PDA

View Full Version : ObamaCare at Supreme Court hearing



Jagermeister
03-27-2012, 02:57 PM
I am really surprised no one has wanted to talk about this.
Tons of stories on it today.


The man often known as the Supreme Court's swing justice posed tough questions about the scope of the controversial health care overhaul Tuesday, suggesting he might have doubts about its validity.

Justice Anthony Kennedy did not tip his hand as to how he might ultimately vote in the case -- a ruling is not expected until summer.

But on the most important day of hearings for the landmark case, the entirety of the bench was thoroughly engaged for a two-hour debate over the constitutional merits of President Obama's health care law. Based on the tenor of Tuesday's arguments, the justices appear to be closely divided and the case may ultimately come down to the views of Kennedy.

Kennedy, cutting to the heart of the debate over the so-called individual mandate -- which was the focus of Tuesday's hearing -- asked the federal government's attorney to explain what constitutional power the government had to force all Americans to obtain health insurance.

"Can you create commerce to regulate it?" Kennedy asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli. That question addressed a key issue in the case about whether Congress exceeded its regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause.

Later, Kennedy said the law was unique and felt it was "changing the relationship between the individual and the (federal) government." He acknowledged the Court normally gives Congress the benefit of the doubt on laws that it passes but in this instance there was a "heavy burden of justification" necessary for supporters of ObamaCare to prove its legal worth.

What's not clear is if the answers provided by Verrilli satisfied Kennedy's apparent doubts.

The comments and questions from the other justices generally suggested they would fall along familiar ideological divisions.

"The argument here is that this ... may be necessary, but it's not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers," Justice Antonin Scalia, considered to be on the conservative side of the bench, said at one point. "That it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What is left? If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?"

Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan, though, appeared to defend the law, seemingly echoing Verrilli's point by asking, "in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?"

At the start of his arguments, oddly interrupted by a scratchy throat, Verrilli plainly stated that "the Affordable Care Act addresses a fundamental and enduring problem in the health care system and economy."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/27/swing-justice-poses-tough-questions-on-obamacare-at-supreme-court-hearing/#ixzz1qLSOJeeD

Jagermeister
03-27-2012, 02:58 PM
Great argument.

Opponents of the individual mandate provision of President Obama's health care law contend that if the government can force you to buy health insurance, its powers of compulsion are virtually unlimited. Chief Justice John Roberts wonders what else Washington can force citizens to buy in this exchange:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So there is a market there. To -- in some extent, we all participate in it. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?

GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Mr. Chief Justice. think that's different. It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that as a market. This is a market. This is market regulation. And in addition, you have a situation in this market not only where people enter involuntarily as to when they enter and won't be able to control what they need when they enter but when they --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need. But when you do, and the government provides it.

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 10:04 AM
Well looks to me like this baby is going down. And it should.

jhale667
03-28-2012, 10:08 AM
Well looks to me like this baby is going down. And it should.


No, it doesn't yet, and no, it shouldn't - unless it's to be replaced with a single-payer plan. Love the logic behind "I'll gladly pay 10x more for something, just don't tell me I HAVE TO buy it!!" when you're gonna pay for it anyway...

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 10:12 AM
It's history dude.

ELVIS
03-28-2012, 10:16 AM
Obamacare going DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The federal government has no constitutional buisiness bureaucratizing american sick care or any other services we may or may not have as individual citizens...


:elvis:

Va Beach VH Fan
03-28-2012, 10:24 AM
Well, I can see the objections to making it mandatory to have health care insurance.

BUT, assuming those people who object don't get insurance themselves, what will they do when they get sick, regardless of the severity?

I mean, having a cold/fever is one thing, run down to the drugstore, no biggie....

But what if they eventually develop Type 2 Diabetes, as that's certainly not unrealistic? Or cancer?

Or other things that require blood work, x-rays, etc. ??

Are those same people going to just skip on down to the Emergency Room, where they know they won't be turned away ??

Matt White
03-28-2012, 10:27 AM
Of course they'll strike it down.............

these are the same Corporate Whores who rolled back Campaign Finance Laws to the Gilded age standards......................

Bought & Sold by Corporate America......................

jhale667
03-28-2012, 10:37 AM
Matt and VA both make excellent points, and to VA's - we're already paying for it when people like that go to the emergency room, so the "market" argument is unique - the people that don't want to buy insurance are still driving up costs for those of us that do.

And to Matt's - THAT's the thing that's disturbing... you can make the case for why it should be left to stand all day (makes more sense than striking it down on SO many levels), but as I heard it put this morning "We're not talking about 'honorable judges' - these are the same partisan hacks that approved Citizens United...".

ELVIS
03-28-2012, 10:55 AM
I don't even have a problem with some sort of basic mandatory insurance...

My argument is that it's not a federal issue, but a state issue...

Power needs to be kept away from the big federal burearcrats...

ELVIS
03-28-2012, 10:56 AM
Federal intervention will NOT cause health care costs to go down...

kwame k
03-28-2012, 11:00 AM
Considering the bill was written by lobbyist from the insurance companies and the pharma industries I'd like to see this law scrapped!

The sad thing is.....if this does get shot down the odds of us ever getting any true reform is gone:(

Just look at Max Baucus.....one of the co-authors;


.......Montana Democrat Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee and author of the main health bill—received donations not only from health care companies, but from the private lobbyists that represent those firms. Baucus alone received $1.5 million.Link (http://www.newser.com/story/70808/health-bill-author-baucus-reaps-15m-from-industry.html)

The health care industry pumped close to $400 million dollars into getting the bill to be exactly what they wanted........fucking assholes!

kwame k
03-28-2012, 11:01 AM
Federal intervention will NOT cause health care costs to go down...

Doing nothing has sure worked out great, too!

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 12:47 PM
Considering the bill was written by lobbyist from the insurance companies and the pharma industries I'd like to see this law scrapped!

The sad thing is.....if this does get shot down the odds of us ever getting any true reform is gone:(

Just look at Max Baucus.....one of the co-authors;

Link (http://www.newser.com/story/70808/health-bill-author-baucus-reaps-15m-from-industry.html)

The health care industry pumped close to $400 million dollars into getting the bill to be exactly what they wanted........fucking assholes!

What? lol this law was written by fucking Democrats!

Jesus H Christ!

FORD
03-28-2012, 01:08 PM
Opie Roberts is truly conflicted about this case.

On the one hand, he's a BCE appointee, so he's obligated to rule against a "Democratic" administration whenever possible. He couldn't even get the oath right, for fucks sake.

On the other hand, his record is 100% pro-corporatism. And in this case, ruling against the "Democratic" administration also means ruling against the predatory insurance industry.

I predict it will be a 5-4 decision, but not the usual kind, with the 5 BCE employees on one side and the Clinton/Obama appointees on the other. Opie Roberts himself may be the swing vote here.

Obviously if it were up to me, I'd say pull the plug on the whole damn thing and replace it with single payer.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 01:12 PM
What? lol this law was written by fucking Democrats!

Jesus H Christ!


If you believe that the bill wasn't written by pharma and the insurance companies read this Link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/themes/lobby.html)

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 01:48 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

Reporting from Washington—
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 01:51 PM
If you believe that the bill wasn't written by pharma and the insurance companies read this Link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/themes/lobby.html)

kwame if you believe that then open mouth and insert foot. Because it was the Goddamn Democratic controlled congress that rammed it through!

kwame k
03-28-2012, 01:58 PM
They worked with the lobbyists so the lobbyists wouldn't oppose the bill........Jesus Christ are you that dense:pullinghair:

Read the link I posted......it has all the key players talking about the lobbyists.

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 02:07 PM
They worked with the lobbyists so the lobbyists wouldn't oppose the bill........Jesus Christ are you that dense:pullinghair:

Read the link I posted......it has all the key players talking about the lobbyists.

Goddamn. So now you are saying that lobbyist are responsible for that horse shit bill and not the Democrats that rammed it though the house. Come on man. That bill was Obama's crowning achievement.

I read that and let's face it lobbyist are just part of the deal in Washington.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 02:11 PM
Where in the fuck did I say the Democrats didn't pass the bill and Obama signed it into law?

Obama tried to get the pharma and insurance companies on board so they wouldn't spend 100's of millions of dollars to crush the bill.

So in essence, the bill was passed on with their input.

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 02:31 PM
I can't do this anymore. I need a break. :(

Kristy
03-28-2012, 03:18 PM
Doing nothing has sure worked out great, too!

Speaking as someone who has been in debt due to lack of health insurance, I don't think Obamacare is the answer. For one, health care in this country especially in hospitals operate like a business and there is already enough red tape on how they can and cannot go about treating somebody. I find it odd that Obama speaks on and on about "free enterprise" and how he is for the little man and small business and then everything he can to destroy such principles. My roommate works in a hospital trying to finish up her candidacy in some bullshit patient care social work whatever it is and can tell you from what she's seen, hospitals are not these evil institutions that Obama would have you believe; the one she works at are genuinely concerned about the quality of care patients receive and money is not the motivating factor.

Most hopsitals have made great strides to keep patient cost down depsite what the insurance companies tell them such as turning off a light in a hallway after a certain hour. What gets me is that Obama would have you believe hospitals are greedy, but when you factor in operating cost, hopital theft by patients, their own insurance, and even to pay for E.R. security it adds up pretty fucking quick. I said this once about Obama and I'll say it again: the guy is pussy. He will attack hospital administration but will cower to insurance companies. Even though I voted for the guy over the past two years of his Administration the guy has left me more than disillusioned, not to say the Rethuglicans can do any better. Health care reform starts at the top: insurance companies and their corporate influence. Until Obama adresses that issue this is all a big waste of time, money and energy.

Nitro Express
03-28-2012, 03:26 PM
The money is not in providing the healthcare. The money is in selling the insurance and the drugs. Obamacare is nothing but a scam. It was written by certain connected insurance companies and drug companies. It also eliminates any privacy and the government becomes the decision maker instead of the doctor, the patient, and family. Obamacare is the Patriot Act of healthcare. It all sounds good but the actual results are more expense and a loss of freedom. Do you really want the same people who brought us constant wars and the TSA to be in charge of your healthcare?

Nitro Express
03-28-2012, 03:36 PM
No, it doesn't yet, and no, it shouldn't - unless it's to be replaced with a single-payer plan. Love the logic behind "I'll gladly pay 10x more for something, just don't tell me I HAVE TO buy it!!" when you're gonna pay for it anyway...

No we need to bail the banks out so they can continue to screw us and then bail them out again. We probably could run a government single payer health program on a fraction of what we waste on the banker bailouts and defense. Where I'm skeptical is can our hopelessly corrupt government manage such a system? I doubt it.

The real issue here is management. Your system is only as good as those who manage it. Like I said, we have a real leadership crises in this country in everything. Healthcare can be fixed, the financial system can be fixed. The problem is we don't seem to have the people or institutions capable of overseeing it. We just have a den of thieves. We probably could run a really good health care system surprisingly cheap if we had the right leadership and intelligence managing it. Leadership is a bigger problem than money is.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 03:38 PM
Speaking as someone who has been in debt due to lack of health insurance, I don't think Obamacare is the answer. For one, health care in this country especially in hospitals operate like a business and there is already enough red tape on how they can and cannot go about treating somebody. I find it odd that Obama speaks on and on about "free enterprise" and how he is for the little man and small business and then everything he can to destroy such principles. My roommate works in a hospital trying to finish up her candidacy in some bullshit patient care social work whatever it is and can tell you from what she's seen, hospitals are not these evil institutions that Obama would have you believe; the one she works at are genuinely concerned about the quality of care patients receive and money is not the motivating factor.

Most hopsitals have made great strides to keep patient cost down depsite what the insurance companies tell them such as turning off a light in a hallway after a certain hour. What gets me is that Obama would have you believe hospitals are greedy, but when you factor in operating cost, hopital theft by patients, their own insurance, and even to pay for E.R. security it adds up pretty fucking quick. I said this once about Obama and I'll say it again: the guy is pussy. He will attack hospital administration but will cower to insurance companies. Even though I voted for the guy over the past two years of his Administration the guy has left me more than disillusioned, not to say the Rethuglicans can do any better. Health care reform starts at the top: insurance companies and their corporate influence. Until Obama adresses that issue this is all a big waste of time, money and energy.

I hate the health care bill and I'm done with Obama!

He basically allowed the industry he was trying to reform, to write the reform:headlights:

You nailed the biggest problem in health care costs.....the insurance companies. Add in the pharma companies and that is where reform has to start. Hospitals are not the issue, usually, other than certain ones and their criminal billing practices, that bilk millions of dollars yearly for no services rendered.

For the most part it's affording the insurance that's the issue and affordable drugs, too!

Kristy
03-28-2012, 03:40 PM
It all sounds good but the actual results are more expense and a loss of freedom. Do you really want the same people who brought us constant wars and the TSA to be in charge of your healthcare?

Unfortunately, that is where it is headed. This whole ideal that healthcare is a "right" simply because you are a U.S. citizen is ridiculous. None of us really has a right to anything in this country except from what has already been stated within the Bill Of Rights itself. It's like me walking into a hardware store and having a right to rope (for um, my bondage experiments) all because I live here. Obama, for whatever reason, cannot grasp the concept of payment for service economics. Granted, there lies greed, corruption and deceit within our health care system but having thugs run the show instructing you on what you can and cannot have when it comes to your health is beyond Orwellian to me.

Switch84
03-28-2012, 03:44 PM
The money is not in providing the healthcare. The money is in selling the insurance and the drugs. Obamacare is nothing but a scam. It was written by certain connected insurance companies and drug companies. It also eliminates any privacy and the government becomes the decision maker instead of the doctor, the patient, and family. Obamacare is the Patriot Act of healthcare. It all sounds good but the actual results are more expense and a loss of freedom. Do you really want the same people who brought us constant wars and the TSA to be in charge of your healthcare?

You hit the nail on the head with that post, Nitro! I'm not comfortable with the idea of government "healthcare". It smacks too much of "1984" and I'm not talking about the Van Halen album, baby...

Can't trust it!

Kristy
03-28-2012, 03:44 PM
I hate the health care bill and I'm done with Obama!

I am too but the thought of Mitt and his unquestionable eagerness to get on his knees all primed and powered to suck on the tip of corporate cock scares me more. Really, nobody wins in this upcoming election.

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 03:53 PM
I am too but the thought of Mitt and his unquestionable eagerness to get on his knees all primed and powered to suck on the tip of corporate cock scares me more. Really, nobody wins in this upcoming election.

That's not true. The only way we lose is if Obama gets reelected. He had his chance and he has failed miserably. I can say that because I voted for him.

Kristy
03-28-2012, 03:57 PM
Riiiight, this corporate bought-and-sold monkey has "win" for the common man written all over him, just like Obama did.

Nitro Express
03-28-2012, 03:58 PM
Once the citizens figure out they can get something from the public treasury it's game over. I once talked with a former state governor and he said the most asked question he got is "what are you going to give me?" He said he felt like saying "I'm not giving you anything but I'm going to get the hell out of your way so you can pursue it." Yeah there is the time and place for government to step in if the private sector is endangering the public health or if abusive monopolies form. The thing is, the government now enables the abusive monopolies. That is exactly what Obamacare is. People will pay more money than ever on less care and the government will dictate to you what you can do with your own body.

It cracks me up the same people who bitch that the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body support Obamacare.

I think it's swung far enough. People have had enough. I think we are going to kick George Orwell off a cliff. It will be done at the city level, the county level, the state level. People will just say fuck you! and rebel. Then the big bad wolves in the federal government will have to decide how to counter that. Sure the scared fucks pretty much gave themselves the excuse to use the military to handle dissenters but that just pisses the people off more and then what troops are they going to exactly use? The troops hate the fucks currently in power. So I think this summer we are off to the races and the pendulum starts to swing the other way. Things will start to go local again. People are just tired of the big multinational corporations and their bought off government cronies. People are tired of fighting their wars for profit and taking it up the ass from them. People are tired of the politicians running up debt and then being stuck with the bill.

So we will be in a few years of flux here. The system is broke and it's currently ran by a bunch of gangsters and we have to say enough is enough. They will make threats and act like assholes but their bark probably is bigger than their bite because nobody likes them and nobody wants to serve them except for a few asshole mercenaries.

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 04:02 PM
Riiiight, this corporate bought-and-sold monkey has "win" for the common man written all over him, just like Obama did.



I understand your concern. But you have to realize 4 more years of Obama will be the downfall of this country. Mitt is a successful business man. Obama isn't. Hell he's not even a successful politician.

I'm telling you if he Mitt wins the nomination, which I think he will, then the election then we take back the Senate, which we will, it's game on. Then we can make some fucking changes and get some shit done.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 04:08 PM
I am too but the thought of Mitt and his unquestionable eagerness to get on his knees all primed and powered to suck on the tip of corporate cock scares me more. Really, nobody wins in this upcoming election.

Yep, the only way Obama will get my vote is if Mitt does something stupid like pick Frothy as his running mate.......other than that, I guess we'll see what 3rd party losers come out of the woodwork:(

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 04:13 PM
Yep, the only way Obama will get my vote is if Mitt does something stupid like pick Frothy as his running mate.......other than that, I guess we'll see what 3rd party losers come out of the woodwork:(

lol!!!

It's going to be ok.

Nitro Express
03-28-2012, 04:14 PM
It's time people wake up and see the whole presidential race thing is rigged. We have gone years thinking oh this next president will fix it or this next one will. You get the same CFR people in the cabinets no matter who wins. Obama probably behind the scenes is good friends with the Bush family. The game is rigged and has been for a long time. So what we do is go back to the Republic. The system is set up if the Federal Government goes nuts and becomes a dictatorship which it really has since you can't vote the current corporate power structure out of office the power has to go back to the states. We may have a constitutional convention in the near future. The checks and balances are no longer working nor is the electoral process. It has become taken over by inter twined multinational corporations and the government is working hand in hand with them to take all commerce over. It's fascism. This is not a functioning constitutional republic at the federal level anymore. It's has morphed into a corporate democracy (the wolves vote on what sheep they are going to eat) that is committing treason against the constitution that protects the individual from the wolves.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 04:18 PM
I'm telling you if he Mitt wins the nomination, which I think he will, then the election then we take back the Senate, which we will, it's game on. Then we can make some fucking changes and get some shit done.

"The Senate Republicans of the 111th Congress again broke the record for the number of filibusters in a session, passing 100 cloture votes in the first eleven months."

Boy, can't wait to see what they do when the President is a Repuke:lmao:

kwame k
03-28-2012, 04:19 PM
lol!!!

It's going to be ok.

I know.....even when Obama gets reelected we'll still survive;)

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 04:23 PM
"The Senate Republicans of the 111th Congress again broke the record for the number of filibusters in a session, passing 100 cloture votes in the first eleven months."

Boy, can't wait to see what they do when the President is a Repuke:lmao:

Which is worse?:)

111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 04:23 PM
I know.....even when Obama gets reelected we'll still survive;)

I'm not sure about that.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 04:28 PM
Which is worse?:)

111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.

Yet, you want to keep the Republican majority and put a corporate whore like Mitt in the driver's seat:headlights:

kwame k
03-28-2012, 04:30 PM
I'm not sure about that.

Obama's going to win in Nov..........too early to call but I don't think the Repukes are going to keep their seats that are up this time.

People are fed up and historically, during a recession, their votes swing all over the map!

private parts
03-28-2012, 04:50 PM
Answer me this. These people who won't buy insurance get a penalty on their tax returns right? They're still not going to buy the insurance
and they ain't going to pay the penalty- they don't file tax returns. And they're still going to go to the emergency room for free treatment.
How the hell is that going to work?

kwame k
03-28-2012, 04:53 PM
Not sure but remember just because you don't file doesn't mean the IRS doesn't know the amount of your return.....the only wild card would be your deductions.

So they could take that money from you even if you don't file........unless you didn't pay Fed taxes, of course.

jhale667
03-28-2012, 04:54 PM
That's not true. The only way we lose is if Obama gets reelected.


Bullsh*t. "Downfall of this country"...geez, step away from the FAUX News talking points slowly, will ya?? Mittens would be far worse, and Frothy....holy crap.

jhale667
03-28-2012, 04:56 PM
Answer me this. These people who won't buy insurance get a penalty on their tax returns right? They're still not going to buy the insurance
and they ain't going to pay the penalty- they don't file tax returns. And they're still going to go to the emergency room for free treatment.
How the hell is that going to work?


Probably the same as if you don't pay taxes owed on a return...payroll garnishment. They'll get your money one way or the other.

FORD
03-28-2012, 05:00 PM
Bullsh*t. "Downfall of this country"...geez, step away from the FAUX News talking points slowly, will ya?? Mittens would be far worse, and Frothy....holy crap.

And Ron Paul with a teabagger Congress might be worst of all, at least domestically.

private parts
03-28-2012, 05:00 PM
Probably the same as if you don't pay taxes owed on a return...payroll garnishment. They'll get your money one way or the other.

And if you don't work....?

Jagermeister
03-28-2012, 05:03 PM
And if you don't work....?

Obama will take care of you.

private parts
03-28-2012, 05:04 PM
obama will take care of you.

bingo! Nanny state

Etienne
03-28-2012, 05:05 PM
In Switzerland it's obligatory for every citizen to have a healthcare insurance, and we are doing well.

:peep:

private parts
03-28-2012, 05:07 PM
In Switzerland it's obligatory for every citizen to have a healthcare insurance, and we are doing well.

:peep:

What happens if you don't get insurance?

kwame k
03-28-2012, 05:09 PM
And if you don't work....?

Then you'd get an exemption.........

Not every single person in the US will have to get coverage.

If you're below a certain income level you're exempt and there's other hardship exemptions, too.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 05:10 PM
What happens if you don't get insurance?

They send you to Austria;)

kwame k
03-28-2012, 05:13 PM
In Switzerland it's obligatory for every citizen to have a healthcare insurance, and we are doing well.

:peep:

The fact that almost all other industrial nations have some type of universal health care is lost on the majority of people who oppose it here:(

FORD
03-28-2012, 05:23 PM
In Switzerland it's obligatory for every citizen to have a healthcare insurance, and we are doing well.

:peep:

Could you give us a brief explanation of how the Switzerland system works?

It's my understanding that you have a private insurance system there, but also that insurance companies are tightly regulated, and are required to be not for profit corporations.

Is that correct?

Etienne
03-28-2012, 05:29 PM
What happens if you don't get insurance?

In Switzerland the insurance companies have to gather you. No matter how old or sick. It's written law.

Etienne
03-28-2012, 05:41 PM
Could you give us a brief explanation of how the Switzerland system works?

It's my understanding that you have a private insurance system there, but also that insurance companies are tightly regulated, and are required to be not for profit corporations.

Is that correct?

In Switzerland insurance companies are profit corporations.

Tightly regulated? Maybe more than a company of the other industry segments.

kwame k
03-28-2012, 05:46 PM
How would you rate your health care system overall, Etienne?

Nitro Express
03-28-2012, 05:49 PM
In Switzerland the insurance companies have to gather you. No matter how old or sick. It's written law.

Switzerrland has a mandated private insurance law. I read about it in Time magazine while I was having my car's oil changed. The thing is, it's the quality of government that manages the system. This is what nobody seems to get through their heads. Hell. Even communism can be a paradise if you have a benevolent being running the show and everyone likes what they get. Until we get some proper leadership in the government nothing is going to work because a system is only as good as who manages it.

Switzerland is a small rich country that doesn't have the immigration issues we do because you can only become a citizen of Switzerland if both your parents are citizens. That eliminates a ton of problems right there.

FORD
03-28-2012, 05:56 PM
From Wikipedia....



Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.

Regulations also restrict the allowable policies and profits that a private insurer may offer, as noted by healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt in a review in JAMA. Reinhardt writes that,

"To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).

Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."

In light of that info, here's an interesting graph (also from the Wikipedia page)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_ PPP.png

Notice how even with these reasonable regulations, the Swiss system (while obviously far better a value than the US clusterfuck) is somewhat more expensive than the single-payer systems in the other countries.

Bottom line is that health care should not be a profitable industry. It should be about preventing illness whenever possible, curing it when it is not, and treating it when a cure is impossible.

Etienne
03-28-2012, 05:57 PM
How would you rate your health care system overall, Etienne?

I'm very pleased like it is right now.

There are talks about to take the insurance companies from the free market and build one big monolith company (non-free market).

But I disagree, I'm not a communist.

Again, I'm happy like it is.

Etienne
03-28-2012, 07:19 PM
... Switzerland is a small rich country that doesn't have the immigration issues we do because you can only become a citizen of Switzerland if both your parents are citizens. That eliminates a ton of problems right there.

As far as I know only one of your parents must be swiss citizen.

Oh, we do have immigration issues, believe me. Naturalization is always a hot topic.

ELVIS
03-28-2012, 07:45 PM
Bottom line is that health care should not be a profitable industry. It should be about preventing illness whenever possible, curing it when it is not, and treating it when a cure is impossible.

That's never going to happen...

Preventing illness is a personal choice and responsibility that is based on lifestyle...

There is no such thing as "healthcare" that prevents illness...

Also there is rarely a cure for any illness beyond again, personal choice and responsibility...

Treatment is the only thing you will ever get from any sick care system whether the government is involved or not...


And the only thing the federal government sees is the dollar signs...


:elvis:

Etienne
03-28-2012, 09:21 PM
I don't even have a problem with some sort of basic mandatory insurance...

My argument is that it's not a federal issue, but a state issue...

Power needs to be kept away from the big federal burearcrats...

But you think every US citizen should have a basic mandatory insurance?



...
Treatment is the only thing you will ever get from any sick care system whether the government is involved or not...
...

And that would be more than enough. Problem solved.

Nitro Express
03-28-2012, 09:43 PM
In the US healthcare was never a issue until 1990 when the prices started skyrocketing. What happened is the stocks corporations issued were being purchased by funds. We didn't have mutual funds until the 1970's. Before that there were individual stock holders and they voted by proxy on company issues. Once funds owned the majority of the stocks, financial institutions took over the boards of these corporations instead of individual stock holders. Then the corruption games began. We saw CEO pay skyrocket. We saw golden parachutes. We saw people who ruined companies have no problem finding another corporate CEO job. Prices in healthcare and the prices of drugs began to sky rocket during this time as well.

Where I grew up we had a county hospital. If you were a citizen of the country they admitted you and you had reasonable hospital costs. If you couldn't pay they charged the others who could. Since it was a decent community that wasn't really abused. My dad was on the hospital board and the system worked really well. There was no need for big government healthcare because the local system was working well.

Most of the hospitals were either ran by the county or a church. My mom was a nurse and she used to work at a catholic hospital. When I was a student in college I had full medical coverage for $35 a semester. When I got married and we had our first child, my work provided our healthcare and the delivery cost me nothing. Healthcare was not a problem until recently.

IceCreamBlondie
03-29-2012, 12:08 AM
In the US healthcare was never a issue until 1990 when the prices started skyrocketing. What happened is the stocks corporations issued were being purchased by funds. We didn't have mutual funds until the 1970's. Before that there were individual stock holders and they voted by proxy on company issues. Once funds owned the majority of the stocks, financial institutions took over the boards of these corporations instead of individual stock holders. Then the corruption games began. We saw CEO pay skyrocket. We saw golden parachutes. We saw people who ruined companies have no problem finding another corporate CEO job. Prices in healthcare and the prices of drugs began to sky rocket during this time as well.

Where I grew up we had a county hospital. If you were a citizen of the country they admitted you and you had reasonable hospital costs. If you couldn't pay they charged the others who could. Since it was a decent community that wasn't really abused. My dad was on the hospital board and the system worked really well. There was no need for big government healthcare because the local system was working well.

Most of the hospitals were either ran by the county or a church. My mom was a nurse and she used to work at a catholic hospital. When I was a student in college I had full medical coverage for $35 a semester. When I got married and we had our first child, my work provided our healthcare and the delivery cost me nothing. Healthcare was not a problem until recently.


Thanks for the history lesson, Nitro.... I didn't realize this. Much appreciated.

FORD
03-29-2012, 02:20 AM
In the US healthcare was never a issue until 1990 when the prices started skyrocketing. What happened is the stocks corporations issued were being purchased by funds. We didn't have mutual funds until the 1970's. Before that there were individual stock holders and they voted by proxy on company issues. Once funds owned the majority of the stocks, financial institutions took over the boards of these corporations instead of individual stock holders. Then the corruption games began. We saw CEO pay skyrocket. We saw golden parachutes. We saw people who ruined companies have no problem finding another corporate CEO job. Prices in healthcare and the prices of drugs began to sky rocket during this time as well.

And this is exactly why we need a single payer system. The profit motive must be removed from the equation completely. Theoretically, we could go with the Swiss model, but that would require Congress to regulate the insurance companies, which would be the polar opposite of anything they have done since 1980.

Much easier to open Medicare to everyone, kill the insurance industry altogether. The Norquist bathtub cult would call it a "tax increase", but it's better than paying "taxes" to pig billionaire CEOs, and even after that, still having to fight their attempts to dodge paying your claims.

Nitro Express
03-29-2012, 06:29 AM
It's not going to happen with all the crooks in power. It's gotten to where they are just freezing peoples accounts and stealing their money. Look at what happened at MF Global and nothing has been done. That's because a big financial backer of Obama did the stealing. The government isn't protecting our investments why should they care about our health? Until we return to a rule of law we can't do anything. The politicians are getting filthy rich on lobby money and insider trading. The Justice Department sells weapons to drug lords and does nothing about crimes against us citizens while the banks are stealing investors accounts. We have no functioning financial system because you can't trust it because it's ran by crooks in bed with the regulators. It's like saying you want Charles Manson in charge of your health care.

ELVIS
03-29-2012, 09:20 AM
Obamacare combined with the Patriot Act and TSA means complete control and manipulation of the people...

It's worse than putting Charles Manson in control...

It's more like Hitler...


:elvis:

Jagermeister
03-29-2012, 09:57 AM
And this is exactly why we need a single payer system. The profit motive must be removed from the equation completely. Theoretically, we could go with the Swiss model, but that would require Congress to regulate the insurance companies, which would be the polar opposite of anything they have done since 1980.

Much easier to open Medicare to everyone, kill the insurance industry altogether. The Norquist bathtub cult would call it a "tax increase", but it's better than paying "taxes" to pig billionaire CEOs, and even after that, still having to fight their attempts to dodge paying your claims.

How would that work exactly?

I am all for fixing the problem. Health insurance is a racket. I don't know anyone anymore who when asked about there health insurance says it's great.

ELVIS
03-29-2012, 10:43 AM
How can you say open medicare to everyone when the politicians keep telling us medicare will be bankrupt in so many years...

They steal the money to start illegal wars !!

FORD
03-29-2012, 12:33 PM
How can you say open medicare to everyone when the politicians keep telling us medicare will be bankrupt in so many years...

They steal the money to start illegal wars !!

Well, stop voting for the BCE then! (And now that Poppy and Jeb have both endorsed the same candidate, it is very obvious that the Kolob dog abuser is officially the BCE candidate for 2012.)

Medicare would have a lot more money, obviously, if everyone was paying into it. The size of the "risk pool" is always important with any sort of insurance, and if Medicare became the national single payer system, that would be a risk pool of over 300 million.

Your idea of "fearing the federal government and leaving it all up to the states" wouldn't work too well with this idea, because then you would have 50 different pools of various sizes. And how would Wyoming (for example) compare with California when there's a huge difference in population.

Federal government as an entity is not the problem. Putting corrupt right wing assholes in charge of it is. But fixing that involves repealing Shittyzens United, smashing every last Diebold machine on the planet, repealing every last destructive deregulation of the last 30 years, and a number of other things that are entirely another discussion from the subject of this thread.

ELVIS
03-29-2012, 12:42 PM
And how would Wyoming (for example) compare with California when there's a huge difference in population.


You're making my argument for me...

They shouldn't compare...

A one size fits all healthcare system will never be fair and costs will skyrocket...

Nitro Express
03-29-2012, 12:54 PM
And how would Wyoming (for example) compare with California when there's a huge difference in population.

Since Wyoming has the best bond rating in the nation and California has the worst I say we would be able to take care of our little population just fine. It was a big tax and spend government that took the richest state in the country and broke it. California has been horribly mismanaged.

Before we even talk about healthcare we have to get the crooks out of government. They are robbing this country blind. Now they are just stealing directly from peoples accounts.

Nitro Express
03-29-2012, 01:00 PM
Obamacare combined with the Patriot Act and TSA means complete control and manipulation of the people...

It's worse than putting Charles Manson in control...

It's more like Hitler...


:elvis:

Yup. It's fascism. If it can't be fixed with an election it goes to the states and there will be a big fight between the feds and the states or certain ones. A situation we haven't been in since the civil war. The leash has been pulled from the people's grasp and now the federal government is running wild down the sidewalk biting people along the way. Don't forget the Defense Authorization Act. In Europe and North America mathmatically the bankers lose. The European Union has more debt than the Gross National Product of planet earth and so does the US. The banks are for all real purposes broke. So in desperation they grab political power and they are just going to try and take over and make everyone slaves. In Europe Spain, Ireland, and Iceland have told them to fuck off. Notice no body has invaded these countries yet. I doubt the states will be invaded when we tell the Federal Government and it's banking cronies to fuck off. It's the corrupt portion of the 1%. There are very few of these people and the good thing is we know who they are. They are scared of us. That is why they have all their political cronies passing these laws to scare people from rising up. All it would take to change things is throwing some old men in jail. Most of the fuckwits are old geriatrics ready to kick it anyways. We can start with H.W. Bush. That would make Ford happy.

ELVIS
03-29-2012, 01:57 PM
Yeah, but the general population doesn't care...

They're more worried about playing angry birds and watching Idol than stuff that actually matters...

I went to my wife's cousins house months ago and I asked if I could watch the debates while they played cards...

There were a handfull of people there in their mid 20s and a few older people...

Nobody knew the candidates except a few recognized Newt...

But they all agreed Iran has nukes and wants to attack Israel and the US...

That's the fucking problem in a nutshell...


:elvis:

Bob_R
03-29-2012, 02:07 PM
Obama sucks! He turned out to be a typical politician with all these political promises when he was running and then when he gets in office. Nada.

As I've mentioned numerous times before I am far from a political expert but this is what I former co-worker of mine wrote on Facebook today:

I urge all people regardless of party to be against Obama Care because the bill has a lot more in in that takes away our freedom... on example in the bill it gives the government the right to take your savings account funds if they so deem its necessary to help the debt... also it excludes illegal aliens from paying any part of the debt, while we the tax payer pays for their health benefit.... we need to get rid of the socialist attitude of our Senate starting with Senator Reed and the rest of the socialist like Ms. Walters and Ms. Boxer from California. In the Congress first one to go should be Ms. Palosi.

Fuck him! (meaning Obama)

knuckleboner
03-30-2012, 12:52 AM
What? lol this law was written by fucking Democrats!

Jesus H Christ!

no it wasn't. the progressives HATE this bill.

the fact that some people still call it socialized medicine only goes to show you that the republican spin machine was on its game last congress. but this bill is in NO WAY the bill most democrats wanted. once republicans made it clear that their goal was simply to stop whatever the democrats were doing (like opposing a plan that mimicked the conserative heritage foundation's recommendations) moderate democrats began to peel off, and the only way to hold a majority was a fairly industry-friendly bill.

knuckleboner
03-30-2012, 12:53 AM
Obama sucks! He turned out to be a typical politician with all these political promises when he was running and then when he gets in office. Nada.

As I've mentioned numerous times before I am far from a political expert but this is what I former co-worker of mine wrote on Facebook today:

I urge all people regardless of party to be against Obama Care because the bill has a lot more in in that takes away our freedom... on example in the bill it gives the government the right to take your savings account funds if they so deem its necessary to help the debt... also it excludes illegal aliens from paying any part of the debt, while we the tax payer pays for their health benefit.... we need to get rid of the socialist attitude of our Senate starting with Senator Reed and the rest of the socialist like Ms. Walters and Ms. Boxer from California. In the Congress first one to go should be Ms. Palosi.

Fuck him! (meaning Obama)

actually, you should be saying "fuck my friend's completely false facebook post." because none of what it says is true.

ELVIS
03-30-2012, 09:54 AM
Obamacare dies TODAY !!!

YIPPIE !!!


:biggrin:

sadaist
03-30-2012, 09:56 AM
Obamacare dies TODAY !!!

YIPPIE !!!


:biggrin:


Argh!

Why they have to wait until June? I guarantee They let it slip to Obama hat the decision is. Fuckers. I wanna know NOW!

I also wanna see the pics of Osama Bin Ladins brains hanging out.

sadaist
03-30-2012, 10:02 AM
I was thinking about this yesterday....say Obamacare is passed. Then everyone is required by law to have insurance. Does that mean all motorcycle helmet laws will be automatically repealed? Since those were put in place because uninsured riders could get injured and cost us all a ton of money. At least that was the excuse to have yet another freedom taken away. So with Obamacare you have your own insurance, you should be free to ride a motorcycle without a helmet if you so choose, right?

ELVIS
03-30-2012, 10:09 AM
The state has no use for you, Mr. Sadist !!!


:biggrin:

Etienne
03-30-2012, 10:40 AM
A long way to go to social equity concerning medicare for all.

:argue:

ELVIS
03-30-2012, 11:12 AM
Medicare is partly to blame for skyrocketing costs...

On top of that, the fraud and abuse of medicare is rampant and runs in the billions of dollars each year doing nothing but lining the pockets of crooks while denying preferred care to those that need it...

Imagine the abuse in a huge medicare monopoly that supposedly covers everybody...

It's a recipe for disaster, and anyone who works in the sick-care field will tell you that...except the vultures looking to get rich from it...


:elvis:

Etienne
03-30-2012, 11:45 AM
What is your solution to the problem, ELVIS?

Jagermeister
03-30-2012, 11:56 AM
no it wasn't. the progressives HATE this bill.

the fact that some people still call it socialized medicine only goes to show you that the republican spin machine was on its game last congress. but this bill is in NO WAY the bill most democrats wanted. once republicans made it clear that their goal was simply to stop whatever the democrats were doing (like opposing a plan that mimicked the conserative heritage foundation's recommendations) moderate democrats began to peel off, and the only way to hold a majority was a fairly industry-friendly bill.

America's health care reform through history
WASHINGTON — The three days of arguments beginning before the Supreme Court on Monday may mark a turning point in a century of debate over what role the government should play in helping all Americans afford medical care. A look at the issue through the years:

1912:

Former President Theodore Roosevelt champions national health insurance as he tries to ride his progressive Bull Moose party back to the White House. It's an idea ahead of its time; health insurance is a rarity and medical fees are relatively low because doctors cannot do much for most patients. But medical breakthroughs are beginning to revolutionize hospitals and drive up costs. Roosevelt loses the race.

1929:

Baylor Hospital in Texas originates group health insurance. Dallas teachers pay 50 cents a month to cover up to 21 days of hospital care per year. The plan grows into Blue Cross.

1932:

After five years of work, doctors, economists and hospital administrators on the independent Committee on the Costs of Medical Care publish their report about the increasing costs of health care and the number of people going untreated. They say health care should be available to all.

1935:

Americans struggle to pay for medical care amid the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt favors creating national health insurance, but decides to push for Social Security first. He never gets the health program passed.

1942:

Roosevelt establishes wage and price controls as part of the nation's emergency response to World War II. Businesses can't attract workers with higher pay so instead they compete through added benefits, including health insurance, which unexpectedly grows into a workplace perk. Workplace plans get a boost the following year when the government says it won't tax employers' contributions to employee health insurance.

1945:

Saying medical care is a right of all Americans, President Harry Truman calls on Congress to create a national insurance program for those who pay voluntary fees. The American Medical Association denounces the idea as "socialized medicine." Truman tries for years but can't get it passed.

1960:

John F. Kennedy makes health care a major campaign issue but as president can't get a plan for the elderly through Congress.

1965:

Medicare for people age 65 and older and Medicaid for the poor signed into law. President Lyndon B. Johnson's legendary arm-twisting and a Congress dominated by his fellow Democrats succeeded in creating the kind of landmark health care programs that eluded his predecessors.

1971:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., offers his proposal for a government-run plan to be financed through payroll taxes.

1974:

President Richard Nixon puts forth a plan to cover all Americans through private insurers. Employers would be required to cover their workers and federal subsidies would help others buy insurance. The Watergate scandal intervenes.

1976:

Jimmy Carter pushes a mandatory national health plan, but a deep economic recession helps push it aside.

1986:

Congress passes and President Ronald Reagan signs into law COBRA, a requirement that employers let former workers stay on the company health care plan for 18 months after leaving a job, with the worker bearing the cost.

1988:

Congress expands Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit and catastrophic care coverage. It doesn't last long. Barraged by protests from older people upset about paying a tax to finance the additional coverage, Congress repeals the law the next year.

1992:

Helping the uninsured becomes a big issue of the Democratic primaries and spills over into the general election. Democrat Bill Clinton wants to require businesses to provide insurance to their employees, with the government helping everyone else; Republican President George H.W. Bush proposes tax breaks to make it easier to afford insurance.

1993:

Newly elected, Clinton puts first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in charge of developing what becomes a 1,300-page plan for universal coverage. It requires businesses to cover their workers and mandates that everyone have insurance. The plan meets strong Republican opposition, divides congressional Democrats and comes under a firestorm of lobbying from businesses and the health care industry. It never gets to a vote in the Democrat-led Senate.

2003:

President George W. Bush persuades Congress to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare in a major expansion of Johnson's "Great Society" program for seniors.

2008:

Hillary Rodham Clinton makes a sweeping health care plan, including a requirement that everyone have coverage, central to her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She loses to Barack Obama, who promotes his own less comprehensive plan.

2009:

Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress spend an intense year ironing out a compromise that requires companies other than very small businesses to cover their workers, mandates that everyone have insurance or pay a fine, requires insurance companies to accept all comers, regardless of any pre-existing conditions, and assists people who can't afford insurance.

2010:

Congress passes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, designed to extend health care coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people. Obama signs it into law March 23.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The three days of arguments beginning before the Supreme Court on Monday may mark a turning point in a century of debate over what role the government should play in helping all Americans afford medical care. A look at the issue through the years:

1912:

Former President Theodore Roosevelt champions national health insurance as he tries to ride his progressive Bull Moose party back to the White House. It's an idea ahead of its time; health insurance is a rarity and medical fees are relatively low because doctors cannot do much for most patients. But medical breakthroughs are beginning to revolutionize hospitals and drive up costs. Roosevelt loses the race.

1929:

Baylor Hospital in Texas originates group health insurance. Dallas teachers pay 50 cents a month to cover up to 21 days of hospital care per year. The plan grows into Blue Cross.

1932:

After five years of work, doctors, economists and hospital administrators on the independent Committee on the Costs of Medical Care publish their report about the increasing costs of health care and the number of people going untreated. They say health care should be available to all.

1935:

Americans struggle to pay for medical care amid the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt favors creating national health insurance, but decides to push for Social Security first. He never gets the health program passed.

1942:

Roosevelt establishes wage and price controls as part of the nation's emergency response to World War II. Businesses can't attract workers with higher pay so instead they compete through added benefits, including health insurance, which unexpectedly grows into a workplace perk. Workplace plans get a boost the following year when the government says it won't tax employers' contributions to employee health insurance.

1945:

Saying medical care is a right of all Americans, President Harry Truman calls on Congress to create a national insurance program for those who pay voluntary fees. The American Medical Association denounces the idea as "socialized medicine." Truman tries for years but can't get it passed.

1960:

John F. Kennedy makes health care a major campaign issue but as president can't get a plan for the elderly through Congress.

1965:

Medicare for people age 65 and older and Medicaid for the poor signed into law. President Lyndon B. Johnson's legendary arm-twisting and a Congress dominated by his fellow Democrats succeeded in creating the kind of landmark health care programs that eluded his predecessors.

1971:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., offers his proposal for a government-run plan to be financed through payroll taxes.

1974:

President Richard Nixon puts forth a plan to cover all Americans through private insurers. Employers would be required to cover their workers and federal subsidies would help others buy insurance. The Watergate scandal intervenes.

1976:

Jimmy Carter pushes a mandatory national health plan, but a deep economic recession helps push it aside.

1986:

Congress passes and President Ronald Reagan signs into law COBRA, a requirement that employers let former workers stay on the company health care plan for 18 months after leaving a job, with the worker bearing the cost.

1988:

Congress expands Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit and catastrophic care coverage. It doesn't last long. Barraged by protests from older people upset about paying a tax to finance the additional coverage, Congress repeals the law the next year.

1992:

Helping the uninsured becomes a big issue of the Democratic primaries and spills over into the general election. Democrat Bill Clinton wants to require businesses to provide insurance to their employees, with the government helping everyone else; Republican President George H.W. Bush proposes tax breaks to make it easier to afford insurance.

1993:

Newly elected, Clinton puts first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in charge of developing what becomes a 1,300-page plan for universal coverage. It requires businesses to cover their workers and mandates that everyone have insurance. The plan meets strong Republican opposition, divides congressional Democrats and comes under a firestorm of lobbying from businesses and the health care industry. It never gets to a vote in the Democrat-led Senate.

2003:

President George W. Bush persuades Congress to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare in a major expansion of Johnson's "Great Society" program for seniors.

2008:

Hillary Rodham Clinton makes a sweeping health care plan, including a requirement that everyone have coverage, central to her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She loses to Barack Obama, who promotes his own less comprehensive plan.

2009:

Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress spend an intense year ironing out a compromise that requires companies other than very small businesses to cover their workers, mandates that everyone have insurance or pay a fine, requires insurance companies to accept all comers, regardless of any pre-existing conditions, and assists people who can't afford insurance.

2010:

Congress passes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, designed to extend health care coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people. Obama signs it into law March 23.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501704_162-57403422/americas-health-care-reform-through-history/

Jagermeister
03-30-2012, 12:03 PM
PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against.[9] It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.[10]

Jagermeister
03-30-2012, 12:28 PM
The more I read about this act the madder it makes me. As much as it pains me to say it I did find some info that lends credibility to kickme's lobbyist crap. I'm not posting it though out of spite. :)

FORD
04-01-2012, 01:26 PM
GOP Attorney General Suing Over Obamacare Supports Single-Payer: ‘I Trust The Government More’

By Scott Keyes on Mar 30, 2012 at 11:48 am

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell (R)
WASHINGTON, DC — According to one Republican attorney general in the lawsuit against the health care individual mandate, the problem with Obamacare is that it’s not a government takeover of health care.

ThinkProgress spoke with Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Caldwell opposes Obamacare and the individual mandate, but for a different reason than most of his fellow litigants: it props up the private health insurance industry. “Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business,” he declared. “I trust the government more than insurance companies.” Caldwell went on to endorse the idea of a single-payer health care system, saying it’d “be a whole lot better” than Obamacare:

KEYES: You don’t think the subsidies for low-income people are going to be helpful?

CALDWELL: No, no. The worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company. I want to make my point. All insurance companies are controlled in their particular state. If you have a hurricane come up the east coast, the first one that’s going to leave you when they gotta pay too many claims is an insurance company. Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won’t have to go through an insurance policy, that’d be a whole lot better.

knuckleboner
04-01-2012, 03:24 PM
The more I read about this act the madder it makes me. As much as it pains me to say it I did find some info that lends credibility to kickme's lobbyist crap. I'm not posting it though out of spite. :)

what, specifically do you hate?

the fact that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to someone who had cancer, arthritis, asthma, or any other pre-existing condition?
the fact that individuals should be able to join in a large pool (exchange) so that they have a chance of getting decent coverage from an insurance company as an individual?
the fact that it incentivizes preventative care in order to encourage people to be healthier earlier, and bring down long-term costs?
the fact that parents have the option, if they choose, to pay to keep their kids on their insurance plans until the kids turn 26?

i don't mind if, on balance, somebody says they generally don't approve of the law as a whole. but if they say that the more then hear about it, the less they like it, then i think they're listening to the wrong people...

sadaist
04-01-2012, 03:53 PM
what, specifically do you hate?

the fact that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to someone who had cancer, arthritis, asthma, or any other pre-existing condition?



Here is the problem with that...


I have cancer & it costs $100,000 per year to treat me. I can't afford that. I should be able to buy insurance for $100 per month and the insurance company can pay the other $98,800 per year.

That's great for the cancer patient. Really, really bad for everyone else who has to make up for that loss. So what does the insurance company do so they can stay in business to be able to even provide the insurance? They need to insure a helluva lot of healthy people to even break even for that 1.

So what is the solution? I sure as hell don't know. I had cancer/chemo back in 2000/2001. After I lost my job in 2002 I started trying to find insurance on my own. :lmao: I bet you can guess how that went. I have paid out of pocket for anything medical I have needed since (cut top of my thumb off, broken ribs). And I have skipped some stuff I should have had done due to costs. And I don't like this part, but I do have a couple outstanding bill collectors that I don't think I will ever pay. Got insured last year when I was hired by a large company where you just go into the group plan.

I also work in insurance so I know how risk works for them.

So I see both sides & still don't know what the solution is. But I don't think it's 500 & some people telling the other 300 million of us what to do.

knuckleboner
04-01-2012, 04:55 PM
Here is the problem with that...


I have cancer & it costs $100,000 per year to treat me. I can't afford that. I should be able to buy insurance for $100 per month and the insurance company can pay the other $98,800 per year.

That's great for the cancer patient. Really, really bad for everyone else who has to make up for that loss. So what does the insurance company do so they can stay in business to be able to even provide the insurance? They need to insure a helluva lot of healthy people to even break even for that 1.

So what is the solution? I sure as hell don't know. I had cancer/chemo back in 2000/2001. After I lost my job in 2002 I started trying to find insurance on my own. :lmao: I bet you can guess how that went. I have paid out of pocket for anything medical I have needed since (cut top of my thumb off, broken ribs). And I have skipped some stuff I should have had done due to costs. And I don't like this part, but I do have a couple outstanding bill collectors that I don't think I will ever pay. Got insured last year when I was hired by a large company where you just go into the group plan.

I also work in insurance so I know how risk works for them.

So I see both sides & still don't know what the solution is. But I don't think it's 500 & some people telling the other 300 million of us what to do.

dude, that sucks. and i respect your vantage point (that most of us, including me, don't fully have.)

that said, that's the hope of the mandate. if you bring more healthy people into the system, ideally, the insurance companies don't have to have additional rate rates in order to cover those they previously weren't covering. the mandate was, in fact, originally a conservative idea. it's a way to have insurance reform that protects the private sector. without the mandate, a single payer is far more likely. unless we scrap all reform.

now, i'm also open to other suggestions. but absent single payer, i really don't see another option. tort reform and across state lines will help a bit on the margins. but it's not going to cover pre-existing conditions.

FORD
04-01-2012, 05:00 PM
Here is the problem with that...


I have cancer & it costs $100,000 per year to treat me. I can't afford that. I should be able to buy insurance for $100 per month and the insurance company can pay the other $98,800 per year.

That's great for the cancer patient. Really, really bad for everyone else who has to make up for that loss. So what does the insurance company do so they can stay in business to be able to even provide the insurance? They need to insure a helluva lot of healthy people to even break even for that 1.

So what is the solution? I sure as hell don't know. I had cancer/chemo back in 2000/2001. After I lost my job in 2002 I started trying to find insurance on my own. :lmao: I bet you can guess how that went.

I don't have to guess. It's pretty much what happened to my friend Billy. He ended up going on Social Security and Medicaid, since it was the only way he could get his medical bills paid at all. As crazy as this is going to sound, being diagnosed as terminal actually worked in his favor, in that case.

Thing is, he would have been capable of working a desk job up until the last 5 months of his life or so, but with one Hell of a "pre-existing condition", there's no insurance company that would have touched him, and the government couldn't have picked up the tab if he were working.

Nobody should have to go on the dole just to get healthcare.

sadaist
04-01-2012, 08:58 PM
dude, that sucks.


Yeah. But I made it through to the other side to see Van Halen with Dave in 2007 and a new album.

Also saw The Police reunion in 2007.

I had said I needed to see 3 bands before I died, and by the end of 2007 I was getting kinda worried & nervous. if Steve Perry rejoined Journey I was ready to start planning my funeral. :)

sadaist
04-01-2012, 09:00 PM
I don't have to guess. It's pretty much what happened to my friend Billy......up until the last 5 months of his life.


I'm sorry about your friend Ford.

I hope he is in a better place free of his illness & free of all the bullshit this Earthly world holds.

ELVIS
04-01-2012, 09:06 PM
Nobody should have to go on the dole just to get healthcare.

I agree with that...

FORD
04-01-2012, 09:49 PM
I agree with that...

Then call your attorney general and support his efforts to get single payer!

FORD
04-01-2012, 09:51 PM
I'm sorry about your friend Ford.

I hope he is in a better place free of his illness & free of all the bullshit this Earthly world holds.

I think he made it to Heaven. There was a time I would have been sure he went the other direction, but he grew out of that whole "satanic" thing.

ELVIS
04-01-2012, 10:02 PM
Then call your attorney general and support his efforts to get single payer!

It's not that simple...

Dude, I think about this all the time...

Reform is needed, but the current political crowd are not smart enough to work it out and the federal government is full of bullshit artists and crooks...

I don't fucking trust a thing they do or say...


:elvis:

FORD
04-01-2012, 10:17 PM
It's not that simple...

Dude, I think about this all the time...

Reform is needed, but the current political crowd are not smart enough to work it out and the federal government is full of bullshit artists and crooks...

I don't fucking trust a thing they do or say...


:elvis:

But you trust the insurance companies?

Like your AG says, they're the first ones to bail out of paying a claim when a disaster happens. I'm sure you have to know people that got fucked by the insurance industry after Katrina. But you can always live somewhere else if you can't rebuild your house. It may suck and it may be an expensive pain in the ass, but at least it's possible. But you can't get a new body when the insurance corporations won't let you fix what's wrong with yours.

ELVIS
04-01-2012, 10:29 PM
No, I don't trust insurance companies, but in an environment of healthy competition some may be better than others...

I don't have an answer, but I don't like the idea of some government bureaucrat deciding what treatment I get...

sadaist
04-02-2012, 12:33 AM
But you trust the insurance companies?

.


The insurance field I work in is auto/home. And I trust them. After seeing the ins & outs I know they are not cheating anyone or doing anything they should not be. I know how & why they rate policies the way they do & why they won't insure certain risks.

I only assume health insurance companies are similar. It's just a lot more emotional when you're comparing getting your car replaced or dying. So I can see why so much more hatred.

Nitro Express
04-02-2012, 01:24 AM
The insurance field I work in is auto/home. And I trust them. After seeing the ins & outs I know they are not cheating anyone or doing anything they should not be. I know how & why they rate policies the way they do & why they won't insure certain risks.

I only assume health insurance companies are similar. It's just a lot more emotional when you're comparing getting your car replaced or dying. So I can see why so much more hatred.

I was in the financial services industry and of course life insurance was part of that. It's a highly regulated business and very profitable since most people buy a policy and then drop it. That means all the money they paid into it is income and the company never had to make good on the policy. Financial companies were highly regulated but no longer are. They can steal money right out of your account and nothing happens to them. Look up MF Global for proof.

A contract is only as good as the parties involved. Insurance is nothing more than a contract. Since the current trend is to have the government turn a blind eye to corporate abuses or even use it's regulatory powers to run competition out of business, I really don't want the government forcing me to buy anyone's policy.

If the government wants to provide a basic insurance plan people can choose to join than that's different. For what we have wasted on bank bailouts and wars this would be chicken feed to provide in comparison. Then if you don't want to be on the government plan you can pick and choose you own private plan. Or we can treat health care as a utility and regulate the pricing of it like we do electricity and gas. Or maybe let people buy insurance from across state lines and bring more competition in to it.

I really think the government should focus on keeping the price of health care down by running a cheaper system itself. Regulating the prices like a public utility or increasing competition in the insurance industry by allowing people to buy insurance over state lines.

I hate this business of being forced to buy insurance from only a few insurers and then having the government involved in the whole health providing process. I want them out of it.

Nitro Express
04-02-2012, 01:32 AM
I can remember when people had good insurance and they would abuse it. They would go to the doctor for unnecessary stuff because the policy covered it. After too many people abuse the policy it covers less and you pay more. But now the pricing is obscene. It's monopoly pricing and it's high because something isn't being regulated correctly. We don't need beurocrats playing doctor but something needs to be done about the out of control pricing. That goes for education as well. As Elvis said, the problem is the government no longer serves the people. It serves the corporations and belt way insiders are making more money than ever. Wall Street and Washington have merged and both are making more money than ever while the rest of the nation starves. Unless your state has oil, your state is probably in trouble.

sadaist
04-02-2012, 01:54 AM
Let me get this info out there about pretty much every well known auto insurance company.

For every $1 the take in from premiums.....they pay out $1.03 in claims.

Yep, that's right. They pay out more in claims than they take in from premiums. But they make their money from investments, properties, & other things. Plus they pay TONS of taxes and TONS of employee salaries. So next time you open that bill after you get a speeding ticket, just remember that you aren't getting screwed even though it feels like it.

Jagermeister
04-05-2012, 02:07 PM
GAWD. I hate to bump this thread but I can't help it.

McConnell tells Obama to 'back off' over court
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell blasted President Obama on Thursday, telling him to "back off" from comments earlier this week where he appeared to question the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the possibility that it could overturn his health care law.

"The president crossed a dangerous line this week," the Kentucky Republican said to the Lexington Rotary Club, "and anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. The independence of the court must be defended."

On Monday, Mr. Obama suggested it would be "activist" and an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the nine "unelected" justices to overturn the law, prompting outcries from leading Republicans and many legal scholars that he was trying to intimidate the court.

The president later narrowed his comments, saying the court hasn't overturned economic regulation like the Affordable Care Act since the New Deal era. Saying the court's decision must be respected, Mr. Obama added that he believed the justices take their responsibilities "very seriously."

But that didn't stop Mr. McConnell from accusing Mr. Obama of trying to undermine the court.

"Regardless of how the justices decide this case, they're answerable, above all, to the Constitution they swore to uphold," he said. "The fact that this president does not appear to feel similarly constrained to respect their independence doesn't change that one bit.

"So respectfully, I would suggest the president back off."

The Department of Justice is also expected to submit a three-page explanation later in day clarifying whether it believes the court can overturn laws passed by Congress, responding to the order of a federal judge in Texas who said Mr. Obama's comments cast his beliefs on that in doubt.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/5/mcconnell-tells-obama-back-over-court/

Jagermeister
04-05-2012, 02:13 PM
Does Obama even understand how the fucking United States Government works? Someone give that man a Constitution.
Holder says court power to review laws 'beyond dispute'

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/obamas-supreme-court-comments-become-political-football-as-justice-preps/#ixzz1rBtYzCmv


Attorney General Eric Holder assured a federal appeals court Thursday that the Obama administration believes judges have the authority to overturn federal laws, after President Obama's comments earlier this week raised concerns from the bench about his view of judicial power.

Holder, in a three-page letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute," though it should only be exercised in "appropriate cases." He also claimed laws passed by Congress are "presumptively constitutional."

Related Interactive

Justice Department letter to 5th Circuit Court of Appeals


Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter Thursday to a federal appeals court explaining the administration's position on judicial powers following President Obama's comments about the health care law case.

Related Video

President Obama playing politics with the Supreme Court?

Peter Johnson, Jr. weighs in

The response capped an unusual dispute between the co-equal branches of government, one which has since reverberated on the campaign trail and beyond.

Obama originally said Monday it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn the federal health care overhaul, following its three-day review of the law last week. Administration officials later insisted that the president was not making a broad statement -- and was rather referring only to cases pertaining to the Commerce Clause and dealing with matters of the national economy.

The comments, though, caught the attention of a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit, as Judge Jerry Smith paused during a hearing Tuesday to chide the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority.

"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Smith, part of a panel of all Republican appointees, then ordered an explanation by Thursday of no fewer than three pages.

Holder provided the single-spaced, three-page letter by the deadline. In it, he backed up the president's remarks. While saying the court has the right to review laws, he cited prior opinions that acts of Congress are "presumptively constitutional" and said the executive branch has "often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."

He wrote that the "principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere," calling Obama's comments "fully consistent" with the principles in the letter.

The fallout from the president's comments, though, is likely to drag on, with the presidential general election campaign on the horizon -- and a Supreme Court decision likely to land in the middle of it. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in prepared remarks for a speech Thursday afternoon, told Obama to "back off" and "let the court do its work."

Holder already previewed what his response would be on Wednesday, saying the courts have "final say."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has also argued that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws. He says the president was instead referring specifically to the traditional deference the court has shown Congress when it comes to laws addressing challenges to the economy -- such as health care.

"What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history," Carney said Wednesday.

House Speaker John Boehner's office later cited cases over the past two decades where the Supreme Court overturned federal laws because they exceeded limitations under the Commerce Clause -- which is at the heart of the health care case.

An administration official, though, noted that those cases did not deal with major economic regulation as the health care law does.

Though Carney says the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/obamas-supreme-court-comments-become-political-football-as-justice-preps/#ixzz1rBtyU5UU

jhale667
04-05-2012, 02:17 PM
Anyone else notice the irony of the fact that all you heard the GOP candidates talking about (besides contraception) was "judicial activism", then the minute Obama says something they're all like HOW DARE HE??? Hypocrites.

Jagermeister
04-05-2012, 02:21 PM
Anyone else notice the irony of the fact that all you heard the GOP candidates talking about (besides contraception) was "judicial activism", then the minute Obama says something they're all like HOW DARE HE??? Hypocrites.

Come on jhale. You didn't hear anything the GOP candidates said. :rolleyes:

jhale667
04-05-2012, 03:43 PM
Come on jhale. You didn't hear anything the GOP candidates said. :rolleyes:

Quite the contrary, oh mental midget. Gotta keep tabs on the crazies...

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Nitro Express
04-05-2012, 04:18 PM
If you gave Obama a copy of the US Constitution he would wipe his ass with it.

ELVIS
04-05-2012, 04:25 PM
:biggrin:

jhale667
04-05-2012, 04:47 PM
If you gave Obama a copy of the US Constitution he would wipe his ass with it.

"It's just a goddamn piece of paper" after all... :rolleyes:

ELVIS
04-05-2012, 04:49 PM
At least you smug liberals don't have a constitution fetish, eh jfail ??

jhale667
04-05-2012, 04:52 PM
At least you smug liberals don't have a constitution fetish, eh jfail ??

Oh, eat a ****, loser... conservatard arrogance (and hypocrisy) is LIMITLESS. As you demonstrate daily.

ELVIS
04-05-2012, 04:57 PM
You need a chill pill...

Nitro Express
04-05-2012, 05:05 PM
You need a chill pill...

Does Obamacare provide that?

Nitro Express
04-05-2012, 05:06 PM
"It's just a goddamn piece of paper" after all... :rolleyes:
You are one sad ignorant puppy.

jhale667
04-05-2012, 05:07 PM
You need a chill pill...

Mulletard says what? :lmao:

jhale667
04-05-2012, 05:09 PM
You are one sad ignorant puppy.

For quoting W. M'kay. :rolleyes:

ELVIS
04-05-2012, 05:12 PM
Does Obamacare provide that?

That all depends on your personal worth to the state...

A thorough review of your background including education, employment history, religious status, criminal record and substance abuse will determine that...


:elvis:

Jagermeister
04-05-2012, 05:12 PM
"It's just a goddamn piece of paper" after all... :rolleyes:

At first I was shocked when I read that but then I realized who posted it.

Jesus Christ
04-05-2012, 05:13 PM
That all depends on your personal worth to the state...

A thorough review of your background including education, employment history, religious status, criminal record and substance abuse will determine that...


:elvis:

Gregory, why are ye bearing false witness like that again? :(

Jesus Christ
04-05-2012, 05:13 PM
At first I was shocked when I read that but then I realized who posted it.

You do realize he was quoting the Son of Bush, right?

Nickdfresh
04-05-2012, 05:16 PM
If you gave Obama a copy of the US Constitution he would wipe his ass with it.

Well it is so soft and absorbent!

jhale667
04-05-2012, 05:18 PM
You do realize he was quoting the Son of Bush, right?


Clearly that fact sailed right over his AND Nyquil's heads... :hee:

Jagermeister
04-06-2012, 09:37 AM
You do realize he was quoting the Son of Bush, right?

You do realize that's bullshit right?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

jhale667
04-06-2012, 02:34 PM
You do realize that's bullshit right?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Capitol Hill Blue may "doubt its veracity" now, but no one who was awake from 2000-2008 does, sorry...