User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 171

  1. #141
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quite surprised. In fact I swear I read that it was overturned shortly before reading it was upheld.

    I consider it a good thing. I found the plan the Democrats came up with too weak to be comparable to the universal healthcare of other developed nations. A public option and non-profit basic care were things I desired, and while I know there was no chance in hell of this happening, abolition of medicare and medicaid would be crucial as a cost saving measure. Still, there aren't a hell of a lot of ways to provide universal health care, and the way Canada and Taiwan do it (with the single payer insurance) seemed acceptable. Had this been overturned it would have probably cast away any hope of a universal healthcare system.

    I'd still rather have the Bismarck model though...

    EDIT: Incidentally, I hate discussing whether or not healthcare is a right. I don't know, I don't care. There's no reason it should have to be a right for us to provide it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #142
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    EDIT: Incidentally, I hate discussing whether or not healthcare is a right. I don't know, I don't care. There's no reason it should have to be a right for us to provide it.
    I don't know if we'll ever have true universal healthcare in the US, but I could see us possibly modeling our healthcare system like public utilities. That might be something most Americans could find acceptable.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #143
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Regarding the original post jonnyboy quoted, I was responding to onemoretime's apparent insinuation that I wanted obamacare overturned because I oppose the policy on statutory grounds (i.e. I just plain dislike Obamacare), rather than Constitutional grounds (i.e. I think its an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers). I was trying to say I would never support the Supreme Court overturning a law simply because I didn't like the law in question.

    Edit: More generally, I was debating the validity of the Supreme Court decision, not the legal authority of that decision.
    You can't just say "I think it is an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers," and expect that to be an acceptable argument. It's an entirely tautological argument; you're saying that you think it is an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers either because it is an expansion of federal powers, or because it is unconstitutional. This is without even establishing that it is an expansion of federal powers to begin with.

    It is not merely enough to say that because the federal government is doing something new, it is expanding its powers. You must take both stare decisis and the canons of constitutional interpretation into account. If you disregard the latter, and simply say it's not directly like anything that's been done before in precedent, your argument is once again returned to it being an expansion of powers, simply because the government is doing something new. If based on this alone, you still argue that it is unconstitutional, then you are essentially arguing that it is unconstitutional because it is the government doing something new.

    In short, you are arguing that the government should not be doing anything new. That is a policy argument, one that you seem to show no willingness or desire to expand upon or strengthen with more rigorous constitutional analysis.

  4. #144
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Quite surprised. In fact I swear I read that it was overturned shortly before reading it was upheld.

    I consider it a good thing. I found the plan the Democrats came up with too weak to be comparable to the universal healthcare of other developed nations. A public option and non-profit basic care were things I desired, and while I know there was no chance in hell of this happening, abolition of medicare and medicaid would be crucial as a cost saving measure. Still, there aren't a hell of a lot of ways to provide universal health care, and the way Canada and Taiwan do it (with the single payer insurance) seemed acceptable. Had this been overturned it would have probably cast away any hope of a universal healthcare system.

    I'd still rather have the Bismarck model though...

    EDIT: Incidentally, I hate discussing whether or not healthcare is a right. I don't know, I don't care. There's no reason it should have to be a right for us to provide it.
    I wonder if you would elaborate on what I've highlighted, even if you hate discussing it Magic, I'm interested.

    Also good to see you posting again.

    I'm curious about the bismarck model of health insurance or health services, I'm only familiar with the NHS model, in its various incarnations, and the French model of totally private provision but annual tax revenue funded reimbursements and the private models in the US and ROI, I'm a little unsure about medicaid or medicare, how do they relate to the HMOs? I read about attempts to make medical professionals or providers more business or commercial saavy but that it just created a private managerial class who employed medics on lower wages. The UK would actually like to copy that practice, despite whatever consequences come with it, for political reasons.

  5. #145
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You can't just say "I think it is an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers," and expect that to be an acceptable argument.
    It's an entirely tautological argument; you're saying that you think it is an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers either because it is an expansion of federal powers, or because it is unconstitutional.

    This is without even establishing that it is an expansion of federal powers to begin with. It is not merely enough to say that because the federal government is doing something new, it is expanding its powers.

    You must take both stare decisis and the canons of constitutional interpretation into account.

    In short, you are arguing that the government should not be doing anything new.
    No, actually, I'm saying that its both unconstitutional (neither enumerated nor even reasonably implied in the Constitution) AND an expansion of federal powers.

    I asked you if there was a precedent for taxing economic inactivity; I never heard of it happening, and you, a lawyer-in-training, couldn't come up with any precedents. Until demonstrated otherwise, I'm assuming that means this is a new power previously unexercised by the federal government, and previously unrecognized by the Supreme Court. Hence, an expansion of federal powers.

    There is no precedent, and my method of Constitutional interpretation is originalism. Can you demonstrate that the taxation of economic inactivity is a valid interpretation of the Congress's enumerated (or reasonably implied) powers, in accordance with the manner in which taxing authority was understood at the time it was written?

    No, I'm saying the government should not be doing anything outside the parameters of its enumerated or reasonably implied powers. In this case, the Supreme Court has apparently never granted the government authority to tax economic inactivity, and doing so is neither enumerated nor reasonably implied by the text of the Constitution when evaluated through originalist criteria.

  6. #146
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #147
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raine_lynn View Post
    That was me, and you found it for the state of California. I don't live there, or even close. Trust me, I've looked into it and had a panic attack over it. I'm still trying to find options, but then again, we have until January 1st of 2014 (as it stands now).
    What are you paying for internet?

  8. #148
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    Eh, I get the 'greater good social responsibility' aspect but I think the whole RIGHT to healthcare is more pressing. In this democratic capitalist society, technically I don't have to make it easy for anyone else financially. I end up being a burden specifically because there's only 1 option of "look out for yourself". And if others can't take care of me, I am f*cked AND you are f*cked. Is that ironic because this Obamacare is supposed to stop that cycle?

    And that catastrophic event is unlikely and you and I both know it. It is a statistical um...outlier? Um...rare possibility. :P Which is what insurance companies build their businesses on. So my $90 minimum premium for my crappy emergency no preventative care coverage ends up covering someone else's preventative care and emergency but especially pays for the insurance companie's new private jet and whatever lobbyist got to the right lawmakers.

    So the "you're irresponsible if you don't get your own insurance" sounds hollow to me. If the money for insurance were coming out of taxes for some reason I just don't mind as much. But, basically conducting business as usual and calling it "a reform" just makes me bristle for some reason.

    And I haven't really found that to be true that people get scot free off of medical bills that are burdened onto others. Unless the people are transient or truly indigent (a true minority) and hard to track down. Both my ex and my brother have been hit with ridiculously large medical bills which have to be negotiated down. My ex had emergency heart surgery and was sent to ICU but there was a gap in her insurance through employee provider while they were changing companies so she was denied coverage after the fact. The bill was fucking laughably ridiculous like $145,000 (don't even remember other than it was 6 figures and blew our minds) and they negotiated down to $40,000 or something, it's just pulling magic numbers from the air. Might as well have been $1 million in both cases as she was borderline indigent as it was. My brother got hit with a $15,000 bill for 1 emergency room visit after the cheaper urgent care center said they lacked the equipment to test him but the emergency room didn't test him with that machinery either even though they had it AND they gave him a SEPARATE $400 bill or something for the doctor in the ER! Hilarious to me.

    The whole medical/health industry is screwy and jacked up. People from pretty much every other country visit and say WTF is everything so expensive in the states, why is it like that? My friend is a nurse and her MD friend who has her own clinic nets LESS than a nurse's salary after all the malpractic insurance etc. is factored in. Hospital bills make no sense and are basically aribtrary IMHO and need an expert to decode even the bills. It is almost a built-in adversarial, suspicious, unhelpful relationship between caregiver and patient. The only people who come to America for medical care are those special cases that make for tabloid TV - "I have 2 heads", "My twin is growing out of my stomach", "Please stop this giant tumor on my face from eating me" etc. where the insane nature of the medical condition trumps the insane price of medical treatment and it's "free".

    It's the same concept as emergency care, you keep getting denied preventative and minor triage care until you're almost dead and then you get medical care only enough to keep you alive so you can mount more debt and be hit with a giant bill you can't pay.

    Basically, I don't see how with this system ^^ telling people "don't worry, unless you are a senior citizen or qualify for medicaid, you will have to pay a lot more than you want for questionable coverage" helps anything. I honest to god just do not see big reforms happening. I've shopped for home insurance, car insurance ,life insurance, health insurance (heaven help you if you file a "minor" claim, it will always end up being more expensive for you in the long run than just paying out of pocket) often it's practically a $$$ scam.

    Gosh...I must be really pissed about this because I keep ranting.

    But...you get the picture.

    This Obamacare is NOTHING revolutionary or hopeful. Unless medical care and the private insurance industry are fundamentally changed, I tell you, we are f*cked.

    BTW, if the government actually provides a sliding scale for "Obamacare" and makes it EASY to get and subsidizes a fair amount then I will complain less then.
    Your post makes no rational sense. You state medical emergencies are extremely rare then promptly cite two personal examples.

    As to why the individual mandate is designed to lower costs, google "adverse selection".

  9. #149
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    There is no precedent, and my method of Constitutional interpretation is originalism.
    Whyyyyyy?

    Who gives a flying fuck what a bunch of slave-owning wannabe aristocrats think about government? They are dead and buried and don't live in our world. They aren't gods and their writings aren't scripture.

  10. #150
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Your post makes no rational sense. You state medical emergencies are extremely rare then promptly cite two personal examples.

    As to why the individual mandate is designed to lower costs, google "adverse selection".
    Did I not state I was ranting???!

    I was using the two examples not as cases of "rarity" but rather that neither of those people got off without paying anything, those bills will just follow them around and get paid slowly. And that was coupled with what I was saying about medicsl bills currently being grossly inflated and seemingly based on magic and fairy dust thanes than true cost. These cases also weren't true emergencies they were caused by a lack of preventative care and could be seen coming down the pipeline.

    Bottom line If the current private insurance and health care system doesn't change drastically I don't see how this is the big "win" that it's being touted as.

    So IYF!
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Should the US move towards universal health care?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 12-30-2009, 04:41 PM
  2. US House + health care bill
    By Usehername in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 11-15-2009, 04:23 PM
  3. Chuck Norris does not Approve of the Health Care Reform.
    By Gewitter27 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 03:45 PM
  4. SCOTUS affirms Heller decision!
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 09:40 PM
  5. Single Payor Health Care
    By INTJMom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO