2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate

[Polk]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

Well, health care costs are going to continue to be a larger share of incomes for quite a long time. That's true in every developed country. What do you want to do about it, offer less health care? Less advanced health care? I don't mean that sarcastically - it's a very difficult issue and the idea that health care costs are increasing are a natural outcome of people living longer and accessing better health technology.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing after all?

This is absolutely true and receives almost no attention.

 

[8537]

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Our entire mode of living is different owing to the age of the country vs Europe and its size. Our diet is different as well.
Keep reaching up there. Eventually you'll find something. Like your tonsils.

Wait a second - are you saying that blacks, asians and hispanics require more expensive health care, genetically, than whites?

Please do explain why the color of one's skin impacts the amount required for health care. This should be *interesting*.

More fallacies from you. What a shocker.
You claim that costs ought to be comparable given we have comparable genes. I show we do not have comparable genes.

No, we DO have comparable genes. The genetic makeup of blacks and whites is 99.999% identical.

Blacks have a tendency to higher incidents of certain diseases than whites. This is simply fact. It isn't what the argument was--you have again shifted the goalposts. But it is the truth.

And whites have higher rates than blacks for certain diseases. You were saying?

 

[Polk]

This bill does nothing to address the problem with HC, The cost.
.

How do you suggest we address this problem? Ration services or ration access?

They've already stated a clear preference for rationing access.

 

[Polk]

That is laughable. I have yet to hear anyone of the nuts say anything in that respect.

The idea was to control costs, the response from the left was OK more freebees.

Remember this from the party on the left.

Any cut is extreme. How much further will the debt take us, all the way to the crash.

The idea is to get EVERYONE health care. Cost is secondary to that goal. But cost is reduced by making sure EVERYBODY has access to quality health care. Fucking DUH!

No on is denied health care in this country.
Another myth of the Left.
Recall that Obamacare was supposed to insure coverage for the 13M Americans who were supposedly without. When all is said and done we could have hired a personal physician for every one of those 13M people cheaper than this piece of shit system they've put in place.

Please, explain how one receives care without insurance.

 

[8537]

..and like clockwork, as soon as Rabbi gets exposed for who he really is, he neg reps ya.

As predictable as Sean Hannity saying stupid shit.

 

[The Rabbi]

The biggest reason I think the court will uphold the law? Failure to do so would absolutely kill big chunks of the Republican legislative agenda.

Does the GOP agenda have any effect on a legal decision? No, I don't think so.
The Court will see this as an opportunity to scale back the Commerce Clause to its original intent. They will find the mandate unconstitutional but leave the rest of the legislation intact. A GOP administration and Congress will repeal the rest of it. Obama&Co have been rolling it back already for the last 2 years.
That's what happens when you pass a huge unworkable bill that was rushed through without any thought.

 

[The Rabbi]

The idea is to get EVERYONE health care. Cost is secondary to that goal. But cost is reduced by making sure EVERYBODY has access to quality health care. Fucking DUH!

No on is denied health care in this country.
Another myth of the Left.
Recall that Obamacare was supposed to insure coverage for the 13M Americans who were supposedly without. When all is said and done we could have hired a personal physician for every one of those 13M people cheaper than this piece of shit system they've put in place.

Please, explain how one receives care without insurance.

Um, show up?

 

[The Rabbi]

..and like clockwork, as soon as Rabbi gets exposed for who he really is, he neg reps ya.

As predictable as Sean Hannity saying stupid shit.

And just as preictable you whine you got neg repped when in fact the rep was well deserved as you cannot stick to a topic for even one post.
Wanna tissue?

 

[Polk]

Really? Blacks make up 12% of the population. How many aer in Europe?
Hispanics make up 16%
Asians make up 5%
That's over a third of the population that is not from the European gene pool.

Our entire mode of living is different owing to the age of the country vs Europe and its size. Our diet is different as well.
Keep reaching up there. Eventually you'll find something. Like your tonsils.

Wait a second - are you saying that blacks, asians and hispanics require more expensive health care, genetically, than whites?

Please do explain why the color of one's skin impacts the amount required for health care. This should be *interesting*.

More fallacies from you. What a shocker.
You claim that costs ought to be comparable given we have comparable genes. I show we do not have comparable genes.
Blacks have a tendency to higher incidents of certain diseases than whites. This is simply fact. It isn't what the argument was--you have again shifted the goalposts. But it is the truth.

People have been peddling this for years, but there is no evidence to support it. One of the common claims is that blacks were more likely to suffer from hypertension. Turns out it's purely a relic of social factors. Blacks in Africa have some of the lowest rates of hypertension in the world.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The insurance mandate in the bill affects approximately 4% of the population, i.e., the number of people who don't have insurance who would be required to get insurance.

Put another way, 96 out of 100 Americans are unaffected by the mandate.

 

[The Rabbi]

This bill does nothing to address the problem with HC, The cost.
.

How do you suggest we address this problem? Ration services or ration access?

They've already stated a clear preference for rationing access.

And the Dems have a clear preference for death panels.

 

[Polk]

The biggest reason I think the court will uphold the law? Failure to do so would absolutely kill big chunks of the Republican legislative agenda.

Does the GOP agenda have any effect on a legal decision? No, I don't think so.
The Court will see this as an opportunity to scale back the Commerce Clause to its original intent. They will find the mandate unconstitutional but leave the rest of the legislation intact. A GOP administration and Congress will repeal the rest of it. Obama&Co have been rolling it back already for the last 2 years.
That's what happens when you pass a huge unworkable bill that was rushed through without any thought.

Courts don't make rulings in a vacuum and you're wildly out-of-touch if you really think the Court wants to roll economic regulation back to the Lochner era.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wait a second - are you saying that blacks, asians and hispanics require more expensive health care, genetically, than whites?

Please do explain why the color of one's skin impacts the amount required for health care. This should be *interesting*.

More fallacies from you. What a shocker.
You claim that costs ought to be comparable given we have comparable genes. I show we do not have comparable genes.
Blacks have a tendency to higher incidents of certain diseases than whites. This is simply fact. It isn't what the argument was--you have again shifted the goalposts. But it is the truth.

People have been peddling this for years, but there is no evidence to support it. One of the common claims is that blacks were more likely to suffer from hypertension. Turns out it's purely a relic of social factors. Blacks in Africa have some of the lowest rates of hypertension in the world.

Another factoid exploded.

Blacks had higher rates for hypertension-related death than whites in all age groups (Figure 2). From 1981 through 1998, average annual increases in the hypertension-related death rate were 10.4% among blacks and 7.9% among whites for persons aged 85 years and older, 5.9% among blacks and 3.6% among whites for those aged 75-84 years, and 3.2% among blacks and 1.4% among whites for persons aged 65-74 years. Death rates remained relatively constant for persons aged 45-64 years (average annual changes of +0.7% for blacks and decrease of -1.0% for whites). By 1989-1998, blacks had 1.4 (p <0.05) times the death rates of whites at ages &#8805;85 years, 2.1 (p <0.01) times the rate at 75-84 years, 2.8 (p <0.01) times the rate at 65-74 years, and 4.2 (p <0.01) times the rates at ages 45-64 years.

Medscape: Medscape Access
Regardless of the factors it is the case.

 

[Polk]

No on is denied health care in this country.
Another myth of the Left.
Recall that Obamacare was supposed to insure coverage for the 13M Americans who were supposedly without. When all is said and done we could have hired a personal physician for every one of those 13M people cheaper than this piece of shit system they've put in place.

Please, explain how one receives care without insurance.

Um, show up?

Show up where? You can go to the ER for emergency treatment, but what about chronic illness?

 

[The Rabbi]

The biggest reason I think the court will uphold the law? Failure to do so would absolutely kill big chunks of the Republican legislative agenda.

Does the GOP agenda have any effect on a legal decision? No, I don't think so.
The Court will see this as an opportunity to scale back the Commerce Clause to its original intent. They will find the mandate unconstitutional but leave the rest of the legislation intact. A GOP administration and Congress will repeal the rest of it. Obama&Co have been rolling it back already for the last 2 years.
That's what happens when you pass a huge unworkable bill that was rushed through without any thought.

Courts don't make rulings in a vacuum and you're wildly out-of-touch if you really think the Court wants to roll economic regulation back to the Lochner era.

Courts dont make rulings based on any party's agenda. And you're insane if you think the Court will endorse more intrusive unlimited government. They have been pushing back on gov't control for years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is laughable. I have yet to hear anyone of the nuts say anything in that respect.

The idea was to control costs, the response from the left was OK more freebees.

Remember this from the party on the left.

Any cut is extreme. How much further will the debt take us, all the way to the crash.

The idea is to get EVERYONE health care. Cost is secondary to that goal. But cost is reduced by making sure EVERYBODY has access to quality health care. Fucking DUH!

Everyone does have access. you will need to try much harder.

Really? So my employer should simply eliminate our healthcare benefit, and I should go without any healthcare insurance,

because, according to you, my access to medical treatment and services would be unaffected...

Seriously?

I got to hear this.

 

[8537]

..and like clockwork, as soon as Rabbi gets exposed for who he really is, he neg reps ya.

As predictable as Sean Hannity saying stupid shit.

And just as preictable you whine you got neg repped when in fact the rep was well deserved as you cannot stick to a topic for even one post.
Wanna tissue?

So, care to explain your race-based determination of HC costs? Please do!

 

[The Rabbi]

Please, explain how one receives care without insurance.

Um, show up?

Show up where? You can go to the ER for emergency treatment, but what about chronic illness?

OK, Ypou asked a question and I answered it.
Now you want to change the debate.
There are community clinics that treat chronic illness.
Now you'll ask about meds. Dems will not be satisfied until everything remotely "medical" is "free."

 

[Polk]

More fallacies from you. What a shocker.
You claim that costs ought to be comparable given we have comparable genes. I show we do not have comparable genes.
Blacks have a tendency to higher incidents of certain diseases than whites. This is simply fact. It isn't what the argument was--you have again shifted the goalposts. But it is the truth.

People have been peddling this for years, but there is no evidence to support it. One of the common claims is that blacks were more likely to suffer from hypertension. Turns out it's purely a relic of social factors. Blacks in Africa have some of the lowest rates of hypertension in the world.

Another factoid exploded.

Blacks had higher rates for hypertension-related death than whites in all age groups (Figure 2). From 1981 through 1998, average annual increases in the hypertension-related death rate were 10.4% among blacks and 7.9% among whites for persons aged 85 years and older, 5.9% among blacks and 3.6% among whites for those aged 75-84 years, and 3.2% among blacks and 1.4% among whites for persons aged 65-74 years. Death rates remained relatively constant for persons aged 45-64 years (average annual changes of +0.7% for blacks and decrease of -1.0% for whites). By 1989-1998, blacks had 1.4 (p <0.05) times the death rates of whites at ages &#8805;85 years, 2.1 (p <0.01) times the rate at 75-84 years, 2.8 (p <0.01) times the rate at 65-74 years, and 4.2 (p <0.01) times the rates at ages 45-64 years.

Medscape: Medscape Access
Regardless of the factors it is the case.

Exploded? That doesn't undermine my statement in the least. All you've shown is that the rates are higher among blacks, not that it's higher because they're black, which was your original claim.

 

[Polk]

Does the GOP agenda have any effect on a legal decision? No, I don't think so.
The Court will see this as an opportunity to scale back the Commerce Clause to its original intent. They will find the mandate unconstitutional but leave the rest of the legislation intact. A GOP administration and Congress will repeal the rest of it. Obama&Co have been rolling it back already for the last 2 years.
That's what happens when you pass a huge unworkable bill that was rushed through without any thought.

Courts don't make rulings in a vacuum and you're wildly out-of-touch if you really think the Court wants to roll economic regulation back to the Lochner era.

Courts dont make rulings based on any party's agenda. And you're insane if you think the Court will endorse more intrusive unlimited government. They have been pushing back on gov't control for years.

That is a very naive view of the courts.