Page 69 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1220

Thread: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

  1. #681
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Nice dodge on all the points I made. I suppose that you will fight for lifting the age restrictions as one can not control that anymore than their gender.
    Yes, I'm in favor of eliminating age discrimination on insurance policies too. PPACA restricted it to a 3-to-1 premium spread (old-to-young), which is a start.

    It never ceases to amaze me that discounts for females on auto insurance, or surcharges for "young" drivers are OK, yet acturial based FACTS must be ingonerd IFF it proves that males must "pay the price" for "fairness".
    Auto insurance is a lot less costly, a lot less necessary, and a lot less important than health insurance. But for what it's worth I don't support price discrimination in auto insurance either...I just don't care as much.

    Free preventive care is rediculous, that is a normal routine expense of life, just as tune-ups, oil changes and flat tire repair are NOT covered by auto insurance even under "full coverage".
    Although that's true, not having free preventative care will mean that more people will simply skip the regular doctor's visits and wait until they have an emergency.

    PPACA is 90% income redistribution and a tiny amount of medical care reform.
    There's quite a bit of both in there. As there should be.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #682
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Try single payer on AUTO insurance, on a state level first.
    Why do you keep bringing up AUTO insurance? All that is required is liability insurance...minus the medical side, because Medicare for all will solve the medical problem, all that is left is property damage insurance, Since cars/trucks are optional, if you don't have a vehicle you have no need for liability insurance. Medical coverage, on the other hand, is inescapable. We each have our bodies and our health to deal with.

  3. #683
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    The people, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people, are one group that uses the commerce clause for monopoly busting and things like OSHA. The corporations, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people but really working for corporations, are another group who uses the commerce clause for their own ends. Just read up on the inanity of Wickard. It has been used to justify the drug war on local non-commercial growers. The Drug War is HUGE business for people in government. Much money in play.
    It is true that theoretically the commerce clause could be used to advance a corporate agenda. But 99 times out of 100, it's the other way around. Corporations are fighting to try to prevent the government from regulating them and the people are pushing to regulate the corporations via the commerce clause. Reeling in the worst of the corporate abuses would require a whole lot more aggressive use of the commerce clause. So trying to weaken the commerce clause while at the same time denouncing corporate rule doesn't make a ton of sense. Even if it is sometimes abused, it is still our only meaningful tool in the struggle for control of the country.

    I'm no fan of the war on drugs, but that isn't really about kowtowing to corporations. The problem with drug enforcement is similar to the immigration issue. Anybody who counters momentum to ramp up the war on drugs is denounced as refusing to enforce the law and some sob stories about babies starving to death when their mothers are high or whatever get trotted around and they fall back in line. It's the same tactics as are used to try to push us into a "war on illegal immigration" situation, not corporations.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  4. #684
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    The bottom line is that Obamacare is not based on the rock of principle but the sand of political expediency. Let's scrap it and come up with UHC based on the rock of principle. The principles are that everyone should be covered and funded by the community at large and the medical industry should operate as private enterprise. Finally, preventative care is as important as catastrophic care.

  5. #685
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    The bottom line is that Obamacare is not based on the rock of principle but the sand of political expediency. Let's scrap it and come up with UHC based on the rock of principle.
    Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care, but on what planet are you living if you think that a Republican Party that is so viciously opposed to even THIS measure would consider universal health care?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-01-12 at 05:24 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #686
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,230

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care,
    The way this will happen is that insurance will become astronomically more expensive due to the major provisions in this act (mandate, pre-existing condition, 80/20 rule, etc.), and as more and more people can no longer afford the health insurance they are required by federal mandate to buy, they will look to the government for a back-up plan, which will be Medicaid.

    This is in all likelihood precisely government's plan. "Make them all poor enough to need us."

  7. #687
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    It is true that theoretically the commerce clause could be used to advance a corporate agenda. But 99 times out of 100, it's the other way around. Corporations are fighting to try to prevent the government from regulating them and the people are pushing to regulate the corporations via the commerce clause. Reeling in the worst of the corporate abuses would require a whole lot more aggressive use of the commerce clause. So trying to weaken the commerce clause while at the same time denouncing corporate rule doesn't make a ton of sense. Even if it is sometimes abused, it is still our only meaningful tool in the struggle for control of the country.
    You don't think corporations use the commerce clause to raise the barriers of entry into an industry, to limit the players?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I'm no fan of the war on drugs, but that isn't really about kowtowing to corporations. The problem with drug enforcement is similar to the immigration issue. Anybody who counters momentum to ramp up the war on drugs is denounced as refusing to enforce the law and some sob stories about babies starving to death when their mothers are high or whatever get trotted around and they fall back in line. It's the same tactics as are used to try to push us into a "war on illegal immigration" situation, not corporations.
    That is the difference between corporate interests and propaganda. Who do you think makes money on the drug war, especially with the artificial retail price of drugs?
    • Cartels?
    • Police?
    • Federal Law Enforcement?
    • Arms manufacturers?
    • Communications and military/survillance industries?
    • Banks and financial institutions?
    • Real Estate?
    • Politicians?



    What the hell do they do with all the money that flows through the artificial black market?
    What authoritarian governments with offensive federal police powers are supported by Drug War aid?

    All because of propaganda and misuse of the commerce clause?

    What are the healthcare costs due to addiction, overdose, drug cartel crime and so on? Maybe we could knock down the GDP cost of healthcare by 10% by legalizing drugs!!!

  8. #688
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    The way this will happen is that insurance will become astronomically more expensive due to the provisions in this act, and as more and more people can no longer afford the health insurance they are required by federal mandate to buy, they will look to the government for a back-up plan, which will be Medicaid.

    This is in all likelihood precisely government's plan. "Make them all poor enough to need us."
    There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #689
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care, but on what planet are you living if you think that a Republican Party that is so viciously opposed to even THIS measure would consider universal health care?
    I would be interested in hearing about the Tea Party opinion on UHC, especially with the rising unemployment rate and the prohibitive cost of COBRA.

  10. #690
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.
    Why do it incrementally when you can do it at once with a stroke of the magic pen? It sucks for the guy at 134% of the poverty line...maybe he'll quit his job to get affordable health insurance...

Posting Permissions

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