It's almost June - countdown to the Supreme Court decision on ACA

[ecinicola]

This Obamacare thing is not only to force you to buy into it, but it rules alot of other things,that don't even pertain to Health care. Its a communistic way of ruling the people's lives. I pray to God the court does the right thing on it not being constitutionnnal. If this Obamacare is passed, everyone will be very very sorry, even the Obama supporters. Obama is a dictator and a manipulator and a con artist and when will people wake up to that fact. And he isn't even eligible to be President. VOTE HIM OUT. PLEASEEEEEE FOR ALL OUR SAKES.

 

[Sallow]

And given that trying to throw out those unrelated pieces has no justification, seeking to eliminate them without offering any replacement is, as I've said, shameful.

Sorry....

Throw it all out.

Shoot it again.

Drive a stake through it's heart.

Then burn it and bury it.

ALL OF IT.

Yep.

Medicare for all.

HMOs..buh bye!

 

[JakeStarkey]

When someone uses words like "communistic" and "dictator" and not "eligible to be President", others know that individual is wack.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some of the same people who are okay with tanking Wisconsin's economy because Walker went against their ideological principles seem to be among those who question the morality of us defending the Constitution of the United States without having an alternative healthcare takeover plan waiting in the wings.

But that’s not the case, opposition to the ACA is partisan, not Constitutional. Because this is a political, not legal, issue, it is indeed incumbent upon opponents of the ACA to at least have a ‘replacement plan’ to propose.

This Obamacare thing is not only to force you to buy into it…

No, it doesn’t, one is not ‘forced’ to do anything. If you’re going to participate in the debate do so in the context of knowledge, not ignorance.

 

[Amelia]

Some of the same people who are okay with tanking Wisconsin's economy because Walker went against their ideological principles seem to be among those who question the morality of us defending the Constitution of the United States without having an alternative healthcare takeover plan waiting in the wings.

But that’s not the case, opposition to the ACA is partisan, not Constitutional. Because this is a political, not legal, issue, it is indeed incumbent upon opponents of the ACA to at least have a ‘replacement plan’ to propose.

This Obamacare thing is not only to force you to buy into it…

No, it doesn’t, one is not ‘forced’ to do anything. If you’re going to participate in the debate do so in the context of knowledge, not ignorance.

You can spin it however you want, Clayton.

If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional, and you guys trying to cling to it don't get to dictate the terms of its end. That's the long and the short of it.



Shoulda tried harder to get something which would pass constitutional muster in the first place.


Well, actually, shoulda had a decent set of priorities and worked on policies which would help more people have jobs so that more could afford healthcare. Made sure the stimulus was used optimally. Made sure the mortgage help programs were working. Put your capital where your mouth was on infrastructure. Little things like that.



It's all academic now. Obama had an opportunity to help strengthen the nation and he squandered it. Hopefully the ACA will be gone in June. And hopefully the people who played fast and loose with the constitution will be gone soon too.

 

[dblack]

But that’s not the case, opposition to the ACA is partisan, not Constitutional. Because this is a political, not legal, issue, it is indeed incumbent upon opponents of the ACA to at least have a ‘replacement plan’ to propose.

This simply isn't true. Opposition from partisans is partisan. For the rest of us it's ethical, moral and, yes constitutional. And no, it's not incumbent upon anyone to offer a replacement for what amounts to gun to the head.

This Obamacare thing is not only to force you to buy into it…

No, it doesn’t, one is not ‘forced’ to do anything. If you’re going to participate in the debate do so in the context of knowledge, not ignorance.

Another lie. Your accusations of ignorance fall apart in your complete lack of honesty.

 

[MuadDib]

Wow, so you have this defeat that Even I'm not all that familiar with as a history major...

Seems to me it couldn't have been that impressive.

I think 46 million people without insurance is a bit more of a pressing matter than some obscure battle where all of 600 people were killed. Just saying.

Right there's your problem. There's a lot of our history that the colleges and universities don't teach.

No, they teach what is important. One battle in our 200 year campaign to exterminate the native people in this country isn't that important. One might even argue that they don't emphasize it that much because this was one of the few white people lost.

Health insurance as we know it did not exist until World War 2. When Roosevelt froze wages, employers began offering incentives such as health insurance. Prior to that, people were not dying like a zombie apocalypse because they couldn't get health care. They got care. Once the modern health care insurance industry was created, the cost of health care rolled like a snowball downhill.

And a reading from the book of Limbaugh. Yes, we've all heard that story. I should point out that prior to world war II, people might not have been dying like the Zombie Apocolypse, but when they did get sick, there wasn't really jack diddly anyone could do about it. Which is why the average American Life expectency in 1930 was 59 and today it's 78.

Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2010 — Infoplease.com

Part of this is because we actually developed programs like the ones you denounce below to treat people... the other is because we developed technologies to treat them, and guess what, those technologies cost money.

Then the government stepped in with Medicare and Medicaid, you know, government health insurance, and began to regulate the living daylights out of medical services, which drove up the cost. Now, if you can pay out of pocket and cash is good because it doesn't require office staff to sort out the billing and deal with insurance, a doctor can't charge you less than Medicare rates or it's considered discrimination.

Get government the hell out of the way and you'll actually see the cost of medical care go down.

Actually, what drove up the cost was that we were starting to actually treat people, as stated above.

Now you do blunder into one thing. If we got rid of private insurance and just went to a single payer system, a lot of overhead would be cut down... that's for sure.

But of course, most "out of pocket" expenses might work for getting a prescription to treat that cold, but when you are talking about treatment for colonic cancer, not so much. Then you really do need for those costs to be "socialized" either through a government program or private insurance. Pay your own way won't work.

Wrong! What drove up the cost of health care is all of the government bureaucracy and internal bureaucracy of the providers themselves that we have. It costs time and money to deal with all of the unnecessary and overly complicated paperwork, policies, and procedures that serve no practical real world function to provide and deliver health care.

You can actually thank the graduate degree colleges for a great deal of it. They created and trained the bureaucratic mindset that constantly tries to reinvent the wheel in order to justify their masters and doctoral degrees.

What our health care system needs is a massive infusion of plain old common sense and practicality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MuadDib's chant is boring and wrong. Try giving us some evidence of what you are saying, not opinions.

 

[JoeB131]

You can spin it however you want, Clayton.

If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional, and you guys trying to cling to it don't get to dictate the terms of its end. That's the long and the short of it.

Shoulda tried harder to get something which would pass constitutional muster in the first place.

Well, actually, shoulda had a decent set of priorities and worked on policies which would help more people have jobs so that more could afford healthcare. Made sure the stimulus was used optimally. Made sure the mortgage help programs were working. Put your capital where your mouth was on infrastructure. Little things like that.

It's all academic now. Obama had an opportunity to help strengthen the nation and he squandered it. Hopefully the ACA will be gone in June. And hopefully the people who played fast and loose with the constitution will be gone soon too.

Gee, I don't know. I'd call making sure that the 150 million people with private insurance aren't cheated by their insurance companies and the 46 million without insurance get coverage to be pretty important goals.

But, nah, we aren't going to do that. Screw them poor people. We're going to get the hacks on the Supreme Court to accomplish what we couldn't accomplish in the legislature...

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong! What drove up the cost of health care is all of the government bureaucracy and internal bureaucracy of the providers themselves that we have. It costs time and money to deal with all of the unnecessary and overly complicated paperwork, policies, and procedures that serve no practical real world function to provide and deliver health care.

You can actually thank the graduate degree colleges for a great deal of it. They created and trained the bureaucratic mindset that constantly tries to reinvent the wheel in order to justify their masters and doctoral degrees.

What our health care system needs is a massive infusion of plain old common sense and practicality.

Did you even try to comprehend the argument I made?

You made the argument that everything was fine with health care until 1940, forgetting the fact that most people didn't make it into their 50's in those oldy days, so, no, things were not fine or anywhere near fine.

If your argument is that there is too much bureaucracy and paperwork, then, gee, guy, you should support a single payer Canadian style system. But in your bizarro world view, the real problem is that we are taking care of the unworthy, I guess. them "college types" messed it up.

The real problem with the expense of health care is that Ed Hanaway, the former president of Cigna, got 78 million dollars when he retired. This was the same asshole who fought tooth and nail against a 17 year old girl getting a liver transplant because it was too expensive, even though her father had insurance with them.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Some of the same people who are okay with tanking Wisconsin's economy because Walker went against their ideological principles seem to be among those who question the morality of us defending the Constitution of the United States without having an alternative healthcare takeover plan waiting in the wings.

But that’s not the case, opposition to the ACA is partisan, not Constitutional. Because this is a political, not legal, issue, it is indeed incumbent upon opponents of the ACA to at least have a ‘replacement plan’ to propose.

This Obamacare thing is not only to force you to buy into it…

No, it doesn’t, one is not ‘forced’ to do anything. If you’re going to participate in the debate do so in the context of knowledge, not ignorance.

You can spin it however you want, Clayton.

If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional, and you guys trying to cling to it don't get to dictate the terms of its end. That's the long and the short of it.



Shoulda tried harder to get something which would pass constitutional muster in the first place.


Well, actually, shoulda had a decent set of priorities and worked on policies which would help more people have jobs so that more could afford healthcare. Made sure the stimulus was used optimally. Made sure the mortgage help programs were working. Put your capital where your mouth was on infrastructure. Little things like that.



It's all academic now. Obama had an opportunity to help strengthen the nation and he squandered it. Hopefully the ACA will be gone in June. And hopefully the people who played fast and loose with the constitution will be gone soon too.

So you're in favor of us responsible citizens, who have health insurance, to pay for the freeloaders who wind up in emergency rooms. Are you a socialist?

 

[JoeB131]

But that’s not the case, opposition to the ACA is partisan, not Constitutional. Because this is a political, not legal, issue, it is indeed incumbent upon opponents of the ACA to at least have a ‘replacement plan’ to propose.



No, it doesn’t, one is not ‘forced’ to do anything. If you’re going to participate in the debate do so in the context of knowledge, not ignorance.

You can spin it however you want, Clayton.

If it is unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional, and you guys trying to cling to it don't get to dictate the terms of its end. That's the long and the short of it.



Shoulda tried harder to get something which would pass constitutional muster in the first place.


Well, actually, shoulda had a decent set of priorities and worked on policies which would help more people have jobs so that more could afford healthcare. Made sure the stimulus was used optimally. Made sure the mortgage help programs were working. Put your capital where your mouth was on infrastructure. Little things like that.



It's all academic now. Obama had an opportunity to help strengthen the nation and he squandered it. Hopefully the ACA will be gone in June. And hopefully the people who played fast and loose with the constitution will be gone soon too.

So you're in favor of us responsible citizens, who have health insurance, to pay for the freeloaders who wind up in emergency rooms. Are you a socialist?

What she's in favor of is Obama losing.

I don't think she has much of an idealogy beyond that.

 

[MeBelle]

So you're in favor of us responsible citizens, who have health insurance, to pay for the freeloaders who wind up in emergency rooms. Are you a socialist?

Ahhhh, stupidity showing...


Who are the 'freeloaders' that end up in the ER?
Usually those who are on Medicaid.

What type of insurance do you have, employer paid, or self pay?

 

[Dick Tuck]

So you're in favor of us responsible citizens, who have health insurance, to pay for the freeloaders who wind up in emergency rooms. [/B] Are you a socialist?[/B]

Ahhhh, stupidity showing...


Who are the 'freeloaders' that end up in the ER?
Usually those who are on Medicaid.

What type of insurance do you have, employer paid, or self pay?

The issue is "uninsured" moron. You can't turn people away from an emergency room. Why should responsible citizens have to pay for freeloaders, in our health insurance costs? There's still millions of working Americans, who work for people who won't share costs or are self-employed, who don't have it for whatever reason. Walmart employees who aren't vested, because Walmart likes to fire people before they are, or self-employed truck drivers, often can't afford paying their own healthcare.

Why should I be asked to pay a higher insurance premium for them, when Obama offered a more straight forward solution. Make it affordable, make it universal, and make sure the insurance companies provide baseline coverage.

 

[MeBelle]

So you're in favor of us responsible citizens, who have health insurance, to pay for the freeloaders who wind up in emergency rooms. [/B] Are you a socialist?[/B]

Ahhhh, stupidity showing...


Who are the 'freeloaders' that end up in the ER?
Usually those who are on Medicaid.

What type of insurance do you have, employer paid, or self pay?

The issue is "uninsured" moron.

Fail! The issue is Doctors who are rapidly declining to take on pathetic Medicaid and in some instances Medicare patients. Why, you ask? Because each program is a money loser.

You can't turn people away from an emergency room.
No shit, really?

Why should responsible citizens have to pay for freeloaders, in our health insurance costs? There's still millions of working Americans, who work for people who won't share costs or are self-employed, who don't have it for whatever reason. Walmart employees who aren't vested, because Walmart likes to fire people before they are, or self-employed truck drivers, often can't afford paying their own healthcare.

You claim that self employed persons cannot afford health insurance. Why, you ask? People want health insurance to cover sniffles and scrapes. Health insurance has morphed into something different than it's original intent.

Why should I be asked to pay a higher insurance premium for them, when Obama offered a more straight forward solution. Make it affordable, make it universal, and make sure the insurance companies provide baseline coverage.

I would like to see tort reform and states being able to compete with each other. Competition would make it more affordable.

PS-Maroon is a board joke started by someone who attempted to post Moron. Lighten up, geez!

 

[MeBelle]

That's all for now. I have to interview Medical Directors for my facility this morning.

 

[Dick Tuck]

That's all for now. I have to interview Medical Directors for my facility this morning.

You work on Memorial Day, to interview?

Ask your Medical directors if they favor turning away uninsured from Emergency Rooms. Ask them what they might change in the system. Given your pea brain, I suspect you'd hire directors who could **** over the taxpayer the most, and make your group fatter than you already are.

 

[MeBelle]

That's all for now. I have to interview Medical Directors for my facility this morning.

You work on Memorial Day, to interview?
Indeed! Why, you ask? Many Docs are available today because they have taken the day off.

Ask your Medical directors if they favor turning away uninsured from Emergency Rooms.
Why would I? That's not legal.

Ask them what they might change in the system.
One of the many questions to be asked.

Given your pea brain, I suspect you'd hire directors who could **** over the taxpayer the most, and make your group fatter than you already are.

Asinine assumptions on your part, since you have no clue as to how ethically and morally my facility is run.

 

[Dick Tuck]

That's all for now. I have to interview Medical Directors for my facility this morning.

You work on Memorial Day, to interview?
Indeed! Why, you ask? Many Docs are available today because they have taken the day off.

Ask your Medical directors if they favor turning away uninsured from Emergency Rooms.
Why would I? That's not legal.

Ask them what they might change in the system.
One of the many questions to be asked.

Given your pea brain, I suspect you'd hire directors who could **** over the taxpayer the most, and make your group fatter than you already are.

Asinine assumptions on your part, since you have no clue as to how ethically and morally my facility is run.

Correct, I have no idea about how much or how little clout you have with your "facility". I do have ample evidence that you're a hack pea brain, who'd turn off your logic for political expediency. I doubt that you'll cast your vote to hire someone who agrees that Obamacare is really a cost saving, like the CBO.

 

[MuadDib]

Wrong! What drove up the cost of health care is all of the government bureaucracy and internal bureaucracy of the providers themselves that we have. It costs time and money to deal with all of the unnecessary and overly complicated paperwork, policies, and procedures that serve no practical real world function to provide and deliver health care.

You can actually thank the graduate degree colleges for a great deal of it. They created and trained the bureaucratic mindset that constantly tries to reinvent the wheel in order to justify their masters and doctoral degrees.

What our health care system needs is a massive infusion of plain old common sense and practicality.

Did you even try to comprehend the argument I made?

You made the argument that everything was fine with health care until 1940, forgetting the fact that most people didn't make it into their 50's in those oldy days, so, no, things were not fine or anywhere near fine.

If your argument is that there is too much bureaucracy and paperwork, then, gee, guy, you should support a single payer Canadian style system. But in your bizarro world view, the real problem is that we are taking care of the unworthy, I guess. them "college types" messed it up.

The real problem with the expense of health care is that Ed Hanaway, the former president of Cigna, got 78 million dollars when he retired. This was the same asshole who fought tooth and nail against a 17 year old girl getting a liver transplant because it was too expensive, even though her father had insurance with them.

That's a specious argument. The average lifespan in 1940 was 62.9 years. In 2010, it was 78.7.

The improvement doesn't have as much to do with insurance and access as it does with improvements in medical science and those improvements came about because of the free market.

If you had a major heart attack in 1940, you could kiss your ass goodbye. Today, we can give you an IV clot buster or do a cardiac cath and save you. If you had cancer in 1940, you were screwed. Today, we have much better surgical techniques, chemotherapies, and radiation treatment.

If you like socialized medicine so much, you might recall that Russia had socialized medicine, but when Boris Yeltsin had his heart attack in 1996, needed bypass surgery and was told by his Russian doctors that he probably wouldn't survive it, it was an American cardiologist, Dr. Michael DeBakey, that went to Moscow and saved his ass.