Page 65 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775115 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #641
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    As they spend less, as to countries with UHC, how could we be opening up the flood gates by moving that way? I'm not sure I see how.
    If country X has outpatient care that costs $7, and our country has outpatient care that costs $700, entitling wveryone to outpatient in country X is going to be 100 times easier in country X. In other words, maybe the care was always cheaper there in the first place.

    We've already decided we won't let people die due to not getting emergent care. Because of that, we need to have a clear plan on how to handle that. What's wrong here is that we want it both ways, we want the care without paying for it.
    What's wrong is that we DO get it (one way or another) whether we pay for it or not. Thus a main feature of this problem includes out refusal to refuse.

  2. #642
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Exactly... It's your choice.
    You skipped the second part:Can anyone opt out of health care?
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  3. #643
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,541

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    You make a very strong case for death panels.


    Soylent Obama is PEOPLE!!!!!!

  4. #644
    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
    I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.
    Can you define 'grossly overpaid'? Or for that matter 'excessive profits'?

    Do you know what the cost is for malpractice insurance here, vs those other countries you love so much? Just out of curiosity.

    As for medicine, do those countries have an FDA that has the same time restrictions and costs for bringing medication to the market? Heck, do they have big drug companies that make stuff or is it mostly made here? All questions asked to bring more light to the subject.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  5. #645
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:

    Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage. The government specifies which procedures are covered, how much they will cost, and how much will be paid to providers. The plan covers the vast majority of normal medical care but does not cover cosmetic and other elective surgery, nor does it cover every imagineable end-of-life treatment. If people want coverage for elective procedures and/or coverage for extraordinary end of life treatments they can purchase private insurance to cover those eventualities.

    I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.

    So it isn't unlimited medical care for everyone, but it is good medical care for everyone, and if it's not good enough then you have the option of paying extra.
    This might buy us some time, assuming our government would ration as you outlined above. But it means going all out toward the government takeover, to which I of course have moral objections, but I admit that a full government takeover with effective rationing of care is not immediately destructive the way our current policies are.

  6. #646
    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 Harshaw View Post
    As a matter of fact, I don't think you are, which is why I don't think you meant it as a "joke" until it got you into trouble.

    If you're getting frustrated, then you should probably consider what you post more carefully.
    I'm not getting frustrated. I'm just pointing out that, while you consider yourself to be mind reader, you are not.


    Your equivocation, and your moving goalposts. You earlier said they intended it to be tax. You were even "sure" the record of legislative intent would show it. Now you're simply saying it has the "same effect" as a tax.
    I guess you must be using some non-standard English dialect, then, because what you wrote was an untillegible garble of words. What you DIDN'T do -- notably -- was back up your assertion about what I said previously.

    This still does not refute me in any way, shape, or form.
    Circular logic is self refuting. I was simply pointing out your logical error, which you apparently still can't grasp.


    Good grief -- "the facts are totally different, but that doesn't distinguish the case." Anyone with a fourth-grade education can identify how silly that is.
    Anyone with a law school education knows that simply pointing to factual differences does not distinguish a case without further analysis regarding how and why the factual differences matter vis a vis the legal principle.

    I also said two other categories of things were different about it -- the nature of the laws at issue and the situations they meant to address. Gosh, how could that possibly affect the analysis of things like rational basis? Howsoever, indeed? If those things do not distinguish a case, then no cases can ever be distinguished.
    If you're interested in how the cases may and may not be distinguished from a legal perspective you should read the transcripts of the SC arguments where they are discussed at length. Because, gosh and golly, several Supreme Court justices apparently don't share your view that they are distinguishable.

    I don't need to address the Ryan plan, because 1) it has nothing to do with this Supreme Court case, and 2) I never said a word about it, for it or against it. The Ryan plan has zip, nada, nil, zero to do with this argument in any way, shape, or form. Demanding that I "address" it in some way is completely vapid. It's totally irrelevant, period, full stop.
    No, I think you just didn't address it because you have no argument. I mean, you're bringing up the tax aspect of the mandate, and this is a tax argument, so how could you really think it's not relevant? If you're getting frustrated you should probably consider what you post more carefully.
    "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

  7. #647
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,063

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:

    Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage. The government specifies which procedures are covered, how much they will cost, and how much will be paid to providers. The plan covers the vast majority of normal medical care but does not cover cosmetic and other elective surgery, nor does it cover every imagineable end-of-life treatment. If people want coverage for elective procedures and/or coverage for extraordinary end of life treatments they can purchase private insurance to cover those eventualities.

    I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.

    So it isn't unlimited medical care for everyone, but it is good medical care for everyone, and if it's not good enough then you have the option of paying extra.
    agree. increasing the supply of doctors is a must, as well.

  8. #648
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,497

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I'm not getting frustrated.


    Your asterisks say otherwise.


    I guess you must be using some non-standard English dialect, then, because what you wrote was an untillegible garble of words. What you DIDN'T do -- notably -- was back up your assertion about what I said previously.
    I linked you to exactly what you said.


    Circular logic is self refuting. I was simply pointing out your logical error, which you apparently still can't grasp.
    Mostly because it wasn't an error. It was about the nature of the law at issue (criminal), not whether or not that law was valid. The case currently at bar isn't about criminal law.


    Anyone with a law school education


    knows that simply pointing to factual differences does not distinguish a case without further analysis regarding how and why the factual differences matter vis a vis the legal principle.
    I pointed out examples; you ignored them. The most you said was that the differences weren't "meaningful," declaring them thus without saying why.


    If you're interested in how the cases may and may not be distinguished from a legal perspective you should read the transcripts of the SC arguments where they are discussed at length. Because, gosh and golly, several Supreme Court justices apparently don't share your view that they are distinguishable.
    Really?

    The Justices said that fact patterns, the types of laws in question, and the situations being addressed by them are not valid points of distinction between cases?

    I would like you to provide the transcript where this is said.

    And . . . "several justices." Not all?


    No, I think you just didn't address it because you have no argument. I mean, you're bringing up the tax aspect of the mandate, and this is a tax argument, so how could you really think it's not relevant?
    What "relevance" does the Ryan plan have to this case?

    What "relevance" does the Ryan plan have to any argument I've made?

    And what exactly is it that you think I have to address? That it has a similar provision? Why, exactly, does that matter? Spell it out, specifically.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #649
    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 Helix View Post
    agree. increasing the supply of doctors is a must, as well.
    How is that to be accomplished when obamacare ensures less on payouts, and more work on there part?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  10. #650
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,497

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    How do you "increase the supply of doctors" if only so many people want to become doctors?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Posting Permissions

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