Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 86

Thread: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    We already had the free market system, and it did not work at all. Insurance companies dropped people when they got sick, people with pre-existing conditions could not obtain insurance, and plenty of junk insurance was available, in which people paid monthly for the privilege of not being covered if they had a catastrophic illness. So I say no to the free market system. It had it's chance, and it blew it.

    I also say no to single payer, because that is going too far.

    What would be the ideal health care system? Honestly, I don't know, but if we are to be a civilized society, and not a bunch of savages, then we certainly need something.
    Healthcare, health insurance are highly regulated, we did NOT have the free market. Policies could not be purchased across state lines, etc.

  2. #52
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    40,993

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    No, the 70's was when the heavy regulation began. The free market was working just fine before. Costs were contained, pharmaceuticals and Dr's offices were competitive for business, and a room fee in the hospital was about 100 dollars per day.
    You are dead wrong. Insurance company deregulation was part of the Gramm-Bliley Act, which dismantled Glass-Steagal protections. In 1999, as a result of Gramm-Bliley, 13 states deregulated their insurance industry, and it picked up steam from there. Here is an article, written in 2000, from the perspective of those who favored deregulaton.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #53
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You are dead wrong. Insurance company deregulation was part of the Gramm-Bliley Act, which dismantled Glass-Steagal protections. In 1999, as a result of Gramm-Bliley, 13 states deregulated their insurance industry, and it picked up steam from there. Here is an article, written in 2000, from the perspective of those who favored deregulaton.
    No, the rates started rising in the 70's, with mandates that health insurance would be comprehensive, and cover meds and office visits. Those requirements never dropped, except in rare cases of temporary policies issued.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  4. #54
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    11,611

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Imnukingfutz View Post
    Well for starters;
    The Heritage plan does not assume Student Loans
    The Heritage plan does not mandate specified minimal coverage
    The Heritage plan does not force your existing policy to cancel because it doesnt meet government standards.
    The Heritage plan does not call for the hiring of 15,000 new IRS agents
    The Heritage plan does not give the HHS unheralded, unabated powers.
    The Heritage plan does not create a national data base of your personal medical information.

    should I go on?

    Romneycare wouldn't even have been a good comparison because even it isnt as overbearing and intrusive as the ACA.
    Thank you for reminding us that burgundy is not scarlet.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    So this is the sole dichotomy that exists under the current scenario? God forbid people actually pay for their own recreation which is actually quite cheap.
    Look I don't agree with it being in the mandate, but it really is in the best interest of the insurance agencies ECONOMICALLY to allow birth control to be covered. Again, I have to restate because some will not bother to read, I am not for it being mandatory, but ECONOMICALLY it is better for birth control to be covered. What costs more, Birth control pills or kids to be covered under the insurance for the next 26 years? I would think even the Vatican can do math.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    55,534

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

    I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

    So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

    Article is here.
    Obamacare is just corporate giveaway. Presents for the insurance companies, forced full consumerism.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Obamacare is just corporate giveaway. Presents for the insurance companies, forced full consumerism.
    Most laws are. If it isn't for the corporate giveaway it is for the government giveaway. What would happen if there was no more DEA, lots of Americans out of work. The government doesn't want that so the drug war continues. So does many social programs in the form that it is in now.

  8. #58
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49,918

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation.
    I’m still amazed you’re pushing this idiotic trope. The Law (PPACA) wasn't conceived by the Heritage Foundation, and continuing to repeat this idiotic talking point either shows you to be wantonly dishonest or extremely ignorant on this topic. There are a multitude of differences between the ACA and the health care proposals made by the Heritage Foundation (Which formed the foundation for the oft referenced ’93 bill that was supported, and then quickly rejected, by Republicans).

    For example, the Heritage Foundation’s plan didn’t deem individuals up to the age of 27 as “children”. Rather than a significant Medicaid expansion, it suggested to reform welfare under the same principles HF pushed for welfare reform allowing states more “flexability” (including to reduce cover). It even included a Medicare vouchering system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposal; something ACA doesn’t have.

    This of course doesn’t even touch on the notion that you’re referencing a single instance TWENTY YEARS OLD that ignores the fact that individuals beliefs, views, ideas, and solutions can be impacted by the context of the time and situation one is living in. For example, the notion that emergency rooms must treat anyone that comes is a common notion today, a simple fact of life. In ’89, this was a new legislative reality and people on all sides were spitballing in a reactionary manner. Still, even ignoring the glaring contextual differences (and even some significantly policy difference) the only thing you really have is that both mandate health insurance in some fashion or to some degree.

    Claiming that the ACA was “Conceived” by the Heritage Foundation because it has some similar provisions is akin to saying the David Bowie “Conceived” Ice Ice Baby because they included the same hook. Perhaps if you spent half as much time as you devote to desperately rushing to criticize Republicans on actually researching the things you’re going to say you’d possibly have seen that.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonka View Post
    In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.
    "One of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective" - Stephen Fry

  9. #59
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,989

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I’m still amazed you’re pushing this idiotic trope. The Law (PPACA) wasn't conceived by the Heritage Foundation, and continuing to repeat this idiotic talking point either shows you to be wantonly dishonest or extremely ignorant on this topic. There are a multitude of differences between the ACA and the health care proposals made by the Heritage Foundation (Which formed the foundation for the oft referenced ’93 bill that was supported, and then quickly rejected, by Republicans).

    For example, the Heritage Foundation’s plan didn’t deem individuals up to the age of 27 as “children”. Rather than a significant Medicaid expansion, it suggested to reform welfare under the same principles HF pushed for welfare reform allowing states more “flexability” (including to reduce cover). It even included a Medicare vouchering system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposal; something ACA doesn’t have.

    This of course doesn’t even touch on the notion that you’re referencing a single instance TWENTY YEARS OLD that ignores the fact that individuals beliefs, views, ideas, and solutions can be impacted by the context of the time and situation one is living in. For example, the notion that emergency rooms must treat anyone that comes is a common notion today, a simple fact of life. In ’89, this was a new legislative reality and people on all sides were spitballing in a reactionary manner. Still, even ignoring the glaring contextual differences (and even some significantly policy difference) the only thing you really have is that both mandate health insurance in some fashion or to some degree.

    Claiming that the ACA was “Conceived” by the Heritage Foundation because it has some similar provisions is akin to saying the David Bowie “Conceived” Ice Ice Baby because they included the same hook. Perhaps if you spent half as much time as you devote to desperately rushing to criticize Republicans on actually researching the things you’re going to say you’d possibly have seen that.
    your posts demonstrate the forest/trees phenomenon
    the heritage foundation/conservative think tanks espoused a system based on mandated insurance coverage, rather than a single payer system as used by other industrialized nations
    the connection is obvious to anyone who chooses to see it
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey I was wrong.' I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse. ~ tRump
    seldom right but never in doubt

  10. #60
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,314

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Do you consider abortion to be murder? Because then a lot.

    .
    Is abortion considered 'birth control?' I thought birth control prevented pregnancy. Could just be semantics.

    And abortion is a procedure. There are a couple of bc methods that require minor procedures to insert them but those would be out of necessity because other methods didnt work for that woman and the doctor would prescribe it.

    Besides, the LAST thing I want discouraged is vasectomies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I look at abortion the same way I do Pineapple Pizza.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •