illegal. Exactly which part of the judge's ruling do you disagree with? So that we may have a serious legal conversation and so I better understand what you specifically take issue with.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I was looking for someone who disagrees with the federal judge that HCR is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

I was looking for someone who disagrees with the federal judge that HCR is unconstitutional.

I have been waiting over a year now for someone to explain (with actual reasons) why they are so against it, don't think you are gonna get much better responses than I have.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I know, I know. This line of thinking cannot be tolerated. You been hittin the bottle a little harder than normal lately bob?

Oh, I get it. You're a special and unique snowflake today. Let me back up.[/QUOTE]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[quote name='IRHari']Are you really only offended by speedracer's tone Bob? Or do you care at all about the content of what is said as well? My point is that even the guy above didn't post 'like that' but posted in a moderate fashion, yet he said something that should definitely not be encouraged or tolerated. I think you'll agree with me on that at the very least.[/QUOTE]

Tone and presentation are very important. If you see a bum who smells like... well, a bum... holding a bottle of booze, dressed in ragged clothes, wearing an A-Frame that says "The End is Nigh!" while shouting out things about the world ending, you're not very likely to try to engage in any kind of conversation with this guy.

But if Al Gore makes a big ol' fancy movie about how the world is doomed, you're likely to go see it, listen, and form opinions based on what in it. You might have even bought the DVD. Showed it to friends. Talked to them about it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I was looking for someone who disagrees with the federal judge that HCR is unconstitutional.

I have been waiting over a year now for someone to explain (with actual reasons) why they are so against it, don't think you are gonna get much better responses than I have.[/QUOTE]
They would love nothing more than to explain it to us, but our tone is unacceptable.

Dicking with people's health care = AOK!
Knowing nothing of their own country's laws = No prob!
Improper tone = Unacceptable!

The moral code of the moral majority.
 
[quote name='speedracer']They would love nothing more than to explain it to us, but our tone is unacceptable.

Dicking with people's health care = AOK!
Knowing nothing of their own country's laws = No prob!
Improper tone = Unacceptable!

The moral code of the moral majority.[/QUOTE]

I wish there was less focus on tone and more focus on human fucking decency.

Someone says it is perfectly fine with them to deny sick people (including children) health care even if they die and that is supposed to be ok because they say it "politely"?

Don't get me started on the lack of actual substance.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/missing-the-point_b_704475.html


"in both the Healthy Americans Act and in the current health reform law, I included a provision that would allow states to gain an exemption from certain federal requirements -- such as the individual mandate, the employer penalty and the exact standards for designing the exchanges, subsidies and basic health insurance policies -- if they could find a way to do a better job of covering their state's citizens. And I have been working to help states, like my home state of Oregon, take advantage of this option and hopefully move-up the date when states can start applying for waivers. The reason for this -- as the legislators in my state will attest -- is that it's a lot less cost effective for states to implement their own approaches in 2017 if they also have to pay to implement the federally mandated approach in 2014. For those who claim this position represents a retreat from the health reform law, they are mistaken. I have been advocating virtually non-stop for states to have the right to go their own way, including during the Senate Finance Committee's mark-up up last fall when I got the provision included in the Senate bill. My letter to the state of Oregon last week was a continuation of my effort to promote state innovation in health care."
 
[quote name='speedracer']They would love nothing more than to explain it to us, but our tone is unacceptable.

Dicking with people's health care = AOK!
Knowing nothing of their own country's laws = No prob!
Improper tone = Unacceptable!

The moral code of the moral majority.[/QUOTE]

See, here's the thing. You claim that you want to have a real discussion about, say, what someone disagrees with in this court ruling. But then you present your request to have a discussion in such a way that makes it clear that you're not interested in actually having a discussion. You insult and degrade anyone who might have any kind of disagreement with your point of view to the point where no one wants to discuss anything rationally with you. Then you put on a crown, climb to the top of the trash heap that is the consolidation of your posts, and declare yourself the winner. So, congratulations. You're the winner.
 
I was talking to Msut. Nobody gives a shit what you think because you never actually say anything of value, bob.

Substance bob. You should try it. You're not impressing anyone. Everyone knows you can't actually respond to my substance because you haven't read the opinion and you don't know what you're talking about anyway. So you'll dance about with absurdity (lol Dred Scott) and semantics, offended and forlorn, all the while saying nothing at all.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I was talking to Msut. Nobody gives a shit what you think because you never actually say anything of value, bob.

Substance bob. You should try it.[/QUOTE]

Look at the huffpo thing I posted, there is never any "there" there.

The leaders among the cons, meaning the (what passes for normal) republicans, the baggers and the libertarian dead enders backed themselves up into a corner by demagoguing reform.

They have to at least pretend to try and repeal it and probably feel they can get mileage of out failing at it too.
 
Totally. Like your link, they'll flog it. Then when it's reformed to be better, they'll flog it. Then when it's turned into a decent program they'll take credit for it. Then 40 years down the road they'll run on privatizing it.
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43626.html

I'm curious what our "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS LEGAL" think about the federal ruling that it may not be constitutional.

I'm assuming they actually read it. I'm assuming they actually gave a **** in the first place.

I'm just talking to myself again.

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday said he will allow some of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious what our "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS LEGAL" think about the federal ruling that it may not be constitutional.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']the federal ruling that it may not be constitutional.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']the federal ruling that it may not be constitutional.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']the federal ruling that it may not be constitutional.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']the federal ruling that it may not be constitutional.[/QUOTE]

"A federal judge in Florida on Thursday said he will allow some of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed"

"he will allow some of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed""

"he will allow some of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed"

"he will allow some of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law to proceed"

"he will allow some of the lawsuit...to proceed"

"some"

"to proceed"

You can't get mad at people for writing to you with the grammar and spelling of a third grader when you demonstrate the reading capacity of one. He was just trying to get down to your level, and doing so nobly. I think you owe speedracer an apology.
 
The judge ruled that the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law may proceed.

Thus, the federal judge made a ruling that the law *may* not be constitutional. That's why he's allowing the lawsuit to proceed so that the court can determine if the law is constitutional or not.
 
The ruling has nothing to do with the constitutionality. The case does.

You don't know much about law, do you.

EDIT: Also, it is not *THEE* law. It is *two parts* to the law. So "it"s constitutionality is not under question, unless you want to backpeddle and say that by "it" you did not mean the whole law but the two provisions in question.

I know you, you're shameless enough. Let us see you hem and haw!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The ruling has nothing to do with the constitutionality. The case does.

You don't know much about law, do you.

EDIT: Also, it is not *THEE* law. It is *two parts* to the law. So "it"s constitutionality is not under question, unless you want to backpeddle and say that by "it" you did not mean the whole law but the two provisions in question.

I know you, you're shameless enough. Let us see you hem and haw![/QUOTE]

The ruling to allow the case to proceed means that the judge finds there may be merit to the plaintiff's claims that the law is unconstitutional.
 
Uh not the whole law. The individual mandate part (and some other minor things). I know, details, minor details.

“I am only saying that (with respect to two of the particular causes of action discussed above) the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed,”
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='IRHari']Uh not the whole law. The individual mandate part (and some other minor things). I know, details, minor details.[/QUOTE]

Let's not get hung up on details. "parts of the law," "the law," whatever.

HE GOT US! OH MY GOD HE GOT US DADGUMMIT!

The challenge will proceed in federal court. It may be found to be wholly constitutional.

Drawing conclusions prior to an actual decision is claiming that your team won the whole baseball game because they're ahead at the top of the 2nd inning. Can we say that gay marriage is legal everywhere now, too? According to Bob's standard of proof, we can.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Drawing conclusions prior to an actual decision is claiming that your team won the whole baseball game because they're ahead at the top of the 2nd inning. Can we say that gay marriage is legal everywhere now, too? According to Bob's standard of proof, we can.[/QUOTE]

I respect your opinion but...you're full of shit. Phils in 5 baby. ;)
 
[quote name='IRHari']Uh not the whole law. The individual mandate part (and some other minor things). I know, details, minor details.[/QUOTE]

Can anyone find a quote from me anywhere where I claimed the "whole law"? Ever? Of course, now I'll be accused of backpedaling, even though I never made such a claim ever.

Y'all keep going on this tangent about the "whole" law just because I took speedracer's post and rephrased it without specifying that the judge found merit in the claims of the case against two of the three main parts of the law that many detractors of the bill question on a constitutional grounds.

Here:
I'm curious what our "IMMA CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARZ N HEALF CAREZ IS LEGAL" think about the federal judge's decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed based upon his belief that there may be merit behind the argument presented by the combined governments of 20 different states that parts of the bill may be unconstitutional.

I'm assuming they actually read it. I'm assuming they actually gave a **** in the first place.

I'm just talking to myself again.
Click to expand...

Happy?

Can we say that gay marriage is legal everywhere now, too? According to Bob's standard of proof, we can.
Click to expand...

Give it time.
 
WASHINGTON – Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers.

In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

"The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years," wrote Rick Stephens, Boeing's senior vice president for human resources.

[...]

Spokeswoman Karen Forte said the Boeing plan is more generous than what its closest competitors offer, and the company was concerned it would get hit with a new tax under the law.

The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans doesn't take effect until 2018, but employers are already beginning to assess their exposure because it is hefty: at 40 percent of the value above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan.

"We want to manage our costs so this tax doesn't apply to our plan, but that's down the road," said Forte. "If this health care law hadn't passed, would we be making changes to the health care benefit? Absolutely. For competitive reasons."

In the letter to Boeing employees, Stephens said out-of-control health care inflation is hampering Boeing's ability to compete with other manufacturers. Its major civilian aviation competitor, Airbus, is based in Europe, where governments shoulder the burden of health care costs.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what they're getting at here. They're cutting benefits to get under the Cadillac tax, but that doesn't come for 8 more years. They say they would have been changing the plan anyway because of cost pressure, so why pretend that the law is a material issue? And then they cite Airbus and its single payer coverage exposure as a cost competitive measure that they can't match in the free market?

wtf?
 
Sounds to me in that last line that they're advocating for government run care.

And I thought Boeing was an American company, hah.
 
[quote name='SpazX']The last person I want health advice from is John Goodman tivo.[/QUOTE]

Why? because he examines the issue with reason and without emotion (cough* Smut's articles*).

Read it. http://healthblog.ncpa.org/stupid-about-prices/

He points out very clearly that: Prices are somewhat arbitrary and difficult to compare with overseas markets and, even given the desire to push prices down, the government or healthcare providers will just shift the cost to other people or areas. So in essence, the price won't be changed at all, only the nominal price recorded. The solution to actually lower prices (for everyone, not just shift them) is therefore not a single payer system, but more competition and markets. That's how cosmetic surgery, Lasik surgery, walk-in clinics, surgi-centers, concierge doctors, medical tourism, etc. have actually lowered their prices and/or improved quality. >> Competition induced innovation.


How can you argue with that? I guess the only thing yall can do is just say "John Goodman is the last person you want health advice from."
 
[quote name='SpazX']The last person I want health advice from is John Goodman tivo.[/QUOTE]

How many "Noble" prizes has he won?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top