Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Clak']The thing is, with 50 different systems, some are bound to be better than others, plus there's always the possibility that some states won't do it all, or would eventually end theirs.[/QUOTE]
I'm not really a state's rights guy. I think the states are almost universally terrible in the local decisions that they make. But as a trojan horse for SOCIALISM, the opportunity has to be taken.

Single payer wouldnt just stay in one or a few states. It spreads like wildfire and in the process, Republican legislators everywhere will have to be voted out in order to make this possible. In 5-10 years, its in enough states to merge them into regional or a national system.

If the options are, single payer in one of the states as late as 2017, or they can start working on it tomorrow, I'll trade that for a terrible 20 year old Republican plan any day.
 
He's basically arguing a slippery slope. In theory if one state passes a single payer system (and sticks), presumably the rest would follow over time. Over course that time frame would be at least a decade, probably more.


As for Obamacare and the SCOTUS, I suggest people realize what's probably going to happen IF the Individual Mandate is struck down with the bill being severed. I personally think this is how it will go because I believe Kennedy will be wishy washy about this. It's also something the media talking heads aren't discussing today because they probably believe it's going to happen as well.

I also think the ruling with the states over this bill will be the most interesting part of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I said, I find it hard to believe some states would ever institute a single payer system. If they did it would take much longer than a decade.
 
That's not what he said though. He's saying he doesn't think it's right for people to game the system. He doesn't people to go 'I'm sick now, time to buy health care even though I could have done it when I was well.'

Listening to arguments for today, and I get the feeling it's going to be all or nothing now.
 
That was such a stupid answer to the question, I can't believe the guy got stumped by Jay Leno. There are so many "but what if...." questions to that answer it isn't funny.
 
Why is it that people get so hung up on the scale of programs like this? i mean it's fine if a state like Massachusetts does it, but if it's a federal program people lost their shit. It's socialism if the federal government does it, it's state's rights if a state does it.
 
I am still confused why the insurance companies are the bad "greedy" ones in most everyones eyes. It seems to me that with MLR that they are now basically being forced out of business in the next 3-10 years.

With a 80% MLR there is no way to pay their staff, negotiations and RESERVES required in case of large claims. The Insurance carriers are not near the top of the most profitible industries, yet they are the targeted ones.

I think the socailism words come in with the thought of target the group that provides the coverage, and once they fall the government will be there to step in.

The Hospitals, Drug companies, Doctors/Dentist offices are always above medical insurance carriers with regards to profits.. Even railroads, oil and gas, industrial machinary manufacturers, etc are much more profitible than the insurance carriers.. In 2009 they were number 35.

In 2010-2011 they are not on the list of 10-20 most profitible at all, the drug companies, doctors offices, medical facilities all were however and continue to be.



When you have small business trying to afford insurance for its employees, and the premiums are 200-400 a single guy with an annual premium at a minimum of 24-48k, and that is if they are all single...

Yet one kid can have an appendix go out and the insurance carrier is on the hook for $25,000 of the $35,000 on that one claim, let alone office and prescription refills for the other employees, for the remaining 52 weeks. I just dont understand how the carriers are the ones being blamed.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']That's not what he said though. He's saying he doesn't think it's right for people to game the system. He doesn't people to go 'I'm sick now, time to buy health care even though I could have done it when I was well.'

Listening to arguments for today, and I get the feeling it's going to be all or nothing now.[/QUOTE]

If he doesn't want that to happen how will he prevent it?
 
[quote name='Clak']That was such a stupid answer to the question, I can't believe the guy got stumped by Jay Leno. There are so many "but what if...." questions to that answer it isn't funny.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']If he doesn't want that to happen how will he prevent it?[/QUOTE]
Some people think that we should only look at his words and not ask about the implications of what he proposes. Because Romney didn't say that we should just let those people die or refuse them coverage, we can't ask him about it.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']I am still confused why the insurance companies are the bad "greedy" ones in most everyones eyes. It seems to me that with MLR that they are now basically being forced out of business in the next 3-10 years.

With a 80% MLR there is no way to pay their staff, negotiations and RESERVES required in case of large claims. The Insurance carriers are not near the top of the most profitible industries, yet they are the targeted ones.

I think the socailism words come in with the thought of target the group that provides the coverage, and once they fall the government will be there to step in.

The Hospitals, Drug companies, Doctors/Dentist offices are always above medical insurance carriers with regards to profits.. Even railroads, oil and gas, industrial machinary manufacturers, etc are much more profitible than the insurance carriers.. In 2009 they were number 35.

In 2010-2011 they are not on the list of 10-20 most profitible at all, the drug companies, doctors offices, medical facilities all were however and continue to be.



When you have small business trying to afford insurance for its employees, and the premiums are 200-400 a single guy with an annual premium at a minimum of 24-48k, and that is if they are all single...

Yet one kid can have an appendix go out and the insurance carrier is on the hook for $25,000 of the $35,000 on that one claim, let alone office and prescription refills for the other employees, for the remaining 52 weeks. I just dont understand how the carriers are the ones being blamed.[/QUOTE]

The most profitable companies are also the most volatile.

I think the fact that most health insurance companies have never failed to make a profit every quarter signals that they are gaming the system.

If covering your expensive treatment gets between an executive and his bonus, then you don't need a magic 8 ball to tell you that your outlook is not so good.
 
[quote name='IRHari']If he doesn't want that to happen how will he prevent it?[/QUOTE]

Honestly I don't know because you're always going to have people gaming of the system. You have a lot of it going on right now, and not just in health care.

I don't think trying to fix 100% of the health care system is a good idea, at least not all at once. You need to fix what needs being fixed, primarily. If regulations are needed to get rid of pre-existing conditions preventing people from buying into care, so be it. But you'd also need to make sure that costs aren't artificially raised up the ass for those people so they can't afford it since insurance companies would try and keep them out in the first place. Just because you have a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're constantly in need of care.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Honestly I don't know because you're always going to have people gaming of the system. You have a lot of it going on right now, and not just in health care.

I don't think trying to fix 100% of the health care system is a good idea, at least not all at once. You need to fix what needs being fixed, primarily. If regulations are needed to get rid of pre-existing conditions preventing people from buying into care, so be it. But you'd also need to make sure that costs aren't artificially raised up the ass for those people so they can't afford it since insurance companies would try and keep them out in the first place. Just because you have a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you're constantly in need of care.[/QUOTE]
I also don't think that anyone is saying that we can fix 100% of any system.

Btw, does anyone remember when there was a proposal to consider having given birth a pre-existing condition?
 
[quote name='dohdough']I also don't think that anyone is saying that we can fix 100% of any system.

Btw, does anyone remember when there was a proposal to consider having given birth a pre-existing condition?[/QUOTE]

Well...I don't think we have to fix much of the health care system to make it more cost effective and cover more people, but Obamacare is the wrong way to do it.

And I don't recall anything about giving birth being a pre-existing condition.

Apparently according what I heard about this afternoon's hearings the Commandeering Clause in it might go down too. That's ultimately the most interesting part of this case.

Still, I'd suggest people read previous rulings by justices to see where they're coming from on issues, particularly Kennedy with the Commerce Clause. It seems a lot of people don't put much effort into looking at those even though they provide great insight to a Justice's Thought Process.
 
"Well...I don't think we have to fix much of the health care system to make it more cost effective and cover more people, but Obamacare is the wrong way to do it."

you are wrong.
as for a better solution put up or shut up.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Well...I don't think we have to fix much of the health care system to make it more cost effective and cover more people, but Obamacare is the wrong way to do it.[/QUOTE]
Haha...like what? Tort reform?

And I don't recall anything about giving birth being a pre-existing condition.
Click to expand...
Apparently, it exists and doesn't go down until 2014 because of PPACA. Insurers apparently can consider it a pre-existing condition for insurance products that aren't subject to HIPAA. I thought it was just some crazy proposal from some insurance lobby, so I looked it up. Boy, am I surprised.

Apparently according what I heard about this afternoon's hearings the Commandeering Clause in it might go down too. That's ultimately the most interesting part of this case.

Still, I'd suggest people read previous rulings by justices to see where they're coming from on issues, particularly Kennedy with the Commerce Clause. It seems a lot of people don't put much effort into looking at those even though they provide great insight to a Justice's Thought Process.
Click to expand...
You're joking right?
 
Reading previous rulings does give you insight on what/how they may rule. It's very helpful, actually. They help a lot more than these publicized proceedings, that's for sure.

Wow, that PEC sounds messed up. I wonder what else they consider a pre-existing condition.

This ultimately wouldn't be an issue if it were a tax, because there would be no involvement with the Commerce Clause. But for political reasons they've said it's not a tax. If you want change you're going to have to do it in small doses instead one gigantic pill. You can't just say 'the entire health care system is changing in two years, tough shit.' A lot of people don't like that kind of thinking and you'll get a ton of resistance to show you're wrong. It's also dangerous due to the size of the bills since 'we won't know what's in there until we pass it.'
 
[quote name='KingBroly']This ultimately wouldn't be an issue if it were a tax, because there would be no involvement with the Commerce Clause. But for political reasons they've said it's not a tax. If you want change you're going to have to do it in small doses instead one gigantic pill. You can't just say 'the entire health care system is changing in two years, tough shit.' A lot of people don't like that kind of thinking and you'll get a ton of resistance to show you're wrong. It's also dangerous due to the size of the bills since 'we won't know what's in there until we pass it.'[/QUOTE]
Things change at the drop of a hat all the time and resistance doesn't necessarily mean that someone's doing something wrong. A lot of people were against the Civil Rights Act using the same arguments as you and the teabaggers.

Those that want to kill it aren't concerned with what's actually in it or they would look it up and point to large swaths of items to say what's wrong with it. It's just one giant troll.

[quote name='Msut77']http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...m-er-to-die-in-jail-was-treated-appropriately[/QUOTE]
Sometimes I just wanna burn this motherfucker down...
 
[quote name='dohdough']Things change at the drop of a hat all the time and resistance doesn't necessarily mean that someone's doing something wrong. A lot of people were against the Civil Rights Act using the same arguments as you and the teabaggers.

Those that want to kill it aren't concerned with what's actually in it or they would look it up and point to large swaths of items to say what's wrong with it. It's just one giant troll.


Sometimes I just wanna burn this motherfucker down...[/QUOTE]

http://youthrevolutionarycouncil.org/?p=1073

video
 
All they needed was to add a extra 5% tax to everyone, and they could easily implement this..
This mandate might just doom something that could of easily been resolved by TAXING everyone..

When you are a filthy rich m*fer' who pays 10-20% less then everyone else in taxes, you can thank your gov't for that.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Things change at the drop of a hat all the time and resistance doesn't necessarily mean that someone's doing something wrong. A lot of people were against the Civil Rights Act using the same arguments as you and the teabaggers.

Those that want to kill it aren't concerned with what's actually in it or they would look it up and point to large swaths of items to say what's wrong with it. It's just one giant troll.[/QUOTE]

For starters, while I may be a Republican, I hate the Tea Party. I understand what they're trying to argue sometimes, but for the most part they go off the rails for the sake of show, nothing more.

As for Obamacare, I just have to ask who looked at it before they voted for it? I know this goes for many a bills that have passed through Congress lately, but the point largely remains the same as Scalia said as much during the oral arguments. Congress, or the members that make them up, are complete morons.

If it were a tax they wouldn't be hearing this. He understands that they got cute with the bill instead of being straight with it. They know what they should have done but for political purposes they didn't write it as a tax so they could say they didn't raise taxes. But that appears to be the reason why they're going to shoot this thing (at least part of it) down unless they completely re-write the bill as a tax, which is something Conservative Justices are inherently against.
 
[quote name='HaloSucks']All they needed was to add a extra 5% tax to everyone, and they could easily implement this..
This mandate might just doom something that could of easily been resolved by TAXING everyone..[/QUOTE]

A) They didn't even need to raise taxes. Just stop spending billions on bombing brown people.
B) Feel free to thank all those awesome politicians who, instead of doing what they felt was right, wanted to play political games like claim they wouldn't raise taxes and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
 
[quote name='KingBroly']For starters, while I may be a Republican, I hate the Tea Party. I understand what they're trying to argue sometimes, but for the most part they go off the rails for the sake of show, nothing more.

As for Obamacare, I just have to ask who looked at it before they voted for it? I know this goes for many a bills that have passed through Congress lately, but the point largely remains the same as Scalia said as much during the oral arguments. Congress, or the members that make them up, are complete morons.

If it were a tax they wouldn't be hearing this. He understands that they got cute with the bill instead of being straight with it. They know what they should have done but for political purposes they didn't write it as a tax so they could say they didn't raise taxes. But that appears to be the reason why they're going to shoot this thing (at least part of it) down unless they completely re-write the bill as a tax, which is something Conservative Justices are inherently against.[/QUOTE]

It really makes me laugh that even you consider the baggers useful idiots.

Scalia talked a lot of shit in the arguments, someone ought to change his diapers more often.
 
[quote name='HaloSucks']

When you are a filthy rich m*fer' who pays 10-20% less then everyone else in taxes, you can thank your gov't for that.[/QUOTE]

Proof please.
 
Elise Jordan was on Bill Maher's show last Friday and said, in regards to national health care, that she didn't want to the federal government telling people what to do. First, sweetheart, the government already tells you what to do in a multitude of ways, if you don't like that, find a place to live without a government, I won't hold my breathe. Second of all, there is no difference, besides scale, between the federal government forcing you to do something and your state's government doing the same thing. There is not a damn difference, so get the fuck off this state's rights bullshit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mj-thriller-popcorn-o.gif
 
[quote name='Msut77']Someone name an argument one of the clowns made.[/QUOTE]


"We need this health care bill because the insurance companies are corrupt and robbing people blind.......wait we would be giving billions MORE to those same companies? Well do you have a better idea? Put up or shut up!"
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's right little bobby...let it all hang out there for everyone to see.[/QUOTE]

This? Coming from *you*? Of all people?

LOL.


[quote name='Clak']I'm readying my rabble rabble judicial activism post just in case.[/QUOTE]

It's activism for a court to overturn a unconstitutional law? Weird.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This? Coming from *you*? Of all people?

LOL.
[/quote]
Yeah...unlike you, I happen to have a problem with casual racism.

It's activism for a court to overturn a unconstitutional law? Weird.
Click to expand...
Lot's of things were passed and overturned that were constitutional and unconstitutional. I bet you couldn't ass yourself into compiling a list of 5 things that were constitutional without the help of google that were struck down.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow. Posting an animated .gif of a famous musician/actor eating popcorn is racist now?[/QUOTE]
And 1 is equal to 100...herp derp.

Also, I'm not your dog and pony show.
Click to expand...
Nah...you just prefer to be someone else's. A Just World for a useful idiot indeed. Although, you seem to want other people to be your dog and pony show. Funny how that works.
 
yeah, if he'd found the gif of cartmann whistling the tonight show theme while setting up a lawn chair in the yard of whichever kid it was that he just got into trouble, I'd have the same reaction. Popcorn also involved there.

would it have been equally as bad with a white person eating popcorn, thus showing preferrence for whites? Kind of a catch 22 there.
 
[quote name='nasum']yeah, if he'd found the gif of cartmann whistling the tonight show theme while setting up a lawn chair in the yard of whichever kid it was that he just got into trouble, I'd have the same reaction. Popcorn also involved there.

would it have been equally as bad with a white person eating popcorn, thus showing preferrence for whites? Kind of a catch 22 there.[/QUOTE]
You know him better than that. Or do you think that lil' bob is an accidental idiot?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This? Coming from *you*? Of all people?

LOL.




It's activism for a court to overturn a unconstitutional law? Weird.[/QUOTE]
It is when it's done for reasons of politics rather than fact, Bobbeh.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You know him better than that. Or do you think that lil' bob is an accidental idiot?[/QUOTE]

In the Trayvon thread here, or maybe at Occidental Observer (don't go there, you'll blow a gasket) I'd agree with you, but in the context of this thread I call it "a guy eating popcorn getting ready to enjoy the show to come."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top