If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?

[dblack]

Question. Why is medical treatment a for profit buisness (Did Jesus charge for curing the poor)?

eh?

 

[chikenwing]

Question. Why is medical treatment a for profit buisness (Did Jesus charge for curing the poor)?

He did, but that currency hard to grasp for most.

 

[Mr Natural]

If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?


Nothing.

We're exceptional, we don't need healthcare.

 

[dblack]

If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?


Nothing.

We're exceptional, we don't need healthcare.

The language so many of us use in discussing health care reform is telling. The Court can't overturn "health care". Government doesn't provide health care and they can't take it away. They can change the laws and policies that currently make it more expensive than necessary. That would have been far more helpful than a vain attempt to take it over.

 

[Greenbeard]

That would have been far more helpful than a vain attempt to take it [health care] over.

The language so many of us use in discussing health care reform is telling.

It is indeed!

 

[dblack]

That would have been far more helpful than a vain attempt to take it [health care] over.

The language so many of us use in discussing health care reform is telling.

It is indeed!

Care to elaborate?

 

[Greenbeard]

The statement that the Court can "overturn health care" on Thursday is no more or less silly than saying the ACA "takes over" health care, as they're essentially different ways of saying the same (incorrect) thing.

You corrected him, then repeated his point in the language of the rightwing. So yes, the language is telling.

 

[dblack]

The statement that the Court can "overturn health care" on Thursday is no more or less silly than saying the ACA "takes over" health care, as they're essentially different ways of saying the same (incorrect) thing.

You corrected him, then repeated his point in the language of the rightwing. So yes, the language is telling.

It's the language of the left wing, actually. They have, repeatedly, insisted that ACA was a transitional step to single payer. They want to make government the defacto provider of health care. With that as the goal, they have steadfastly ignored the issue of health care inflation, instead opting for policies that will make the inflation problem even worse, in hopes that it will drive everyone toward their vision of government control of our health care. This isn't a controversial interpretation.

 

[Flopper]

Essentially, you've got an entire bill that's paid for on the shoulders of a mandate that most of the opposition thinks is unconstitutional.

I rather doubt that. Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.
The Individual Mandate in Perspective

 

[Greenbeard]

It's the language of the left wing, actually.

The ACA as a "government takeover of health care" (aka "Lie of the Year, 2010") is the left's frame? That's literally pulled from a Luntz memo to the GOP leadership.

The left's beef with the ACA has always been that it's, in their view, a giveaway to the private sector. This is where the rhetoric of the far left and the far right converges: "the government can't force you to buy a product from a private company!" Only the emphasis is different, as the left focuses on those final four words instead of the first four. They wanted a robust public health insurance option, which was weakened to a negotiated rates public option, which briefly seemed like it might be replaced by a simple Medicare buy-in for certain age ranges, and then, finally, was simply eliminated and replaced with nothing.

Anyone who understands the ACA to be a "transitional step" to single-payer is either clinging to a tragic false hope or is blinded by unfounded paranoia.

 

[hortysir]

Question. Why is medical treatment a for profit buisness (Did Jesus charge for curing the poor)?

Probably since medical school loans need to be repaid.

 

[Zander]

Essentially, you've got an entire bill that's paid for on the shoulders of a mandate that most of the opposition thinks is unconstitutional.

I rather doubt that. Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.
The Individual Mandate in Perspective

Only 2% ...well now, that makes it totally A-OK.

Fuck the 2%!!

 

[Ernie S.]

If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?

Pizza! I vote for free pizza for preexisting conditions

 

[dblack]

Anyone who understands the ACA to be a "transitional step" to single-payer is either clinging to a tragic false hope or is blinded by unfounded paranoia.

I hear ya. I've never seen it as anything other than a corporatist bailout of the insurance industry. I think I've been very clear about that. But the excuse for supporting it, that I've heard over and over again from ACA apologists, was just what you're denying - that it is a transitional step to single-payer. To them, it was very much an inroad toward the government taking over health care. And, to them, that was more important that addressing health care inflation.

I thought you'd argued along these lines as well, but if you're saying that ain't so, I'm willing to take your word for it. If that is the case, then why DO you support ACA, if indeed you acknowledge it as the corporatist giveaway that it is?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course it's not black and white, is it? Community and compassion doesn't require government.

Yea....go with compassion when you need a $200,000 operation

Happens all the time. Seen it go down. It takes good people who give a shit, but there are still some left.

That's what get's me about the welfare statists. The want nice things to be done for people, but that can't be bothered with doing it themselves. They want to pass a law to force someone else to deal with it.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as ‘welfare statists,’ it’s a partisan contrivance of the right, utterly meaningless.

And no one is advocating laws be passed to force anyone to do anything.

A civilized, advanced, and enlightened society realizes that it’s perfectly appropriate and desirable for government to function as a neutral conduit through which the resources of the Nation are allocated to segments of society in need.

That this has been made a partisan issue by the right is the problem.

 

[dblack]

And no one is advocating laws be passed to force anyone to do anything.

Not true. In a society that embraces private property, state welfare policies take property from people and give it to others - by force. If you're disavowing that practice, well - great. It's good to have you my side. But somehow, I don't think you mean what you said.

 

[Greenbeard]

I thought you'd argued along these lines as well, but if you're saying that ain't so, I'm willing to take your word for it.

You won't find me advocating for single-payer (beyond the preservation of Medicare) because I don't particularly want it. I think I've been pretty clear that for the non-elderly I like the exchange concept--and perhaps, down the line, for the elderly as well. And, full disclosure, I did like the concept of a public option in the exchanges, though it was a roundabout and untested way of getting at a problem that could be better addressed through a better alternate mechanism.

 

[midcan5]

Republicans would have us return to the dark ages when death came easily and quickly, it may be that death fits some apocalyptic fantasy of the right, sorta like their 'end is near' beliefs. Armageddon is always around the corner for nutcases. Whining and tragedy thinking give the common folk comfort, while the puppet masters steal off with American's loot. This theme is repeated through history for conservatives.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao]Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die - YouTube[/ame]


"Onstage, the conservative waxes Byronic, moodily surveying the sum of his losses before an audience of the lovelorn and the starstruck. Offstage, and out of sight, his managers quietly compile the sum of their gains." Corey Robin

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Question. Why is medical treatment a for profit buisness (Did Jesus charge for curing the poor)?

Why are Liberals always looking to steal the labors and capital of others?

Even tribal shaman require some type of payment.

 

[Katzndogz]

Question. Why is medical treatment a for profit buisness (Did Jesus charge for curing the poor)?

Probably because slavery is illegal! Any doctor can provide his or her services for free. Requiring a doctor perform services for free is entirely different.

Surely all those grocery stores should not charge for goods! Why is food a for profit business?