WOW! “SHOW ME STATE” SHOWS OBAMACARE THE DOOR Prop C Passes By Over 70%

[daveman]

dave are you really as fat as your avatar, if so your head is bigger than a basketball.

Or is that some rightwing tool you idolize?

I'll bet you a thousand dollars that's me.

Oh, look! Another bet you can run away from!

 

[hboats]

dave are you really as fat as your avatar, if so your head is bigger than a basketball.

Or is that some rightwing tool you idolize?

You forgot to say

klansmen, white trash, trailer park, I make more than you and my net worth is more than yours, wanna bet $1000?

Rick

 

[topspin]

if that's you, you have a big fat head.
Let me guess, you don't own a treadmill

 

[daveman]

if that's you, you have a big fat head.
Let me guess, you don't own a treadmill

Not gonna bet, you pussy?

 

[Zander]

dave are you really as fat as your avatar, if so your head is bigger than a basketball.

Or is that some rightwing tool you idolize?

Topspin: Wanna bet a grand?
Normal person: Yeah, OK.
Topspin: You're fat!!

Priceless!!

 

[daveman]

dave are you really as fat as your avatar, if so your head is bigger than a basketball.

Or is that some rightwing tool you idolize?

Topspin: Wanna bet a grand?
Normal person: Yeah, OK.
Topspin: You're fat!!

Priceless!!

Maybe he doesn't have a grand he can spare. Poor topsoil.

 

[Zander]

dave are you really as fat as your avatar, if so your head is bigger than a basketball.

Or is that some rightwing tool you idolize?

Topspin: Wanna bet a grand?
Normal person: Yeah, OK.
Topspin: You're fat!!

Priceless!!

Maybe he doesn't have a grand he can spare. Poor topsoil.

He's a grand short of a grand.....

 

[hboats]

Topspin: Wanna bet a grand?
Normal person: Yeah, OK.
Topspin: You're fat!!

Priceless!!

Maybe he doesn't have a grand he can spare. Poor topsoil.

He's a grand short of a grand.....

He can ask his KLANSMEN for a loan, but they'd probably want him to put his TRAILER HOUSE up as collateral. I'd say he's closer to $1200 short of a grand, but that's just me.

Rick

 

[daveman]

Topspin: Wanna bet a grand?
Normal person: Yeah, OK.
Topspin: You're fat!!

Priceless!!

Maybe he doesn't have a grand he can spare. Poor topsoil.

He's a grand short of a grand.....

Maybe Obama will pay his mortgage and gas bill AND his gambling debts.

 

[daveman]

Maybe he doesn't have a grand he can spare. Poor topsoil.

He's a grand short of a grand.....

He can ask his KLANSMEN for a loan, but they'd probably want him to put his TRAILER HOUSE up as collateral. I'd say he's closer to $1200 short of a grand, but that's just me.

Rick

Actually, it's a buck-and-a-quarter quarterstaff, but I'm not tellin' HIM that. /Daffy Duck

 

[Greenbeard]

The impact of this law will be felt from a cost standpoint on the states because they have to shoulder a heavy burden through state Medicaid in order for this law to work properly.

Yes, there will be additional costs for state Medicaid programs, though they won't actually be paying for additional enrollees for a few years. The federal government is paying the full cost of newly eligible (under the new law) beneficiaries up until 2017. In that year, they'll pay 95% of those costs, and 94% the year after that, and 93% the year after that. From 2020 onwards, the federal government pays 90% of the costs of the new beneficiaries. They'll have to pay something for the expansions but with an FMAP like they've never seen before.

The other thing that always seems to fall through the cracks on this law is from the funding standpoiint is the front end is loaded with collection and the back is is when the services kick in.

That's a misperception. For the most part, the spending and the revenues ramp up together (in fact the big long-term revenue source, the excise tax on high-cost plans, doesn't kick in for several years).

So EVERYONE is going to receive EVERY treatment and medicine they need? What page of the document states that?

That's your definition of rationing in this context? Lack of infinite health resources?

Technically, that's correct--health resources do not (and never have) existed in finite amount, so they're rationed. That's why they have prices. But if that's the way you're using it here, it's a pretty meaningless statement. Every system rations under that expansive definition because no system magically causes health resources to exist in infinite abundance.

 

[daveman]

That's your definition of rationing in this context? Lack of infinite health resources?

Technically, that's correct--health resources do not (and never have) existed in finite amount, so they're rationed. That's why they have prices. But if that's the way you're using it here, it's a pretty meaningless statement. Every system rations under that expansive definition because no system magically causes health resources to exist in infinite abundance.

Then perhaps you'd best stop chastising people who say government health care will be rationed.

 

[Greenbeard]

Then perhaps you'd best stop chastising people who say government health care will be rationed.

Putting aside for a moment whatever you mean by "government health care" (Medicare? Medicaid?), usually when someone talks about rationing they're not simply re-stating the obvious point that the good in question has a price attached to it. Instead, they're suggesting that if your insurance doesn't cover it, you will be forbidden from buying it with your own money.

But if you're actually using it that way, sure--health care resources will still have prices associated with them under the reform law. Is that surprising?

 

[daveman]

Then perhaps you'd best stop chastising people who say government health care will be rationed.

Putting aside for a moment whatever you mean by "government health care" (Medicare? Medicaid?), usually when someone talks about rationing they're not simply re-stating the obvious point that the good in question has a price attached to it. Instead, they're suggesting that if your insurance doesn't cover it, you will be forbidden from buying it with your own money.

But if you're actually using it that way, sure--health care resources will still have prices associated with them under the reform law. Is that surprising?

Dunno. Why don't you tell the people who insist there will be no rationing?

 

[Greenbeard]

Dunno. Why don't you tell the people who insist there will be no rationing?

Because the entire rationing discussion is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, as I would hope you're able to recognize. The point of using the word is to imply that the government will stop you from purchasing care that you want. Or as one particularly disingenuous person put it, a person "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

That spectacle is what the use of the word "rationing" is meant to invoke in your mind. It's not being used to mean "something that doesn't exist in infinite abundance and thus is allocated through a price mechanism." If that's how the word was being understood, Berwick's statement that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open" wouldn't be controversial, it would be (rightly) seen as a fairly obvious point.

So while it's true that anything with a price tag on it is being rationed, it's also true that this is not what people are talking or thinking about when they say "your care will be rationed under health reform." Thus rejecting that language is perfectly legitimate. Its purpose is to obscure, not illuminate, meaning.

 

[daveman]

Dunno. Why don't you tell the people who insist there will be no rationing?

Because the entire rationing discussion is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, as I would hope you're able to recognize. The point of using the word is to imply that the government will stop you from purchasing care that you want. Or as one particularly disingenuous person put it, a person "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

That spectacle is what the use of the word "rationing" is meant to invoke in your mind. It's not being used to mean "something that doesn't exist in infinite abundance and thus is allocated through a price mechanism." If that's how the word was being understood, Berwick's statement that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open" wouldn't be controversial, it would be (rightly) seen as a fairly obvious point.

So while it's true that anything with a price tag on it is being rationed, it's also true that this is not what people are talking or thinking about when they say "your care will be rationed under health reform." Thus rejecting that language is perfectly legitimate. Its purpose is to obscure, not illuminate, meaning.

You know those in power now want single-payer, right? That Obamacare is just the first step towards that?

If they have their way, yes, there will be government bureaucrats making healthcare decisions. And yes, those decisions can mean some people will be denied care.

But nobody seems to want that illuminated.

 

[Greenbeard]

You know those in power now want single-payer, right? That Obamacare is just the first step towards that?

The only way single-payer will emerge as a politically viable proposal is if the individual mandate is struck down, at which point single-payer will be the only possible mechanism left to achieve universal coverage. I don't foresee that happening but if a universal private system proves to be unconstitutional, a universal public system (presumably a tweaking of Medicare) would then probably rise to the top of the policy debate.

"Obamacare" is not a step towards that. Eliminating it (i.e. ruling out a near-universal private system) as a viable option probably would be a step toward that.

If they have their way, yes, there will be government bureaucrats making healthcare decisions. And yes, those decisions can mean some people will be denied care.

Ah, and here it is. You know this law doesn't do that, you acknowledge that it doesn't do that. But in your mind some future bill might someday do that and so it somehow becomes intellectually permissible to suggest this bill does do that.

Which is a perfect example of why, as I said, "the entire rationing discussion is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty."

 

[Bfgrn]

You know those in power now want single-payer, right? That Obamacare is just the first step towards that?

The only way single-payer will emerge as a politically viable proposal is if the individual mandate is struck down, at which point single-payer will be the only possible mechanism left to achieve universal coverage. I don't foresee that happening but if a universal private system proves to be unconstitutional, a universal public system (presumably a tweaking of Medicare) would then probably rise to the top of the policy debate.

"Obamacare" is not a step towards that. Eliminating it (i.e. ruling out a near-universal private system) as a viable option probably would be a step toward that.

If they have their way, yes, there will be government bureaucrats making healthcare decisions. And yes, those decisions can mean some people will be denied care.

Ah, and here it is. You know this law doesn't do that, you acknowledge that it doesn't do that. But in your mind some future bill might someday do that and so it somehow becomes intellectually permissible to suggest this bill does do that.

Which is a perfect example of why, as I said, "the entire rationing discussion is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty."

Greenbeard, you are much too kind to the pea brain...


daveman says:

 

[saveliberty]

Obamacare is only viable in a vacuum created by Congressional guidelines in a CBO fantasy.

 

[daveman]

You know those in power now want single-payer, right? That Obamacare is just the first step towards that?

The only way single-payer will emerge as a politically viable proposal is if the individual mandate is struck down, at which point single-payer will be the only possible mechanism left to achieve universal coverage. I don't foresee that happening but if a universal private system proves to be unconstitutional, a universal public system (presumably a tweaking of Medicare) would then probably rise to the top of the policy debate.

"Obamacare" is not a step towards that. Eliminating it (i.e. ruling out a near-universal private system) as a viable option probably would be a step toward that.

If they have their way, yes, there will be government bureaucrats making healthcare decisions. And yes, those decisions can mean some people will be denied care.

Ah, and here it is. You know this law doesn't do that, you acknowledge that it doesn't do that. But in your mind some future bill might someday do that and so it somehow becomes intellectually permissible to suggest this bill does do that.

Which is a perfect example of why, as I said, "the entire rationing discussion is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty."

Moot point anyway, really. SCOTUS is never going to allow this blatantly unconstitutional law to stand.