SHould the mandate or the entire bill go?

[Dr.House]

LOL, I love that you had to quote a different post of yours because we both know your original post that I did reply to had nothing specific in it. Keep moving the goal posts.

I told you it was in my FOLLOWING post....

The clue was the bolded word:

I was - try reading my next post, dipshit...

If you're not falking your stupidity, I pity you....

Which part of what you said actually shows how things were better before this legislation. Should I message Plymco to hear her sob story? Because your little fact about the cost is just a comparison of Obamacare against itself.

PP has explained HIS particular situation already... He cannot keep his doctor due to 0bamacare... I'm sure he's not alone.... Things were better before 0bamacare for those people...

If you can't see that spending almost triple the amount estimated for this 0bamanation is worse than not spending that amount, I really can't help you... But you already posted you agree with that, so you really can't spin that... (oh, I know you'll try anyway, so please - have at it....LOL)

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What was better before about healthcare in this country before this legislation. Be specific and you can't use buzzwords, especially the word "freedom". I'm talking about real world examples about what was better before.

For one thing, I was not forced to pay for something I cannot afford.

I have been unemployed for two years. I damn well cannot afford even the minimum requirement that will come my way of approximately $300/month with exemptions that I will be forced to pay come 2014. My wife works and with my unemployment it is unlikely I will qualify for the full coverage, so basically, I'm screwed. And I'm not the only one in this boat.

Beyond that, Obamacare has done nothing for me. Not a damned thing! Oh wait, the job situation is impossible to navigate because employers don't want to frigging hire people when they are going to be forced to provide health insurance on top of wages and they have no frigging clue how much that is going to cost them in the long run.

The costs of health policies are skyrocketing even worse than they were before Obamacare and are only going to get worse... not better. So, even when I do finally land a job, it will cost me more in my premiums than it would have pre-obamacare.

There's three things right off the top of my head.

I already said there were some good things within Obamacare so I won't ask you the same kind question you just asked me.

You may want to call me a terrible person for not being insured today and risking the possibility that I could end up in the hospital and the employed/insured would end up eventually paying for it, but so far I have avoided the need for any medical care that I could not pay for on my own and God willing I will land a job before I do... but then Obamacare has made that damned near impossible.

Immie

If you truly can't afford it there are means to help people such as yourself. That's one of the points of this legislation to help get insurance for those who can't afford it. Do you not qualify to get subsidized help to cover the cost of your insurance? I obviously don't know your personal financial details but I would bet that you wouldn't have to pay so much out of pocket if you are as truly broke as you claim to be.

The costs are still rising yes and thats part of my major gripe is that this legislation doesn't do enough to reign in soaring costs. But has it made the sky rocketing costs worse? I don't think anyone can say that, because it just passed and hasn't even come close to being fully implemented yet.

thank God Obamacare hasn't become fully implemented yet......unless you LIKE the rationing of health care....and the idea of "social usefulness" behind Obamacare.....as promoted by Obama's health advisor....Dr. Ekeziel Emanuel (brother of Rahm)...

Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society. Betsy points out a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good (Wizbang)

 

[Dr.House]

I think the ruling and opinions will better establish whether any of the law can stand on its own.

I think it will make congress think before passing another 2700 page POS bill...

But then again, they're congress and seldom think...

 

[The T]

I think the ruling and opinions will better establish whether any of the law can stand on its own.

But even then? The SCOTUS has shown that they don't necessarily side with the Constitution. (Roe v. Wade) is one case that we still wrestle with as it is a State issue.

Never forget that Maubury v. Madison was a case where the SCOTUS assigned itself powers it didn't have.

 

[saveliberty]

I think the ruling and opinions will better establish whether any of the law can stand on its own.

But even then? The SCOTUS has shown that they don't necessarily side with the Constitution. (Roe v. Wade) is one case that we still wrestle with as it is a State issue.

Never forget that Maubury v. Madison was a case where the SCOTUS assigned itself powers it didn't have.

The system is what it is. More often than not it works regarding the Supreme Court. Checks and balances still exist. Unless you advocate revolution, what are your choices?

 

[The Rabbi]

The 2700+ page 0bamanation that was passed was much worse than doing nothing at all...

Start over... Pass smaller bills, starting with the shit that both sides agreed upon, and then go from there...

Or better yet- stay out of our business. The government has created the problem that they now claim they NEED to "Solve". It's like having an arsonist work for the Fire Dept.

I'd love to hear you explain how government created the problem with the costs of healthcare, but I know you'll either not answer or you'll spew some nonsense about interfering in the "free market".

Sometimes I wish I too could be so oblivious to the real world, it would free my brain up to watch daytime tv, fox news and nascar.

The answer is simple for anyone with something other than yogurt between his ears.
The gov't created the problem in several ways:
1) They allowed companies to write off the cost of health insurance premiums rather than treat it like wages. This was an emergency measure for WW2 and they never changed it.
2) They underfunded Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, making providers charge more to those who could pay it.
Reliance on insurance removes personal responsibility and shopping by consumers, allowing costs to balloon. Get rid of the 3rd party payer system for most medical issues and you go a long way to solving the problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is a very obvious real world solution. One that's worked for thousands of years. We take care of ourselves and our loved ones.

The notion that we need to keep Obamacare because there is no alternative is laughable. The way things were before Obamacare would be preferable.
There are several workable plans that don't involve coercing people into buying stuff. But the Dums only want to scream we're killing Grandma (Dums are the biggest fucking hypocrites to walk the planet, as their plan actually would kill Grandma).

Who said there are no alternatives? But you're right, there are much better plans. A public option or single payer. Which one do you prefer?

No, idiot. I wrote BETTER plans. Those are worse plans. Can you conceive of any solution that does not involve a gynormous government bureaucracy?

 

[Rozman]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

I think if the mandate goes the entire bill should as well.
Let Congress do it the right way and not behind closed doors
making deals to get it done.

I can't see any reason why this had to be 2700 + pages and
people voting for it that didn't have a clue as to what most of it was about.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sure you are working hard to find a job. I don't doubt that and that's why it would be a shame if you were to get sick or injured and have no way of getting yourself healed. It would destroy you financially for a LONG time. You think it's bad now, it would be much worse if you had $100k plus in medical bills.

Then when you go to the ER without insurance the rest of us have to pick up those costs and it hurts all of us. You say you don't want to be a slave to the government but that doesn't mean anything. As soon as you can afford insurance you go get it, but in the meantime you get some assistance so that you can avoid a catastrophic situation that is unfortunately all to real for way too many people.

Obamacare makes us all slaves of the government... that is one of its major problems. It also happens to be the same with Welfare and Social Security and every other damned liberal program ever offered. Many, if not all, have good intentions, but in the long run they enslave us to the U.S. Government. But, I am sure that you understand that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is why liberals fight so hard to keep these programs. As long as they keep the poor enslaved and the middle class falling into the poor house (while blaming conservatives and convincing those poor that conservatives would have them starve) those poor are going to keep voting for Democrats. It works and has worked for damned near 100 years.

Immie

I like you Immie, but this whole "slave to the government" stuff is just scary speak. No one is forcing you to stay on these assistance programs. If you get back on your feet and can afford your own insurance, you'll pay for it. Where does the enslavement part come in?

Ditto RDD.

The enslavement comes from the fact that they get you on it and then make it damned hard if not impossible to get off of it. Yes, it is scary speak. Why is it that liberals are pushing our enslavement so much? I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they themselves have accepted their fate and are already consigned to it. Some of us refuse to do so.

And, RDD, under Obamacare, there is no getting off of it. Once it is in force we are all slaves of Princess Nancy and her entourage. You won't be able to "buy" your own insurance. You will be buying government approved assistence.

And one more thing, in an earlier post, you said, "if you are as truly broke as you claim to be", I don't think I claimed to be "broke". What I said is that I cannot afford $300 a month to buy insurance. At the moment, my cash flow is stable, but adding $3600 a year against me would quickly change that and very quickly eat up what little bit of savings I have retained.

Immie

 

[Juanita]

well for those who don't like government run health insurance with a mandate, you had better leave the country before you are 65.....the government "takes" a premium for Medicare out of your check and you don't have a choice....it is a mandate......If the republicans in the house had voted to "stop" the oil subsidies yesterday, maybe they could have used "that" for social security, medicare and medicaid instead of cutting programs......If we had gotten the Public Option, insurance rates would probably not be going up......... Our health care system "used" to be the best in the world, now it has fallen drastically, but we pay much more for the care---#30 in infant mortality now--that is pathetic..........

coersion???? that is what the supreme court tried to call the idea of medicaid expansion yesterday.....several of those conservative justices have been wined and dined by the Koch brothers and other rich and influential republicans, so I know how they will vote, unless Kennedy is not intimidated by them...... the same way they voted that corporations are people and poisoned our whole political system.........I can't wait until November.........

 

[The T]

The notion that we need to keep Obamacare because there is no alternative is laughable. The way things were before Obamacare would be preferable.
There are several workable plans that don't involve coercing people into buying stuff. But the Dums only want to scream we're killing Grandma (Dums are the biggest fucking hypocrites to walk the planet, as their plan actually would kill Grandma).

Who said there are no alternatives? But you're right, there are much better plans. A public option or single payer. Which one do you prefer?

No, idiot. I wrote BETTER plans. Those are worse plans. Can you conceive of any solution that does not involve a gynormous government bureaucracy?

Private solutions are the bane to Statists.

 

[Lovebears65]

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

HELL the people who passed this damn law did not read it.. The lawyers on the GOV side had to prove it was constitutional if they failed just based on their argument it is their ( gov lawyers) not the supreme courts fault. I know this very topic was addressed during the hearing and Scalia said I hope you dont expect us to read this monster of a law or our clerks to read it all . I cant remember all what he said but basically the lawyers had to prove it was constitutional with their argument

 

[The T]

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

HELL the people who passed this damn law did not read it.. The lawyers on the GOV side had to prove it was constitutional if they failed just based on their argument it is their ( gov lawyers) not the supreme courts fault. I know this very topic was addressed during the hearing and Scalia said I hope you dont expect us to read this monster of a law or our clerks to read it all . I cant remember all what he said but basically the lawyers had to prove it was constitutional with their argument

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

LINK

 

[saveliberty]

well for those who don't like government run health insurance with a mandate, you had better leave the country before you are 65.....the government "takes" a premium for Medicare out of your check and you don't have a choice....it is a mandate......If the republicans in the house had voted to "stop" the oil subsidies yesterday, maybe they could have used "that" for social security, medicare and medicaid instead of cutting programs......If we had gotten the Public Option, insurance rates would probably not be going up......... Our health care system "used" to be the best in the world, now it has fallen drastically, but we pay much more for the care---#30 in infant mortality now--that is pathetic..........

coersion???? that is what the supreme court tried to call the idea of medicaid expansion yesterday.....several of those conservative justices have been wined and dined by the Koch brothers and other rich and influential republicans, so I know how they will vote, unless Kennedy is not intimidated by them...... the same way they voted that corporations are people and poisoned our whole political system.........I can't wait until November.........

Pure conjecture on your part. Please produce a link to dinner arrangements between the Justices and Koch brothers. TIA.

 

[saveliberty]

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

They make informed decisions based on the Constitution, briefs filed by both sides, lower court rulings and the cases as they moved through the system. Maybe you expected them to become medical doctors or insurance executives first?

 

[initforme]

Everything should go except for the pre existing conditions. That simply is an anti life stance. No other way it can be looked at.

 

[RDD_1210]

Obamacare makes us all slaves of the government... that is one of its major problems. It also happens to be the same with Welfare and Social Security and every other damned liberal program ever offered. Many, if not all, have good intentions, but in the long run they enslave us to the U.S. Government. But, I am sure that you understand that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is why liberals fight so hard to keep these programs. As long as they keep the poor enslaved and the middle class falling into the poor house (while blaming conservatives and convincing those poor that conservatives would have them starve) those poor are going to keep voting for Democrats. It works and has worked for damned near 100 years.

Immie

I like you Immie, but this whole "slave to the government" stuff is just scary speak. No one is forcing you to stay on these assistance programs. If you get back on your feet and can afford your own insurance, you'll pay for it. Where does the enslavement part come in?

Ditto RDD.

The enslavement comes from the fact that they get you on it and then make it damned hard if not impossible to get off of it. Yes, it is scary speak. Why is it that liberals are pushing our enslavement so much? I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they themselves have accepted their fate and are already consigned to it. Some of us refuse to do so.

And, RDD, under Obamacare, there is no getting off of it. Once it is in force we are all slaves of Princess Nancy and her entourage. You won't be able to "buy" your own insurance. You will be buying government approved assistence.

And one more thing, in an earlier post, you said, "if you are as truly broke as you claim to be", I don't think I claimed to be "broke". What I said is that I cannot afford $300 a month to buy insurance. At the moment, my cash flow is stable, but adding $3600 a year against me would quickly change that and very quickly eat up what little bit of savings I have retained.

Immie

Immie, everything you believe just isn't true. Can you point to anything in the actual bill that supports what you say, that once you receive assistance you can never get away from it? What you believe has no basis in reality. I'll believe everything you have to say if you can show anything that says this, and I'm not talking about right wing blogs. I'm talking about text from the actual bill. If it's there, I'll swear off this entire bill forever, I promise...but if it's not I just ask that you not believe the propaganda you hear from the lunatics on this site. The bill is FAR from perfect and I wish it did a lot more, but what you claim will happen isn't remotely true.

 

[The T]

well for those who don't like government run health insurance with a mandate, you had better leave the country before you are 65.....the government "takes" a premium for Medicare out of your check and you don't have a choice....it is a mandate......If the republicans in the house had voted to "stop" the oil subsidies yesterday, maybe they could have used "that" for social security, medicare and medicaid instead of cutting programs......If we had gotten the Public Option, insurance rates would probably not be going up......... Our health care system "used" to be the best in the world, now it has fallen drastically, but we pay much more for the care---#30 in infant mortality now--that is pathetic..........

coersion???? that is what the supreme court tried to call the idea of medicaid expansion yesterday.....several of those conservative justices have been wined and dined by the Koch brothers and other rich and influential republicans, so I know how they will vote, unless Kennedy is not intimidated by them...... the same way they voted that corporations are people and poisoned our whole political system.........I can't wait until November.........

Pure conjecture on your part. Please produce a link to dinner arrangements between the Justices and Koch brothers. TIA.

Indeed. THIS i'd like to see. SCOTUS Justices can now be wined and dined into submission?

 

[Immanuel]

I like you Immie, but this whole "slave to the government" stuff is just scary speak. No one is forcing you to stay on these assistance programs. If you get back on your feet and can afford your own insurance, you'll pay for it. Where does the enslavement part come in?

Ditto RDD.

The enslavement comes from the fact that they get you on it and then make it damned hard if not impossible to get off of it. Yes, it is scary speak. Why is it that liberals are pushing our enslavement so much? I think that has a lot to do with the fact that they themselves have accepted their fate and are already consigned to it. Some of us refuse to do so.

And, RDD, under Obamacare, there is no getting off of it. Once it is in force we are all slaves of Princess Nancy and her entourage. You won't be able to "buy" your own insurance. You will be buying government approved assistence.

And one more thing, in an earlier post, you said, "if you are as truly broke as you claim to be", I don't think I claimed to be "broke". What I said is that I cannot afford $300 a month to buy insurance. At the moment, my cash flow is stable, but adding $3600 a year against me would quickly change that and very quickly eat up what little bit of savings I have retained.

Immie

Immie, everything you believe just isn't true. Can you point to anything in the actual bill that supports what you say, that once you receive assistance you can never get away from it?

I can go better than the bill. I only need to point to history and point out the Welfare System. Once in, it is damned near impossible to escape. That is by liberal design.

As for Obamacare. Once it takes effect there are NO private insurance companies. They are puppets of the government that must offer exactly what the government tells them to offer i.e. abortion services and at the price they are commanded to offer those services at.

The insurance companies must meet strict guidelines in regards to what they offer... they are soon to be puppets of the U.S. Government.

And if you have no choice in whether or not you purchase insurance or what policies to buy, then you HAVE NO WAY OUT.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

Everything should go except for the pre existing conditions. That simply is an anti life stance. No other way it can be looked at.

The vast majority of pre existing condition folks are not rejected for insurance, they are rated and the premiums mean they don't carry insurance.