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

[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."

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


daveman says:

No, it's leftism, and it's a failure everywhere and every time it's been in power.

 

[Samson]

Doesn't really make much difference, except as a way of sending a message.

Seems to me the federal health care bill is either a valid exercise of federal power, or it is not. If it is, it will trump this state law in Missouri. If it is not, then it can't be implemented and the Missouri law is unnecessary.

This is what I'd EXPECT.

However, the feds seem to be picking and choosing which laws they'll enforce.

 

[midcan5]

I would love to know how many on SS and Medicare voted against healthcare for all?

 

[hboats]

I would love to know how many on SS and Medicare voted against healthcare for all?

I would love to know how many morons like you don't know the difference.

Rick

 

[jillian]

I would love to know how many on SS and Medicare voted against healthcare for all?

I would love to know how many morons like you don't know the difference.

Rick

i'm not sure how that responds to what he said, rick.

but to get to the thread topic... the idiots in missouri who put this thing on the ballot must certainly realize that their little vote is meaningless.

 

[jillian]

Doesn't really make much difference, except as a way of sending a message.

Seems to me the federal health care bill is either a valid exercise of federal power, or it is not. If it is, it will trump this state law in Missouri. If it is not, then it can't be implemented and the Missouri law is unnecessary.

This is what I'd EXPECT.

However, the feds seem to be picking and choosing which laws they'll enforce.

every administration does that. it's called prioritizing.

 

[hboats]

I would love to know how many on SS and Medicare voted against healthcare for all?

I would love to know how many morons like you don't know the difference.

Rick

i'm not sure how that responds to what he said, rick.

but to get to the thread topic... the idiots in missouri who put this thing on the ballot must certainly realize that their little vote is meaningless.

So, you think that comparing Social Security and Medicare to Obama's health care bill is a good comparison? Let me guess, you're also one of the ones that thinks that comparing car insurance to Obama's health care bill is also a good comparison?

Actually the "little vote" in Missouri means that if this health care bill is going to be activated in Missouri it's going to have to be settled in court first. And I'm willing to bet that Missouri won't be the last state where that will happen.

Rick

 

[jillian]

I would love to know how many morons like you don't know the difference.

Rick

i'm not sure how that responds to what he said, rick.

but to get to the thread topic... the idiots in missouri who put this thing on the ballot must certainly realize that their little vote is meaningless.

So, you think that comparing Social Security and Medicare to Obama's health care bill is a good comparison? Let me guess, you're also one of the ones that thinks that comparing car insurance to Obama's health care bill is also a good comparison?

Actually the "little vote" in Missouri means that if this health care bill is going to be activated in Missouri it's going to have to be settled in court first. And I'm willing to bet that Missouri won't be the last state where that will happen.

Rick

it's a good comparison to the extent that the same basis exists for permitting the legislation. I think it's a good comparison to the extent that they go to societal welfare.

the health care bill will apply to missouri like every other federal law, assuming the law will be upheld like every other legislation of this sort.

it will all be put into one case and go to the supremes....

like i said, it wasn't bringing alegal challenge that i find amusing... it's the ridiculousness of thinking there is any meaning to their vote. legal challenges? that was bound to occur and that's what the courts are for.

 

[Zander]

i'm not sure how that responds to what he said, rick.

but to get to the thread topic... the idiots in missouri who put this thing on the ballot must certainly realize that their little vote is meaningless.

So, you think that comparing Social Security and Medicare to Obama's health care bill is a good comparison? Let me guess, you're also one of the ones that thinks that comparing car insurance to Obama's health care bill is also a good comparison?

Actually the "little vote" in Missouri means that if this health care bill is going to be activated in Missouri it's going to have to be settled in court first. And I'm willing to bet that Missouri won't be the last state where that will happen.

Rick

it's a good comparison to the extent that the same basis exists for permitting the legislation. I think it's a good comparison to the extent that they go to societal welfare.

the health care bill will apply to missouri like every other federal law, assuming the law will be upheld like every other legislation of this sort.

it will all be put into one case and go to the supremes....

like i said, it wasn't bringing alegal challenge that i find amusing... it's the ridiculousness of thinking there is any meaning to their vote. legal challenges? that was bound to occur and that's what the courts are for.

Sorry Jillian, but there is plenty of "meaning" to their vote. You'll understand more fully after November.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I would love to know how many on SS and Medicare voted against healthcare for all?

I would love to know how many morons like you don't know the difference.

Rick

i'm not sure how that responds to what he said, rick.

but to get to the thread topic... the idiots in missouri who put this thing on the ballot must certainly realize that their little vote is meaningless.

Jillian, my thought is that this places Missouri in much the same position, legally, as Virginia after Virginia passed the "Health Care Freedom" act earlier this year. The law basically protects Virginians from being forced to purchase health care coverage against their will. While we both understand that this necessarily invokes the Supremacy Clause and if it is decided the the Health care law is Constitutional, Virginia would lose, it has the early "benefit" of the health care law actually damaging Virginia by trampling its sovereign rights as a state. So said the court in Virginia. Therefore, not only was the case "ripe" but the judge found that it was the Attorney General's duty to sue for relief.

I belief, this vote in Missouri puts them in the same position and thus it is also the duty of the Attorney General of the state of Missouri to sue the Federal Government for relief. Far from being inconsequential I should think.

 

[Navy1960]

First to say that a healthcare bill wil lead to socialized medicine tends to forget the fact that we already have socialized medicine in the form of Medicare and state Medicaid which are in fact financially insolvent. It makes little sense IMHO to create yet another department withing the Federal Govt. to basically perform the same tasks as the insolvent one's without actually addressing the insolvency of existing ones to begin with. Still further it makes little sense to channel low income individuals into a program that is not only insolvent ( Medicaid ) but is a massive financial burden on the states , but from a delivery standpoint does nothing at all to imporve the quality of care. those that will find themselves in the state Medicaid programs will soon find their choices of Doctors limited as well as their healthcare delivery as well as the quality of care limited as well. There are many solutions that could have been tried IMO that would have resulted in a market place where healthcare could be purchased cheaply and one where there was heavy competetion for business , resulting in low cost. Still other things that could have been tried are the factors that result in the high costs in the first place, forgive me but it does seem rather one sided to try some solutions without trying others and expect a positive outcome. I for one am all in favor of helathcare reform , just not one that operates through Federal purchasing mandates, and one that IMO has the mechanisms already in place for healthcare services , although not perfect but plans to form a new one at the expense of the old one. Forgive me if I am of the opinion that a matter that effects every American should have the input and reflect the wishes of every Americans Representative in congress.

 

[Greenbeard]

Still other things that could have been tried are the factors that result in the high costs in the first place, forgive me but it does seem rather one sided to try some solutions without trying others and expect a positive outcome.

What would you like to see tried that isn't being tried in some form under this law?

 

[saveliberty]

Still other things that could have been tried are the factors that result in the high costs in the first place, forgive me but it does seem rather one sided to try some solutions without trying others and expect a positive outcome.

What would you like to see tried that isn't being tried in some form under this law?

Just because it is written in the law, doesn't mean it will happen or enforced. I refer you to immigration law.

 

[Bfgrn]

First to say that a healthcare bill wil lead to socialized medicine tends to forget the fact that we already have socialized medicine in the form of Medicare and state Medicaid which are in fact financially insolvent. It makes little sense IMHO to create yet another department withing the Federal Govt. to basically perform the same tasks as the insolvent one's without actually addressing the insolvency of existing ones to begin with. Still further it makes little sense to channel low income individuals into a program that is not only insolvent ( Medicaid ) but is a massive financial burden on the states , but from a delivery standpoint does nothing at all to imporve the quality of care. those that will find themselves in the state Medicaid programs will soon find their choices of Doctors limited as well as their healthcare delivery as well as the quality of care limited as well. There are many solutions that could have been tried IMO that would have resulted in a market place where healthcare could be purchased cheaply and one where there was heavy competetion for business , resulting in low cost. Still other things that could have been tried are the factors that result in the high costs in the first place, forgive me but it does seem rather one sided to try some solutions without trying others and expect a positive outcome. I for one am all in favor of helathcare reform , just not one that operates through Federal purchasing mandates, and one that IMO has the mechanisms already in place for healthcare services , although not perfect but plans to form a new one at the expense of the old one. Forgive me if I am of the opinion that a matter that effects every American should have the input and reflect the wishes of every Americans Representative in congress.

Navy...here is a premise to consider.

Health CARE will never fit well into a free market model. Think about it. Insurance corporations are not in the health CARE business, they are in the profit business. One way increase profit is to collect more premiums, but the BEST way to increase profits is to collect those premiums for years, and then DENY the expensive CARE catastrophic illness or injuries incur.

This is a moral issue that must be confronted.

 

[Samson]

Navy...here is a premise to consider.

Health CARE will never fit well into a free market model. Think about it. Insurance corporations are not in the health CARE business, they are in the profit business. One way increase profit is to collect more premiums, but the BEST way to increase profits is to collect those premiums for years, and then DENY the expensive CARE catastrophic illness or injuries incur.

This is a moral issue that must be confronted.

Navy, here is another premise to consider.

How long would you stay in the Health Insurance business by denying payments for expensive Health Care?

 

[Bfgrn]

Navy...here is a premise to consider.

Health CARE will never fit well into a free market model. Think about it. Insurance corporations are not in the health CARE business, they are in the profit business. One way increase profit is to collect more premiums, but the BEST way to increase profits is to collect those premiums for years, and then DENY the expensive CARE catastrophic illness or injuries incur.

This is a moral issue that must be confronted.

Navy, here is another premise to consider.

How long would you stay in the Health Insurance business by denying payments for expensive Health Care?

Yea pea brain...patients denied coverage protest by dying... a very outspoken advocacy group.

 

[Samson]

Navy...here is a premise to consider.

Health CARE will never fit well into a free market model. Think about it. Insurance corporations are not in the health CARE business, they are in the profit business. One way increase profit is to collect more premiums, but the BEST way to increase profits is to collect those premiums for years, and then DENY the expensive CARE catastrophic illness or injuries incur.

This is a moral issue that must be confronted.

Navy, here is another premise to consider.

How long would you stay in the Health Insurance business by denying payments for expensive Health Care?

Yea pea brain...patients denied coverage protest by dying... a very outspoken advocacy group.

Patients die, regardless of the quality or cost of care


It's called "Life Insurance" for a reason.

 

[Bfgrn]

Navy, here is another premise to consider.

How long would you stay in the Health Insurance business by denying payments for expensive Health Care?

Yea pea brain...patients denied coverage protest by dying... a very outspoken advocacy group.

Patients die, regardless of the quality or cost of care


It's called "Life Insurance" for a reason.

Hey asshole, why don't you try a different approach instead of your shoot from the hip right wing emote responses?

Try to educate yourself, I know it is foreign to you and it was never taught to you, but it actually works...

Start HERE...

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

Play close attention as this 20 year insurance corporation executive insider explains 'medical loss ratio'... it is REAL death panels, not the phony empty vessel Palin paranoia made up right wing hysteria.

Then pay close attention as he explains how the Republicans followed the Frank Luntz 'talking points' memo designed to terrorize citizens and undermine reform.

Get back to me OK pea brain?

 

[jillian]

Still other things that could have been tried are the factors that result in the high costs in the first place, forgive me but it does seem rather one sided to try some solutions without trying others and expect a positive outcome.

What would you like to see tried that isn't being tried in some form under this law?

Just because it is written in the law, doesn't mean it will happen or enforced. I refer you to immigration law.

which has what to do with the question asked?

 

[jillian]

Navy, here is another premise to consider.

How long would you stay in the Health Insurance business by denying payments for expensive Health Care?

Yea pea brain...patients denied coverage protest by dying... a very outspoken advocacy group.

Patients die, regardless of the quality or cost of care


It's called "Life Insurance" for a reason.

you can't really dispute the fact that insurance companies do, in fact, deny claims for the purpose of saving money or delaying payment while interest accrues on those funds. I think everyone in the insurance business will tell you that adjusters are supposed to deny a certain percentage of claims. if they don't they aren't doing their job.

perhaps you recall this case:

17-Year-Old Cancer Survivor Dies After Transplant Is Finally Approved By CIGNA - cbs2.com

particularly senstive to the death of their 17 year old were CIGNA worker who

After their conversation, employees heckled the group from a balcony; one man gave them the finger.

CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant