Page 67 of 154 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977117 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 1534

Thread: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

  1. #661
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.
    It isn't called the "Slower Price Increase Act". It's falsely labeled. It doesn't make healthcare affordable. It isn't affordable. In fact, it's the opposite. If they truly wanted to make healthcare affordable, that wasn't the way to do it.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  2. #662
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,826

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    Where and when did you get your puffed up idea that having a view of the law requires a law degree and law practice? What are you, forum qualifications inspector? This is a thread discussing a legal opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, I didn't notice a self-appointed gate-keeper.
    When you make statements such as...

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional - unless one wishes to ignore the Constitution's separation of powers and embrace SCOTUS as our true oligarchy of nine - which, I suspect, the majority do. On the other hand, we are spared a Republican clown act of trying to save the program in order to avoid blame, and it gives them a platform to continue to use OC (or Scotus care) as a target.

    There is nothing remarkable in the opinion, other than it barely pretends to have a legal basis to what, I am sure, the majority know to be little more than a finding based on fear of (or opposition to) the actual written law. One sensed that at times Roberts wrote with a wink, not unlike the Russian Judge in the Khodorkovsky trial...except that trial the judge laughed earlier with the defense, and then did his oligarchy duty and gave the tycoon the maximum new sentence.

    Perhaps most let their view of Obamacare shape their opinion - rather, my view of law shapes my opinion of the legality of Obamacare.
    "Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional"....

    This is a debate forum. There is actually a theory and a set of rules to having a debate. You don't get to simply debate impressions of things. When you make an assertion, you must be prepared to back-up you that assertion when challenged. If you can not, then the assertion is considered invalid. Consider yourself so challenged.

    You have ZERO base of telling us its "indefensible" because you do not know. Really, you are telling us you have superior knowledge of the law and Constitution to each member of the Supreme Court. How arrogant!

    The only way you can back up an assertion of something being "legally indefensible" is with expertise. In this case, real and credible knowledge of the law. Either you have that knowledge yourself (real and credible because you have a law degree) or can produce third party expertise (an real and credible attorney that is considered an expert in Constitutional Law) or your assertion is nothing but a shallow, meaningless, uninformed impression, which I suspect that is what is .

    You want to debate on DP....be prepared to defend yourself. I love calling people out on their meaningless, uninformed impressions as they are a waste of everyone's time and unworthy of the cyberspace they occupy.

    So, produce your credentials or your third party expertise or re-state by telling us this is your most humble opinion (which is a polite way of telling us its just an impression.)
    Last edited by upsideguy; 06-26-15 at 09:06 PM.

  3. #663
    Winged Eel Fingerling
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    14,907

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Ich habe schon Pferde vor der Apotheke kotzen sehen.

  4. #664
    Guru
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,154

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I'm not an island. I have friends and family who have healthcare needs, or did you think you were the only one? By the way, if healthcare was affordable, I wouldn't need a $30,000 plan.

    Unbelievable.
    "Those of us." You're bitching about your diamond plan, as you always do. New Hampshire is one of the few states with a price transparency tool--how many times have used that to shop for the least expensive health service (since it sounds like you consume a huge amount of health services every year)? I'm guessing never, since your diamond plan doesn't have cost-sharing on your part so why would you care about the price of any given service?

  5. #665
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,517

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.
    Lol !

    If it wasn't affordable to begin with, ( apparently why we needed a law ) how is it more affordable now if the prices keep rising ?

    Unreal. Is that what the Democrats promised ? That they would slow the increase while increasing deductibles and out of pocket expenses ?

    That they would make it more unaffordable ?

    Its such a bad law the Democrats running in 2014 had to avoid it like the plague and they STILL lost.

    All the SCOTUS'S ruling does is put this abomination back into to the laps of the party that's repsonsible for it and it let the GOP off the hook.

    It will be fun watching the Democrats squirm in 2016.

  6. #666
    Guru
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,154

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Unreal. Is that what the Democrats promised ? That they would slow the increase while increasing deductibles and out of pocket expenses ?

    That they would make it more unaffordable ?
    Bending the cost curve and bringing back market dynamics to health care? Yes, that's exactly what I was expecting (and hoping for). What exactly were you expecting?

  7. #667
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    "Those of us." You're bitching about your diamond plan, as you always do. New Hampshire is one of the few states with a price transparency tool--how many times have used that to shop for the least expensive health service (since it sounds like you consume a huge amount of health services every year)? I'm guessing never, since your diamond plan doesn't have cost-sharing on your part so why would you care about the price of any given service?
    Do you need help translating my posts? Let me help you.

    Healthcare isn't healthcare insurance. Are you capable of understanding the difference between the two, Greenbeard?

    This has nothing - zero - to do with the cost of insurance. It has to do with the cost of healthcare. FFS pay attention and stop the whining and apparently very jealous posts about my premium insurance plan. I can't help it if you don't have the same kind of job that I do.

    And since you're so damned interested in where I get my healthcare (the thing that's different than insurance), my family and I go to doctors in the Elliot Hospital network. We pay minimal costs for care, surgeries, referrals to specialists, treatments, and emergency care.

    And I don't bitch about the cost of my insurance. I never did. I wasn't the one whining for Uncle Sam and the taxpayers to pay for my family.

    Geezus. Read.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  8. #668
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    52,569

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    Bending the cost curve and bringing back market dynamics to health care? Yes, that's exactly what I was expecting (and hoping for). What exactly were you expecting?
    Bringing back market dynamics through government intervention in the marketplace? What?

  9. #669
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,826

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....
    Given that prior to the PPACA our medical system incurred an annual cost of $116B to cover the uninsured with $49B baked into the insurance premiums of all (at an average of $1,100 per yer per family plan) and $67B picked up by the government, I would say that having less uninsureds (and they actually paying premiums) "impacts (in a very positive way) those of us that have been paying for our own healthcare insurance..."

    Key Facts about the Uninsured Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
    Uninsured Healthcare Tab- $49 Billion Annually
    Unpaid care hikes private insurance premiums by billions - amednews.com


    I don't know about you, but my premiums are 1/3 less with Obamacare than before. (I realize I am a sample of one).
    Last edited by upsideguy; 06-26-15 at 09:28 PM.

  10. #670
    Guru
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,154

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    This has nothing - zero - to do with the cost of insurance. It has to do with the cost of healthcare.
    I have no idea why you think these are unrelated. If your plan had any incentive to encourage rationale behavior in the selection and consumption of health services by members like you--choosing lower-cost or lower-prices services over higher-priced equivalents--it would have cheaper premiums (virtually every single plan on the open market in your state does).

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Bringing back market dynamics through government intervention in the marketplace? What?
    The dreaded deductible doesn't exist to penalize you, it exists to make you think about the price of the health service you want to consume. If Provider A offers a scan for $2,500 and Provider B offers the same service for $600, you may have no preference if you have a zero deductible (you may even be perversely drawn to Provider A--more expensive must be better! and it doesn't cost you a dime!). If you have a $2,000 deductible, the calculus becomes a little bit different. And far more rational.

    The argument that nobody should have deductibles or be price sensitive when shopping for health services has historically been an argument of the left. That the right has now adopted it out of expedience is just dumb. It's not a coincidence that price growth has plummeted as price sensitivity has returned to the market.

Posting Permissions

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