Page 26 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #251
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, I'm making the point that some people, like TD, were given every advantage in life to help them succeed, whereas many other people didn't have such advantages given to them.
    Many are born to disadvantage, and of those, some overcome and better themselves. And some of those born to affluence throw it all way. So continuing the 'we must take care of these disadvantaged people' really screams of racism.

    As to Obamacare...

    You have to understand, however, the intention of this 'law'. It has very little to do with providing affordable health care - by every estimation, it will expand costs over the current system. First, the 'fine' that people pay is a joke. It's actually MUCH MUCH cheaper just to pay the 'fine' than to buy ANY type of insurance at all. (the fine doesn't go to the insurance company, by the way!) Its much cheaper to just pay the fine and then, when you're sick, show up to a hospital and demand 'insurance' (which, at that point, isn't really insurance at all - it's forcing a business to pay for some random person's medical bills! Someone who has never taken part in the risk pool and thus can fit an actuarial analysis which allows the insurance company to adjust rates and allocate resources over time appropriately.)

    This is obviously impossible to sustain. The law was designed this way. Ultimately, people would realize that it's cheaper / better just to pay the 'fine' and would not buy insurance. These same people would show up and demand their care be paid for when they're sick, despite never having contributed to the insurance pool. The insurance companies would respond just they way they have over the last 2 years - raising required capital by increasing the premiums on those who still pay for insurance (projections are an average of 12-15% per year premium increases, indefinitely).

    In the short term, businesses and individuals will respond by reducing benefits and/or increasing the amount of out-of-pocket expenses (increased co-pays, 90% benefits, higher deductibles, etc) to keep the premiums as low as possible. This is where we are now, and the result is that people who pay for insurance are getting less care and paying more for it. This is because, when faced with a medical problem, for example, that might require surgery, people who once went ahead with treatment with a $500 deductible are thinking twice before committing to treatment that demands a $2500 deductible and then only covers 90% of costs after that.

    In the long run, most people, finding traditional insurance unaffordable, will find themselves dropped by their employers in favor of the 'exchanges'. Those who can still afford insurance will find their policies costing in the range of a 'cadillac plan' and then be taxed to tarnation based on the cost of their policy, forcing even more into the state plans.

    This law is NOT about insurance, It's about control and ultimately ensuring that no one can get anything more than anyone else regardless of input. The goal of this law is to achieve this by bankrupting the insurance companies so that the gov't will then be in a position to say 'well, we tried, but those greedy insurance companies wouldn't play ball - our only option now is a socialist, single payer national system' (the same system failing all over the world).

    Worse, since the entire thing is legislated to be within budget, there will be no choice but to ration care. We've already seen the overtures the democrats have made in this regard. Already there is POLICY IN PLACE to limit care to the elderly (who by the way paid their entire lives for after-65 health insurance = medicare) and the very young. The first nod came when the Obama administration SLASHED reimbursement to cardiologists and payment for cardiology procedures a couple years ago, thus reducing the resources available to the patients of cardiologists, who by the way, tend to be of advanced age. Now the focus is on the very young: newborns and young children, even fetuses. When Obama tries to force insurance companies to provide free contraceptive care to patients such that everyone would get full resources WITHOUT COPAY, most people think its only about the pill. Its also about pre-natal screening and providing for free abortion services (again, without copay to encourage the procedure) especially for persons likely to have a 'bad-baby'.

    The implications of this 'law' are so tremendous and the effects would be so wide-spread and ultimately draconian that, in their fruition, they would literally dictate life and death (yes, there ARE death panels) by dictating what services are covered vs not. Worse, the law dis-incentivizes doctors from providing care for you through the IPAB (independent payment advisory board) which dictates what services are reimbursed and at what rate. Want to stop people over 65 from getting a bypass surgery? Don't pay for it! Worse, this IPAB (unlike the medicare advisory board) un unanswerable to Congress! There is no recourse to their dictates. The people who set this whole thing up have so little regard for the individual that they refer to patients not as 'people' or 'covered life' (like an insurance co), but as 'units'. The dehuminization in this crime-of-a-law is so complete that you are no longer 'Bill Jones, father, son, husband, construction worker, etc' but 'unit xxx-xx-xxxx'.

    This law is a raw power grab aimed at inserting gov't into our lives in an unprecedented way. Anyone who understands it and has the slightest respect for the concept of the individual, could not possibly support it.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  2. #252
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    One thing that I think is important to mention: If the individual mandate will only impact 2% of the population as has been reported, how will that lead to enough revenue for insurance companies to keep costs low for all of the people with pre-existing conditions that they must now cover?
    I don't think anyone imagines that it will cover the cost completely. The main idea is that it will provide incentive to purchase insurance and thus won't have to be assessed very often.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #253
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Many are born to disadvantage, and of those, some overcome and better themselves. And some of those born to affluence throw it all way. So continuing the 'we must take care of these disadvantaged people' really screams of racism.
    First, I don't seem to recall anyone saying a word about race until you dropped the card like an atom bomb. Second, while it's certainly true that some who are advantaged fail and some who aren't succeed, it's clear that the odds are massively stacked depending upon one's family fortunes.

    As to Obamacare...

    You have to understand, however, the intention of this 'law'. It has very little to do with providing affordable health care - by every estimation, it will expand costs over the current system.
    The main purpose of "Obamacare" is to expand coverage to tens of millions of people who don't have it, so of course it will result in more care being given and thus more expense.

    First, the 'fine' that people pay is a joke. It's actually MUCH MUCH cheaper just to pay the 'fine' than to buy ANY type of insurance at all. (the fine doesn't go to the insurance company, by the way!) Its much cheaper to just pay the fine and then, when you're sick, show up to a hospital and demand 'insurance' (which, at that point, isn't really insurance at all - it's forcing a business to pay for some random person's medical bills! Someone who has never taken part in the risk pool and thus can fit an actuarial analysis which allows the insurance company to adjust rates and allocate resources over time appropriately.)
    That's true -- the fine is much too small if you think of it as a cost/benefit analysis. Effectively it's more of a prod to push people to do the right and moral thing. The fines will be used to defray the costs of the program, so it's better than nothing.

    This is obviously impossible to sustain. The law was designed this way. Ultimately, people would realize that it's cheaper / better just to pay the 'fine' and would not buy insurance. These same people would show up and demand their care be paid for when they're sick, despite never having contributed to the insurance pool. The insurance companies would respond just they way they have over the last 2 years - raising required capital by increasing the premiums on those who still pay for insurance (projections are an average of 12-15% per year premium increases, indefinitely).
    Obviously it's not impossible to sustain, given the fact that the plan is essentially in place in MA -- thinks to Mr. Romney -- and it's working quite well. MA has by far the lowest uninsured rate in the country.

    In the short term, businesses and individuals will respond by reducing benefits and/or increasing the amount of out-of-pocket expenses (increased co-pays, 90% benefits, higher deductibles, etc) to keep the premiums as low as possible. This is where we are now, and the result is that people who pay for insurance are getting less care and paying more for it. This is because, when faced with a medical problem, for example, that might require surgery, people who once went ahead with treatment with a $500 deductible are thinking twice before committing to treatment that demands a $2500 deductible and then only covers 90% of costs after that.

    In the long run, most people, finding traditional insurance unaffordable, will find themselves dropped by their employers in favor of the 'exchanges'. Those who can still afford insurance will find their policies costing in the range of a 'cadillac plan' and then be taxed to tarnation based on the cost of their policy, forcing even more into the state plans.
    I see no reason why the plan would have that effect over and above the extent that this is already taking place.

    This law is NOT about insurance, It's about control and ultimately ensuring that no one can get anything more than anyone else regardless of input. The goal of this law is to achieve this by bankrupting the insurance companies so that the gov't will then be in a position to say 'well, we tried, but those greedy insurance companies wouldn't play ball - our only option now is a socialist, single payer national system' (the same system failing all over the world).
    Oh please. The plan is about expanding health insurance coverage -- full stop. Why do you think the insurance companies support it? If the mandate goes down, however, it will change the landscape considerably.

    Worse, since the entire thing is legislated to be within budget, there will be no choice but to ration care.
    Complete and utter rubbish. If I'd seen your idiotic "death panel" nonsense I wouldn't have bothered, but I'll just post what I've written....
    Last edited by AdamT; 03-28-12 at 01:11 AM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #254
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    First, I don't seem to recall anyone saying a word about race until you dropped the card like an atom bomb.
    BS, it is standard practice for liberals to talk about the 'poor' and 'disadvantaged' and how they need those liberals and there government plans in order to save them. Racism, sexism, ageism, whatever is appropriate in terms of the group of people that liberals are suggesting are helpless without the assistance of liberals.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT
    Obviously it's not impossible to sustain, given the fact that the plan is essentially in place in MA -- thinks to Mr. Romney -- and it's working quite well. MA has by far the lowest uninsured rate in the country.

    ...

    Complete and utter rubbish. If I'd seen your idiotic "death panel" nonsense I wouldn't have bothered, but I'll just post what I've written....
    Sure, its not impossible to sustain if we have an unlimited supply of money. Hmm, who has that? Oh, nobody. And even if the left managed to soak every penny from the rich, thus destroying our economy even more, what happens once they have spent all that money?

    Take a look at other countries systems, care is rationed. Age of the patient is considered. Is the panel that decided that an 80 year old doesn't need a heart transplant or cancer treatment because the cost outweighs the benefits a 'life panel'? Or are you in denial that rationing of health care would be quite the norm when funds are limited? If so, can you tell us how this plan for the USA would avoid rationing when every other country has not managed to avoid it?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  5. #255
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    tea bagger? LOL, so until the FDR lapdogs twisted the commerce clause, no such authority existed. This clause was to allow congress to prevent one state from interfering with commerce between others. It had nothing to do with regulating say firearms or wheat or medical marijuana or making me buy healthcare.

    remind me of your law degree?
    Actually, it did exist before FDR. Look at cases dealing with railroads and water ways in the 1800s

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    many in the extreme left seem to think that anyone who had industrious parents never worked a day in their lives

    in reality, people tend to be like their parents-those who have hard working well educated parents tend to be that way, those whose parents were sloths and lived off the government tit tend to be teat sucklers themselves.
    Then shouldn't you want to ensure this kids don't become parasites like their parents?

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    xxx'.

    This law is a raw power grab aimed at inserting gov't into our lives in an unprecedented way. Anyone who understands it and has the slightest respect for the concept of the individual, could not possibly support it.
    You're a nut. Obama didn't want the mandate. He wanted a public option that operated at cost in order to force insurance to get better. The republocrats supported the mandate, hell even the heritage foundation did, until democrats hoped on bored.

    IMO, the alternatives to the mandate being proposed right now sound good though. Requiring insurance to cover anyone and finning late comers (while allowing insurance companies to also charge people more to compensate) sound like it will achieve the same result without the unconstitutional road block.

    on topic: IMO, theres only two ways the court can/well rule. Either either mandate is constitutional or its not. Every other part of the law that is being challenged will be upheld because the courts abhor getting into matters of policy (which us the rest of the law).

    So, honestly, the case is a win-win for Obama. If the mandate is voided it reopens the debate for the public option, which hr preferred. If it stands (not likely) it vindicates him.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  6. #256
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    BS, it is standard practice for liberals to talk about the 'poor' and 'disadvantaged' and how they need those liberals and there government plans in order to save them. Racism, sexism, ageism, whatever is appropriate in terms of the group of people that liberals are suggesting are helpless without the assistance of liberals.



    Sure, its not impossible to sustain if we have an unlimited supply of money. Hmm, who has that? Oh, nobody. And even if the left managed to soak every penny from the rich, thus destroying our economy even more, what happens once they have spent all that money?

    Take a look at other countries systems, care is rationed. Age of the patient is considered. Is the panel that decided that an 80 year old doesn't need a heart transplant or cancer treatment because the cost outweighs the benefits a 'life panel'? Or are you in denial that rationing of health care would be quite the norm when funds are limited? If so, can you tell us how this plan for the USA would avoid rationing when every other country has not managed to avoid it?

    Would you "give" an 80 year old a 17 year old heart?

  7. #257
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    many in the extreme left seem to think that anyone who had industrious parents never worked a day in their lives

    in reality, people tend to be like their parents-those who have hard working well educated parents tend to be that way, those whose parents were sloths and lived off the government tit tend to be teat sucklers themselves.
    And the bankers that sold goods tainted by their ratings company yacht club buddies in crime were, of course, following in their parents footsteps as well - swindling the working class for every dime they could. It's just that this time it failed, they got caught, and they took the rest of us down with them.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #258
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post


    Study the term in the English tradition starting with the Anglo-Saxon fyrds. (Merriam-Webster. Puh-leeze.)
    Would you prefer Black's?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  9. #259
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,118

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I see enumerated "provide for arming". I don't see any enumeration of "force them to buy their own weapons and gear".
    check out Paragraph 18.

    Just as it is enumerated that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but there's no enumeration of any insurance mandate.
    yes. and if you wanted to (for example) get rid of the state boundary restrictions, then Congress could certainly do that - that would be regulating the commerce among the several states. It just doesn't give congress the right to force individuals to engage in commerce for the purpose of regulating that commerce - if so it would have read that they have the power to regulate commerce among the people.

  10. #260
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Moderator's Warning:
    Supreme Court health care arguments under waySome infractions have been issued. You all need to stop the personal attacks, or MORE will be issued, with a topping of thread bans, too.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 26 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1624252627283676 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •