WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Within a week, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to rule on the landmark 2010 health care law that President Obama - for better or worse - made the centerpiece of his initial time in office.

Conventional wisdom holds that the court will 'vote' mostly along party lines with a 50-50 chance of invalidating at least the part of the program that requires Americans to buy health insurance. But that means the high court is equally likely to uphold the law, much of which has not gone into effect yet.

What's that to you?

The political consequences may be immediate and severe, but the personal ramifications will be less extreme. Nobody should expect to lose part or all of their coverage overnight, and health costs won't immediately ratchet up or down in response.

"We've gotten assurances that insurers and employers won't change anything mid-stream, and will hang on for a while," said Jeff Munn, a benefits consultant with Fidelity Investments, who works with employers.

He suggests that the earliest consumers would see any impact from a decision would be at open-enrollment time, which usually comes in the fall.

But healthcare consumers - covered or not - should be ready for the decision, and for some of the longer-range implications. Here are a few steps you may have to take after the Supremes weigh in.

-- Shop for your kids' coverage. Already in effect is a provision that allows parents to keep their young adults covered by their family health insurance policies until they turn 26. Those 20-somethings won't be dumped overboard, even if the high court throws the entire Affordable Care Act into the round file. Maybe that's because that age cohort usually is profitable to insurers, but several major insurers have stepped up to say that they would keep that coverage anyway.

Less likely to last long term, in the face of a Supreme Court nullification, would be the provisions that eliminate pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny children coverage. Carrie McLean, an expert with private insurance broker ehealthinsurance.com, said she has heard several major carriers promise to keep that rule in place, at least for a while. But some carriers have also dropped child-only policies because of that provision.

So, why shop for separate insurance for your child or young adult? If they are healthy, they may be able to get better coverage cheaper than you can get folding them into your employers' plan. It's worth comparison shopping, under any scenario.

-- Grab a rebate check. The law requires health insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on medical care, and to refund to customers amounts over the remaining 20 percent that would be grabbed by profit and overhead. Insurance companies have already done the math for 2011, and several will be sending checks back to consumers . To see whether your insurer is paying rebates in your state, check the map at the web site of Consumers Union ( http://yourhealthsecurity.org/health-insurance-refund-map ). If the court invalidates this part of the law, that might be the last check insurers send.

-- Get a thorough checkup. McLean says that insurers say they'll continue to cover preventive care that the Affordable Care Act requires them to cover - such as mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations and more. But if the entire law is nullified, some of those tests may go away, especially if medical boards keep doing studies that throw their value into question.

The law also expands the preventive services that are free to Medicare participants. If the entire law is invalidated, that population could lose their free prostate, breast and colon cancer screenings.

-- Plan your retirement carefully. If the court allows the entire law to stand, medical consumers will have similar protections in every state by the time it is fully implemented in 2014. But if the individual mandate portion is knocked out, the variance from one state to another will matter a lot.

Some seven states now have "guaranteed issue" - meaning they ban the use of pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying coverage - without having individual purchase mandates, says Sam Gibbs, who as president of eHealth Government Systems, is helping to establish some state exchanges. He says that it doesn't typically cost very much more to buy insurance in those states than it does in Massachusetts, the one state that does require everyone to buy coverage.

Early retirees, who may be too young for Medicare and tend to have some pre-existing condition or another by the time they are pushing 60, would have the greatest incentive to pick a state with consumer-friendly healthcare policies. It would be a factor, like tax rates, to consider when deciding whether and where to move.

-- Lifetime caps could come back. This could be the most dangerous part for consumers who have serious and expensive illnesses. Many privately-sold plans offer lifetime coverage caps that are low enough to blow through quickly. Those caps are prohibited by this law. If that prohibition goes away, employer-sponsored plans would still largely avoid caps, suggests McLean, but private plans might reinstitute them. It would be wise to shop carefully for a cap-free policy.

-- Prepare to pay. Healthcare costs are going to rise 7.5 percent in 2013, even with healthcare reform, according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently estimated that by 2021, total U.S. spending on health care could hit $4.8 trillion - with or without the healthcare law. Some providers say that without the individual mandate or Affordable Care Act limits on pricing and profits, individual consumers will pay more for their health care and their insurance coverage. That's starting to seem like a given, regardless of what the high court does.

-- Get ready for homework in the fall. Employees who get their coverage at work will most likely face new choices during the fall open-enrollment season, whether or not the court changes current law. If the justices wipe out the Affordable Care Act protections, there may be more costs for less coverage. Even with the law in place, policies are likely to have more fine print in terms of required co-pays, co-insurance, premiums, included and exempted coverage and the like. So, keep an eye on the high court, but study your health insurance glossary while you're waiting.

A lot of the articles I've read seem to suggest that experts think the Individual Mandate will be struck down this coming week (I haven't read that many articles on this subject). Some members I know are in touch with the legal stuff, so I wonder if they've been keeping up with the case and have any insights for those of us less in the know. Also, just how bad might it get should the mandate get rejected but the rest of the law remain in tact?

If the Individual Mandate gets struck down, it won't change what really matters, but it will be a serious blow to Obama for the election.

If the entire thing gets struck down, Obama's toast. His political career would be all but extinct.

If it doesn't get struck down, it will just polarize the situation even more.

Grey Templar wrote:
If the entire thing gets struck down, Obama's toast. His political career would be all but extinct.

At the level of the Executive? Yes.

Congress though? Probably not. He has name recognition and is popular in Illinois. But then why bother? He would make more on the speaking circuit.

Grey Templar wrote:
If it doesn't get struck down, it will just polarize the situation even more.

And hilarity will ensue.

LordofHats wrote:
A lot of the articles I've read seem to suggest that experts think the Individual Mandate will be struck down this coming week (I haven't read that many articles on this subject).

It will come down to Roberts and Kennedy.

He certaintly can give a hell of a speech. He'd make a great newscaster.

This and the AZ law that might still go against the gov't. Justices already harped on the effect of the gov't in dealing with illegal immigrants.

Personally, I think the individual mandate will get struck down but the rest will stay in place.

Also on a personal note, I do not like all the major stuff that Democrats say, too much government, but Republics are just not doing anything. They rather just say no to everything until it all falls apart. That and I think Romney is a fool.

For some reason I have a feeling SCOTUS will punt the ball and wait a bit to rule on the bill.

I think the mandate will eventually get struck down with parts of the bill in place.

Really wish both sides would work together to get something done about the rising costs of insurance/health care but they won't. Too politically divided.

I think it's likely to get struck down because SCOTUS is pretty fearlessly partisan and I can't see them going the other way now. As with many of the recent cases they've taken, the merits of the case are meaningless. It's going to be 5-4; complete overturn in my opinion - but I wouldn't put money on it either.

For what it's worth, as someone who really wants to see socialized medicine (NHS style or similar) I have my doubts about how they implemented this, via the commerce clause... I think it's a pretty iffy argument.

I also think it's sort of irrelevant whether it gets shot down or not. I think people really do want many (most) of the things the law did, and they are likely to be re-implemented over time anyway regardless of who is in office.

Zyllos wrote:Personally, I think the individual mandate will get struck down but the rest will stay in place.

Also on a personal note, I do not like all the major stuff that Democrats say, too much government, but Republics are just not doing anything. They rather just say no to everything until it all falls apart. That and I think Romney is a fool.

It's part of their strategy to get Obama out of office. If they prevent the government from doing anything to help the economy, Obama takes it in the neck on election day.

The amazing part is how many people don't seem to realize that that's what they are doing, and blame Obama for nothing getting done.

I really worry about the future of the country when people are so willfully blind...

Vulcan wrote:

Zyllos wrote:Personally, I think the individual mandate will get struck down but the rest will stay in place.

Also on a personal note, I do not like all the major stuff that Democrats say, too much government, but Republics are just not doing anything. They rather just say no to everything until it all falls apart. That and I think Romney is a fool.

It's part of their strategy to get Obama out of office. If they prevent the government from doing anything to help the economy, Obama takes it in the neck on election day.

The amazing part is how many people don't seem to realize that that's what they are doing, and blame Obama for nothing getting done.

I really worry about the future of the country when people are so willfully blind...

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

Frazzled wrote:

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

It didn't help that in the beginning Obama wanted to be the Great Compromizer and squandered the first two years. But try taking a look at the number of filibusters used in the past two sessions of Congress - over TWICE what was used in any session previous. And then take a look at who used them.

Makes the point pretty thoroughly.

Frazzled wrote:Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Back in the day parties weren't the "sides".

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Back in the day parties weren't the "sides".

Was this before or after one Congressman nearly beat another one to death with a cane?

Frazzled wrote:
Was this before or after one Congressman nearly beat another one to death with a cane?

Probably during, sides used to be about agreement and not agreement. Party meant little.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Was this before or after one Congressman nearly beat another one to death with a cane?

Probably during, sides used to be about agreement and not agreement. Party meant little.

Er...yea.. no...

You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

Starngely even Bush managed to get bills passed with a divided Congress. So this sudden change must have been really sudden.
But then again, Obama had Democratic majorities in both houses so that shouldn't have been a problem either. Maybe if he didn't hand over the "stimulus" to Pelosi and then went after Cap N Tax and Obamacare things might have turned out differently. I had hoped things would have turned out differently.

Frazzled wrote:
Er...yea.. no...

You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

Not if you look at Congressional votes. Then there's the Blue Dogs, and the Southern Strategy, etc.

Not much party line voting at the federal level.

Frazzled wrote:
Starngely even Bush managed to get bills passed with a divided Congress. So this sudden change must have been really sudden.

Outside 9/11 related votes most of Bush's bills were close, following the trend begun with Reagan.

dogma wrote:
Er...yea.. no...

You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

Not if you look at Congressional votes. Then there's the Blue Dogs, and the Southern Strategy, etc.

Not much party line voting at the federal level.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, what, really? er... me no buy that.

I can't really give you a citation (Well, I could, but it would either cost me time or you money.) because this is basically textbook stuff.

Frazzled wrote:
However, assuming you're correct, thats just a massive indictment of Obama. He didn't do what others could. Frankly the US likes divided government. Its crap but tends to keep crap legislation to a slightly lesser amount than PRI rule.

You're still assuming that partisanship has been the same over time, it hasn't been.

Frazzled wrote:
Yep. But they still passed. Some things didn't pass. thats how it works.

Healthcare passed, so did DADT, and others.

Seems like Obama is doing well, and that bipartisanship is a sham.

So Obama passed what he wanted. We are in agreement.

And can't run on it.. Excellent!

Oh, he can run it. What is Mitt going to say in opposition?

dogma wrote:Oh, he can run it. What is Mitt going to say in opposition?

15% unemployment

Frazzled wrote:You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

See the words 'work with' that you wrote there? That means coming together, with both sides having a give and take arrangement. That means each party having a culture in which individual congressmen can cross the floor. This excludes the current Republican Party.

Oh, and if you look at the history of the Democrats holding 60 seats in the senate, and realise that after legal disputes Franken was only granted his seat on 30 June 2009, and that Scott Brown was sworn into office on 4th February 2010, then you realise the Democrats only held that 60 strong majority for a couple of days over 7 months. In that time that passed the largest healthcare reform in US history. So claims of not doing anything when the Republican couldn't filibuster are just plain wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:You're forgetting the fine history of party machines, and party line voting etc. etc. Thats been around since at least the turn of the century (19th century).

There was a period in which party did actually mean very little, as the Democrats had morphed into two very distinct entities, those representing progressive city electorates, and those representing very conservative country elements who really, really hated the Republican party, located entirely in the South. The result of this was a system in which an issue could find its strongest support and opposition within the same party.

That changed, of course, when the South got really angry over the Federal government telling them to stop being racist. Nixon's Southern strategy managed to shift that voting block over to the Republicans, and so far the Republican party has managed to keep social conservatives, evangelicals, pro-business centrists and libertarians voting in unison.

Starngely even Bush managed to get bills passed with a divided Congress. So this sudden change must have been really sudden.

Uh, everyone gets bills passed. Government is a day to day business and most bills aren't that political. The question is how many highly political pieces of needed reform you can get over the line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:15% unemployment

So he's going to make a number up? Actually, that's probably exactly what Romney is going to do, given the history of nonsense claims he's made so far, so I'd have to agree with you there.

I think we've pretty fairly established at this point "lying your ass off" now works surprisingly well in American politics. People are too disengaged to bother to find out the truth, and the media certainly isn't going to call anyone out on their bald-faced lies; lest they risk their access. We deserve the crappy nonfunctional government we have.

Ouze wrote:I think we've pretty fairly established at this point "lying your ass off" now works surprisingly well in American politics. People are too disengaged to bother to find out the truth, and the media certainly isn't going to call anyone out on their bald-faced lies; lest they risk their access. We deserve the crappy nonfunctional government we have.

I don't know if individuals deserve to suffer because of the failing of an electorate as a whole, but otherwise I agree with you entirely.

As far as I know from listening to discussions on this subject by much more educated folk than myself, the bill has no severence clause. Which essentially means if one part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill goes away. There is no way legally in our system that I am aware of to take out just part of it and keep the rest.

I am of the opinion that the bill is going down, from everything I have heard and read, and just how it feels.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:Oh, he can run it. What is Mitt going to say in opposition?

15% unemployment

Sure, but that doesn't really address the passage of healthcare (or DADT) which Mitt will struggle with because of Romneycare.

At the end of the day, while the economy is important, it can't be your only campaign point; especially given Romney's past in business (Not that he did anything bad, its just it can be sold that way.).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
There was a period in which party did actually mean very little, as the Democrats had morphed into two very distinct entities, those representing progressive city electorates, and those representing very conservative country elements who really, really hated the Republican party, located entirely in the South. The result of this was a system in which an issue could find its strongest support and opposition within the same party.

I should clarify that at the state level and below party has always been pretty important due to their ability to raise funds, something that lower levels politicians struggle with due to generally being less connected to wealth than their federal counterparts. Additionally, the smaller your unit of government the more important that little D and R become, as most people simply don't pay attention to state and local politics (especially local). Though, that being said, a lot of smaller cities (30k and below) have nonpartisan elections.

Unemployed people are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

People worried about their jobs are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

The US populace typically votes its pocketbook. Democrat, Republican whatever. If the bank account is down is unemployment time for the current administration and its party.

sebster wrote:I don't know if individuals deserve to suffer because of the failing of an electorate as a whole, but otherwise I agree with you entirely.

But is it really "suffering"? No one is forcing nearly half the electorate to not bother voting, or to respond so positively to negative campaigns, or to patronize news organizations in such overwhelming numbers that they know lie to them regularly, and abdicate their responsibility the rest of the time. Maybe saying "we got what we deserve" was the wrong spin on it. Maybe it would have been better to say that the American people desire and thus obtain lousy government; which we then complain about, repeating the cycle ad nauseum. People want biased news; people want candidates that promise to try to bone "the other side" over as much as possible knowing full well that's what got us where we are. They don't really want compromise and shared sacrifice or honestly.

Here's a good example, the first one that came to mind. Early on when Obama first started running, he wasn't wearing an American flag pin. When asked about it, he made a comment to the effect of "I think it's more important to be a good American and show your patriotism with your deeds, rather then wearing a pin" or something like that, I'm not looking it up. Since we always profess we hate political non-answers, trite bs and meaningless phrases, how did we respond to an honest answer? There were headlines about "Pingate". FFS. And of course, we ate it up; because we are huge hypocrites who actually want safe non-answers. Romney knows it; every successful politician does; and of course Obama wised up and started wearing the pin (because it's easier to go with the flow then to lead, and the customer is always right to boot).

In Romney's case, it's sort of amusing that he refuses to give any specifics on his ideas because he knows he'll be attacked for them; which seems to be a lot more palatable then "we need to pass healthcare to find out what's in it"; despite them being the exact same rather ridiculously stupid argument. But again, hypocrisy works so you pluck that chicken, buddy.

Wow this got sort of rambly; but I guess long story short I love my country and it wearies me to see how things have been going, and how much worse I imagine it's going to get.

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

It didn't help that in the beginning Obama wanted to be the Great Compromizer and squandered the first two years. But try taking a look at the number of filibusters used in the past two sessions of Congress - over TWICE what was used in any session previous. And then take a look at who used them.

Makes the point pretty thoroughly.

Q1. Who did use them, as in which side and over what type of issue. What is going on?


Q2. A lot of he replies here indicate Obama is finished or could possibly be finished due to this issue. Is his re-election chances that unlikely. I hear other people saying (off this thread) the Republicans have 'no chance' because they don't have a strong candidate choice. While both catalysts could be true, both results can't be, not realistically anyhow. Some clarity is needed.

Orlanth wrote:
Q1. Who did use them, as in which side and over what type of issue. What is going on?

Republicans primarily, over a number of issues.

Orlanth wrote:
Q2. A lot of he replies here indicate Obama is finished or could possibly be finished due to this issue. Is his re-election chances that unlikely. I hear other people saying (off this thread) the Republicans have 'no chance' because they don't have a strong candidate choice. While both catalysts could be true, both results can't be, not realistically anyhow. Some clarity is needed.

Its pretty close to a 50-50 split in terms of odds. Obama is hovering in the high 40's (sounds bad, but is actually fine historically) in terms of approval, and he trades a point with Mitt every week or so. However, he has incumbent advantage, which gives him the slight edge at this point. Still far, far too close to call; especially with so much time left.

In general people claiming either one has no chance are either engaging in wishful thinking, or trying to sensationalize for money.

Frazzled wrote:Unemployed people are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

People worried about their jobs are not going to give a gak about Obamacare.

They probably won't vote either. The people that vote tend to be better off economically, and employed; though employment status is less important as it is usually the working class that's not employed.

Frazzled wrote:
The US populace typically votes its pocketbook. Democrat, Republican whatever. If the bank account is down is unemployment time for the current administration and its party.

Well, sort of. Some people vote their pocketbook, but not as many as you would think because people of higher income vote far more than those of lower; meaning that their pocketbook isn't as critical to them. People vote on issues, and candidates. In this instance the critical candidate is Obama, and the critical issues are the economy and healthcare.

Orlanth wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

It didn't help that in the beginning Obama wanted to be the Great Compromizer and squandered the first two years. But try taking a look at the number of filibusters used in the past two sessions of Congress - over TWICE what was used in any session previous. And then take a look at who used them.

Makes the point pretty thoroughly.

Q1. Who did use them, as in which side and over what type of issue. What is going on?


Q2. A lot of he replies here indicate Obama is finished or could possibly be finished due to this issue. Is his re-election chances that unlikely. I hear other people saying (off this thread) the Republicans have 'no chance' because they don't have a strong candidate choice. While both catalysts could be true, both results can't be, not realistically anyhow. Some clarity is needed.

Clarity will be provided in November -or January if rumors of massive legal teams being hired by a candidate are accurate
If you thought 2000 was bad...

Frazzled wrote:
If you thought 2000 was bad...

The Chads...


THE CHADS!!




CHAAAAADS!!!!!

PREGNANT CHADS! WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHADS!

This may be slightly OT, and I've posted this before on this forum, but where is the evidence that government is too big when the democrats are in power?

I'm ploughing (yes, ploughing, take that american english )
my way through a biography of Ronald Reagan and the rate in which money was spent and federal departments increased makes me think he was on a one man mission to bankrupt America. Still, he gave us some great quotes.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm ploughing (yes, ploughing, take that american english )
my way through a biography of Ronald Reagan and the rate in which money was spent and federal departments increased makes me think he was on a one man mission to bankrupt America. Still, he gave us some great quotes.

Congrats, you figured out Reaganomics faster than pretty much everyone in the 80's.

Platuan4th wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm ploughing (yes, ploughing, take that american english )
my way through a biography of Ronald Reagan and the rate in which money was spent and federal departments increased makes me think he was on a one man mission to bankrupt America. Still, he gave us some great quotes.

Congrats, you figured out Reaganomics faster than pretty much everyone in the 80's.

The plan was to bankrupt the Soviet Union slightly faster than the United States. In short, end the cold war with massive spending.

Not sure it was the best possible plan, but it worked.

Less then 2 hours now.

Upheld, we're stuck with it.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:As far as I know from listening to discussions on this subject by much more educated folk than myself, the bill has no severence clause. Which essentially means if one part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill goes away.

I am of the opinion that the bill is going down, from everything I have heard and read, and just how it feels.

I believe you are being mislead. Parts, even essential parts, of laws are ruled unconstitutional frequently. The effectiveness of the bill may be crippled but what remains is still a law.

There is no way legally in our system that I am aware of to take out just part of it and keep the rest.

There's a pretty clear precedent for removing part of a law that is unconstitutional and leaving the rest, it's pretty much what SCOTUS does.

The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Lord Bingo wrote:The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Didn't they just tell Obama a couple months ago that attacking the court is unamerican?

d-usa wrote:

Lord Bingo wrote:The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Didn't they just tell Obama a couple months ago that attacking the court is unamerican?

Republicans being hypocrites? Perish the thought!

Awesome. I look forward to the absolute cluster that is the implementation of this law.

Medicare patients may now officially drop dead as $500bn is sucked out to pay for this.

Good thing it helps keep costs down...oh wait...

I foresee companies annuncing dropping their insurance presently or an avalanche of waivers.

Lord Bingo wrote:The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Meh back when the public argument was going on SCOTUSblog pegged either as a possible swing vote.
The individual mandate was only one thing under consideration have they decided on the rest?

Edit: why bother.

Suprise me its consider a "tax"

Jihadin wrote:Suprise me its consider a "tax"

Good thing the administraiton swore it wasn't a tax and then argued it was in court.

Obama Lied! Your Wallet Died!

What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

If you don't get healthcare you get fined, so it fines the very people it claims to help. It also would pay for things of questionable moral standing(abortions, embryonic stem cell reaserch...)

For the record I don't like the way Health Coverage is carried out now by insurance companies, but I strongly believe this is something the government has no business doing. Stick with the Devil you know.

Mainly for fear of government Death Panels. They will appear after awhile.

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

I think all Americans are born anti-British. You guys started a revolution against us over a meagre amount of tax levied against you, and yet, this ruling potentially could suck a lot of people dry, and there is barely a word said from most of the population according to some of the polls/articles I read.

Can we expect to see another battle at lexington this year? and not just another re-enactment on the forth

PhantomViper wrote:

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

Liability insurance is mandatory, yes. This isn't to protect you, though, it's to protect people you might harm while operating your car. You are not, of course, required to own a car, and if you choose not to, you are not required to purchase car insurance.

I did not need health insurance during the years I was working as an independent contractor. I kept a high-deductible, low-cost "emergency" policy, but I had no day-to-day health insurance.

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

I was under the impression there was to be a state sponsored alternative or something? Did that get stripped out before the bill was passed?

Grey Templar wrote:If you don't get healthcare you get fined, so it fines the very people it claims to help. It also would pay for things of questionable moral standing(abortions, embryonic stem cell reaserch...)

For the record I don't like the way Health Coverage is carried out now by insurance companies, but I strongly believe this is something the government has no business doing. Stick with the Devil you know.

Mainly for fear of government Death Panels. They will appear after awhile.

You'll have to elaborate on Death Panels for me...

PhantomViper wrote:

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

I believe the arguement is that I only am required to get car insurance if I have a license, which is something I can choose to do or not do. Many people in large cities like New York, for instance, do not own cars.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I think all Americans are born anti-British. You guys started a revolution against us over a meagre amount of tax levied against you, and yet, this ruling potentially could suck a lot of people dry, and there is barely a word said from most of the population according to some of the polls/articles I read.

Can we expect to see another battle at lexington this year? and not just another re-enactment on the forth

54% of the public is against Obamacare. Whether they're saying anything about it or not, I don't really know. Nor care. People will vote in November, and that will be that.

Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

Seaward wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

Liability insurance is mandatory, yes. This isn't to protect you, though, it's to protect people you might harm while operating your car. You are not, of course, required to own a car, and if you choose not to, you are not required to purchase car insurance.

I did not need health insurance during the years I was working as an independent contractor. I kept a high-deductible, low-cost "emergency" policy, but I had no day-to-day health insurance.

So not knowing almost anything about the current way in which the US health service works, and out of curiosity sake: what would happen to you if you had developed a debilitating injury or disease that required a prolonged health care during that period (say, you had a massive car accident that required several surgeries and a long period of physical therapy to recover you ability to walk at 100%)?

Seaward wrote:54% of the public is against Obamacare. Whether they're saying anything about it or not, I don't really know. Nor care. People will vote in November, and that will be that.

Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

Mind linking me? Last I had heard most people were for it. Curious about the study.

So Obama won 5 to 4. I beat the spread!

PhantomViper wrote:So not knowing almost anything about the current way in which the US health service works, and out of curiosity sake: what would happen to you if you had developed a debilitating injury or disease that required a prolonged health care during that period (say, you had a massive car accident that required several surgeries and a long period of physical therapy to recover you ability to walk at 100%)?

I would have been responsible for paying up to my deductible (I think it was $10,000), and then my insurance would have taken over. If I hadn't had that insurance? I would have swiftly gone bankrupt covering my medical bills, and then my parents would likely have followed suit when they inevitably took over once my cash ran out, because they're my parents and they love me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:

Seaward wrote:54% of the public is against Obamacare. Whether they're saying anything about it or not, I don't really know. Nor care. People will vote in November, and that will be that.

Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

Mind linking me? Last I had heard most people were for it. Curious about the study.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2012/health_care_law_has_already_lost_in_court_of_public_opinion

Seaward wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:So not knowing almost anything about the current way in which the US health service works, and out of curiosity sake: what would happen to you if you had developed a debilitating injury or disease that required a prolonged health care during that period (say, you had a massive car accident that required several surgeries and a long period of physical therapy to recover you ability to walk at 100%)?

I would have been responsible for paying up to my deductible (I think it was $10,000), and then my insurance would have taken over. If I hadn't had that insurance? I would have swiftly gone bankrupt covering my medical bills, and then my parents would likely have followed suit when they inevitably took over once my cash ran out, because they're my parents and they love me.

This law is designed to prevent that type of situation, right?

So how can someone be against that?

Feel free to educate me in case I got it all wrong and the law won't actually prevent this, admittedly most of my knowledge of this particular law was gained through the Daily Show so it can be a tinsy bit biased...

streamdragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:If you don't get healthcare you get fined, so it fines the very people it claims to help. It also would pay for things of questionable moral standing(abortions, embryonic stem cell reaserch...)

For the record I don't like the way Health Coverage is carried out now by insurance companies, but I strongly believe this is something the government has no business doing. Stick with the Devil you know.

Mainly for fear of government Death Panels. They will appear after awhile.

You'll have to elaborate on Death Panels for me...

Death Panels are names for an as yet non-existant group of people who go over your medical files and decide if you are worth covering. If they determine you are likely to have a debilitating condition that will be very expensive(more money then you bring in) they will terminate your coverage. So once a person reaches a certain age they would become more likely to get dropped. The game would basically be the government ensuring that only healthy people are covered(people who arn't going to have expensive conditions, accidents like broken limbs or injuries are cheap compared to things like cancer or heart defects)

Private companies still cover you, they just charge more and more money.

Dewey defeats Truman





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Death Panels are names for an as yet non-existant group of people who go over your medical files and decide if you are worth covering.

"Death panel" is a political term that originated during a 2009 debate about federal health care legislation to cover the uninsured in the United States. The term was first used in August 2009 by former Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin when she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or child with Down syndrome—were worthy of medical care. Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "death panel" myth; nothing in any proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care. Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

"Death Panel" is political rebranding to sell a sound bite, like calling the Estate Tax the Death Tax.

Edit: disregard, it looks as though my question was answered in an edit while I was typing.

streamdragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Death Panels are names for an as yet non-existant group of people who go over your medical files and decide if you are worth covering. If they determine you are likely to have a debilitating condition that will be very expensive(more money then you bring in) they will terminate your coverage. So once a person reaches a certain age they would become more likely to get dropped. The game would basically be the government ensuring that only healthy people are covered(people who arn't going to have expensive conditions, accidents like broken limbs or injuries are cheap compared to things like cancer or heart defects)

Private companies still cover you, they just charge more and more money.

I was under the impression that part of the new law was that companies were no longer able to just drop people based on existing conditions? And that doctor patient privilege would prevent someone from looking through my medical file regardless? How are these "panels" supposed to function according to the new law? (again, I haven't had the time or desire to actually read through the law word for word).

As i said, it refers to "Government" death panels.

Companies can't drop you because of existing conditions. They just charge more money.

PhantomViper wrote:
This law is designed to prevent that type of situation, right?

So how can someone be against that?

Feel free to educate me in case I got it all wrong and the law won't actually prevent this, admittedly most of my knowledge of this particular law was gained through the Daily Show so it can be a tinsy bit biased...

This law is designed to prevent that situation, yes. And in truth, it likely will. Low-cost high-deductible plans like I was on will probably not survive, however, as I don't believe they meet the requirements of the mandate, and even if they do, the insurance companies won't be generating enough money off of the premiums to cover the millions of people who need "day to day" health insurance (for preexisting conditions and things of that sort) that are suddenly going to be forcibly added to the rolls. What this does, basically, is force a lot of young, healthy individuals to pick up more insurance than they need to cover the health care costs of older and/or more sickly individuals.

Aside from that, it's just plain unconstitutional for the government to require me to purchase a private product simply because I exist. I am fully in favor of everyone in the country having healthcare coverage, but if you want to require everyone to have health insurance, you need to provide it. This law does not do that. It is essentially like the government saying, "If you're an American, you must own a car."

Yup, it forces people in their 20s who otherwise would not buy/need to buy health coverage to buy it, interestingly this is also the age group that finds it difficult to compete for jobs because they lack experience. Thereby increasing the cost of living for everyone.

Grey Templar wrote:Yup, it forces people in their 20s who otherwise would not buy/need to buy health coverage to buy it, interestingly this is also the age group that finds it difficult to compete for jobs because they lack experience. Thereby increasing the cost of living for everyone.

Interestingly it's also an age group more prone to physical and debilitating injury than the median. Did you know that people go to hospitals for more than colds? Sometimes it's bullets or car accidents. I myself don't have insurance due to the incredibly non competitive and expensive market in Maine and the lack of employers here that offer it and I've had a lung infection for a month! Sure am glad my invisible shield of "mid 20's" is protecting me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
This law is designed to prevent that type of situation, right?

So how can someone be against that?

Feel free to educate me in case I got it all wrong and the law won't actually prevent this, admittedly most of my knowledge of this particular law was gained through the Daily Show so it can be a tinsy bit biased...

This law is designed to prevent that situation, yes. And in truth, it likely will. Low-cost high-deductible plans like I was on will probably not survive, however, as I don't believe they meet the requirements of the mandate, and even if they do, the insurance companies won't be generating enough money off of the premiums to cover the millions of people who need "day to day" health insurance (for preexisting conditions and things of that sort) that are suddenly going to be forcibly added to the rolls. What this does, basically, is force a lot of young, healthy individuals to pick up more insurance than they need to cover the health care costs of older and/or more sickly individuals.

Aside from that, it's just plain unconstitutional for the government to require me to purchase a private product simply because I exist. I am fully in favor of everyone in the country having healthcare coverage, but if you want to require everyone to have health insurance, you need to provide it. This law does not do that. It is essentially like the government saying, "If you're an American, you must own a car."

Technically since it was upheld it's not unconstitutional.

Thank you all for the clarification.

Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Jihadin wrote:Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Not me. I'm voting Cthulu this year. I'm sick of the lesser evil.

Frazzled wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Not me. I'm voting Cthulu this year. I'm sick of the lesser evil.

Whats his stance on Illegal Immigration?

Whats his stance on Illegal Immigration?

Easy...stop gap to buy time and voters. Supreme Court was quite correct...pass three admin did crap on it.

Grey Templar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Not me. I'm voting Cthulu this year. I'm sick of the lesser evil.

Whats his stance on Illegal Immigration?

Respiration is illegal. Cthulu will fix that...

Respiration is illegal. Cthulu will fix that...

Signed that DNR didn't you

And once again, twitter brings the laughs...

Language warning !

That's awesome.

"Hey guys, I love my country SOOOO much and hate the socialized healthcare bill, I'm moving to a different country that already has socialized healthcare!"

It's thoughts like this that put us in this situation to begin with.

I'm starting a new Washingtonian Independent movement. Washington hated political parties and thought they would undermine the Republic, and time has proven him right.

But better socialized healthcare. I'd take the Canadian system over Obamacare in a heartbeat.

I'm still confused how being forced into a ludicrously corrupt and worthless private industry of paymasters is socialization of healthcare. If anything it's a capitalist subsidy. What the wacky neocons call things these days has nothing to do with reality anymore though, so whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:But better socialized healthcare. I'd take the Canadian system over Obamacare in a heartbeat.

Except for when you were fighting against similar systems when they were trying to get votes on them before. It's nice to jump around isn't it? We're stuck with a crappy half solution because you didn't want a real one. Now we have to amend this one into functioning. My guess is that the public option gets reintroduced in the next 15 years. The system needs it to survive, even with this patch.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

streamdragon wrote:And once again, twitter brings the laughs...

Spoiler:

That's awesome.

"Hey guys, I love my country SOOOO much and hate the socialized healthcare bill, I'm moving to a different country that already has socialized healthcare!"

It's thoughts like this that put us in this situation to begin with.

I'm still confused how being forced into a ludicrously corrupt and worthless private industry of paymasters is socialization of healthcare. If anything it's a capitalist subsidy. What the wacky neocons call things these days has nothing to do with reality anymore though, so whatever.

Not saying it's true, just that that's pretty much the gist of what everyone of those quotes says.

Now I know, as a Texan, I am singly important in bringing us this crappy system by fighting against it because a Texan is just more equal than others, but despite your flattery, I had nothing to do with it.

As I noted many times I wanted a commission to look at the top 5 or top 10 systems, take the best and leave the rest. This one takes the rest and leaves the best.

Other than the mandate, what's so bad about this one?

streamdragon wrote:Other than the mandate, what's so bad about this one?

Just a few:
It steals money from Medicare to the tune of $500bn.
It exempts lots of entities and sets up a nice slush fund for wahtever administraiton is in power. Give me campaign contributions and we'll exempt your business.
Some states, where they needed votes, are exempted.
Does nothing to reduce costs WHICH WAS THE WHOLE REASON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We don't know what half of it actually does.


Again, there is a serious problem, that all developing countries are facing. the best option is to look at the best systems, pick and choose and develop a good system. The Canadian one is not bad but not perfect. Take the best from it, the Swiss, German, etc. Take your time and do it right. Instead that created a bureaucratic monster worthy of Greek myth.

Like...I am not sure what to say about the mandate.

I 100% understand any Republican on why this is bad. You are forcing individuals to the whim of the government.

But I also understand Democrates. There are citizens failing to receive care in this country (also millions who go without food, many homeless or without a job).

So a nice compromise is needed but that seems to be a "bad" word now days. I am not sure what to think anymore. I mean, we DID vote Obama into office, right? The majority did understand that he was going to change health care? There are supporters of the ACA.

But, I think the issue is that the US is becoming too divided and fragmented in it's way of thinking. We have a business that wants laws that helps it's business. We want a group that asks for laws that allows there freedoms like everyone else. There are entities that asks for other things. So why can we not compromise some of our own ground for the good of the country?

I think this right here is why our political system is in a state of dysfunction. This is why our voter turnout is low. Why do we want to vote for any canidate that will not fulfill any promises they make? This goes for any federally elected and appointed official.

But, we have to try and change. What we are doing now doesn't work. Either way...

What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

Seaward wrote:Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

What's new about that. They have been saying it for years. Can they just get on with it already?

"•Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans."

They may have 'less' ability but United Healthcare that I have which costs over $750 a month for me and my family went up $100 a month and are projected to go up again in January by another undisclosed amount.

Right now I am thinking that the 'tax' for not having insurance is better than actually having the insurance plan I have especially since an ER visit here knocks off 60% of the bill if you do not insured. I guess that will change to though.

Archaeo wrote:
Right now I am thinking that the 'tax' for not having insurance is better than actually having the insurance plan I have especially since an ER visit here knocks off 60% of the bill if you do not insured. I guess that will change to though.

Of course the 60% discount for uninsured patients is really a 60% penalty to the insured patient that get billed extra to make up the difference.

But that is what is wrong about the American system in the first place.

d-usa wrote:

Archaeo wrote:
Right now I am thinking that the 'tax' for not having insurance is better than actually having the insurance plan I have especially since an ER visit here knocks off 60% of the bill if you do not insured. I guess that will change to though.

Of course the 60% discount for uninsured patients is really a 60% penalty to the insured patient that get billed extra to make up the difference.

But that is what is wrong about the American system in the first place.

On the one hand it says care for the insured is inflated, on the other you could argue that the insured pick up the bill for the cash only rate. Both are true.

Changing INSURANCE doesn't reduce medical costs, in fact as I cannot currently afford insurance at all now I must be penalized for being poor. Thanks Obama, you sure are a swell guy. If we really think that health care needs to be under government control it's time to nut up and start the process of socializing medicine. The AHCA was never that.

Zyllos wrote:But, we have to try and change. What we are doing now doesn't work. Either way...

it will never change until Citizens United is repealed.

Obama promised us a public option. The ACA was his and the Dems' efforts at a bipartisan compromise, adopting a Republican-originated plan and trying to make some desperately-needed progress in this country without having to have a knock-down drag-out with people who use socialism as a dirty word despite all the socialized benefits they partake of on a daily basis.

Obviously it didn't work, as the Congressional Republicans would tell you that ice cream tastes like horse manure if Obama made the ice cream.

AustonT wrote:If we really think that health care needs to be under government control it's time to nut up and start the process of socializing medicine. The AHCA was never that.

Y'all should; socialized medicine friggin' awesome.


-I truly am sorry to hear that you've currently been put between a rock and a hard place, though.

streamdragon wrote:what's so bad about this one?

What's so bad is that it's the most regressive tax hike in american history.

It's a tax that the rich can EASILY avoid paying, and the the middle class mostly already can avoid paying. Meanwhile, it only taxes people who couldn't afford health insurance in the first place - the poor.

If you're completely destitute then you'll be able to avoid the tax through medicare, but for the millions of poor people just above the poverty line (who are still hand-to-mouth poor, but just don't technically qualify for tax exemption), they're stuck finding out where they're going to magically get $200 per month per person from. Likely it will be by losing their homes (purchased or rented), in favor of even worse living conditions and by defaulting on their other debts (unless they're student loans, which is a crime to attempt to default on). Meanwhile, the cost of employing people will go up as employers will likewise be taxed for not providing insurance. Who are the people who don't get health insurance from work? Poor people. Now there will be fewer jobs for them.

In the end, it crucifies the poor and lower middle class in order to make the extra poor a little better off while rich people don't do anything at all. If you're a liberal, socialist, or progressive, you've got to feel terrible about yourself (as well as less this law), as the democratic party basically screwed the poor yet again.

Of course, if you're a neocon, then there really isn't much to complain about, as you got to meddle with your inferiors and practice social engineering. More importantly, you got to do it without costing rich people anything.

If you're a libertarian, of course, this is also a disaster. Now, instead of the government being to arbitrarily tell you what to do and wave the commerce clause, now the government gets to arbitrarily tell you what to do and magically turn the word "penalty" into the word "tax" and make it constitutional.

Really, the only people who benefit from this are the richest of the rich, and the poorest of the poor. You wonder what's causing the wealth gap in this country...

As for me, personally, what's wrong is that if the ACA stands, my wife and I are going to lose our home. Combined we work the equivalent of two full time jobs, and after rent, food, utilities, car insurance, and student loan repayments, we make only an extra $80 per month. The only way to make ends meet once I have to spend hundreds of dollars per month on insurance will be to move into a smaller place closer to the edge of town. I'll be able to hold off for a little while, what with a new contract job coming up this fall, but even then, it's limited, and, ironically, assumes that nothing bad happens, like unforseen medical expenses...

That's what's wrong with it.

Ailaros wrote:

streamdragon wrote:what's so bad about this one?

What's so bad is that it's the most regressive tax hike in american history.

It's a tax that the rich can EASILY avoid paying, and the the middle class mostly already can avoid paying. Meanwhile, it only taxes people who couldn't afford health insurance in the first place - the poor.

If you're completely destitute then you'll be able to avoid the tax through medicare, but for the millions of poor people just above the poverty line (who are still hand-to-mouth poor, but just don't technically qualify for tax exemption), they're stuck finding out where they're going to magically get $200 per month per person from. Likely it will be by losing their homes (purchased or rented), in favor of even worse living conditions and by defaulting on their other debts (unless they're student loans, which is a crime to attempt to default on). Meanwhile, the cost of employing people will go up as employers will likewise be taxed for not providing insurance. Who are the people who don't get health insurance from work? Poor people. Now there will be fewer jobs for them.

In the end, it crucifies the poor and lower middle class in order to make the extra poor a little better off while rich people don't do anything at all. If you're a liberal, socialist, or progressive, you've got to feel terrible about yourself (as well as less this law), as the democratic party basically screwed the poor yet again.

Of course, if you're a neocon, then there really isn't much to complain about, as you got to meddle with your inferiors and practice social engineering. More importantly, you got to do it without costing rich people anything.

If you're a libertarian, of course, this is also a disaster. Now, instead of the government being to arbitrarily tell you what to do and wave the commerce clause, now the government gets to arbitrarily tell you what to do and magically turn the word "penalty" into the word "tax" and make it constitutional.

Really, the only people who benefit from this are the richest of the rich, and the poorest of the poor. You wonder what's causing the wealth gap in this country...

As for me, personally, what's wrong is that if the ACA stands, my wife and I are going to lose our home. Combined we work the equivalent of two full time jobs, and after rent, food, utilities, car insurance, and student loan repayments, we make only an extra $80 per month. The only way to make ends meet once I have to spend hundreds of dollars per month on insurance will be to move into a smaller place closer to the edge of town. I'll be able to hold off for a little while, what with a new contract job coming up this fall, but even then, it's limited, and, ironically, assumes that nothing bad happens, like unforseen medical expenses...

That's what's wrong with it.

Isn't this a good reason to write to your congressman to vote for the single payer option next time that comes up? That's what makes the current plan stupid. They got rid of the single payer option so the people who are not quite broke and not quite well off have no recourse.

bogalubov wrote:Isn't this a good reason to write to your congressman to vote for the single payer option next time that comes up? That's what makes the current plan stupid. They got rid of the single payer option so the people who are not quite broke and not quite well off have no recourse.

If quid proed quo, then yes, I'd write to ask for a single payer. As actual empirical data shows, it does not, so I wouldn't.

Single-payer medicine does allow the government to arbitrarily fix prices, but when you step back and look at things comprehensively, a single-payer system is still more expensive than the old system. Poor, healthy people still need to find money to pay poor, sick people, except they gain the added burden of also needing to pay for rich, sick people. Moreover, it still screws over poor people as the economy moves more resources away from productive things, and in to non-productive things. I guess it will create a few jobs in the healthcare industry, but the economy as a whole will suffer, and guess who is hurt by a suffering economy? The poor, yet again.

The best solution more closely approximates what we had than what we're getting or what socialists want. Poor people need to be able to consume the appropriate level of healthcare for their budget. Forcing poor people to consume healthcare beyond their means, regardless of the means, will hurt them. The only question how is if we also want to bankrupt the state as well as bankrupting the poor, or if we want to just screw the poor while leaving the state solvent.

There could have been a lot of changes that would have helped, like breaking up hospital cartels and ending insurance collusion. Things, you know, that would have punished the people that are actually making the system worse. Instead, the people responsible can grin all the way to the bank as the poor are now forced to participate in their corrupt system. Forcing the government to participate in said system wouldn't be any better.

Ailaros wrote:
The best solution more closely approximates what we had than what we're getting or what socialists want. Poor people need to be able to consume the appropriate level of healthcare for their budget. Forcing poor people to consume healthcare beyond their means, regardless of the means, will hurt them. The only question how is if we also want to bankrupt the state as well as bankrupting the poor, or if we want to just screw the poor while leaving the state solvent.

The one payer system would not really be over burdened by adding the rich people into it. There's not that many of them and I'm sure that private practices would still exist that cater to the ultra rich who want every expensive, over kill test to be performed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "poor people need to be able to consume the appropriate level of healthcare". The issue now is that the only time the poor show up at the hospital is if they are really sick and injured. That takes a lot of money to fix usually. If they went to the doctor more regularly than problems could be caught early and treated before they spiraled out of control. That's how the Japanese system works. Frequent check ups with primary care physicians. If everyone has access to a primary physician the more expensive treatments could be avoided.

That of course gets to the next problem in American healthcare. There are not enough primary care doctors. That goes to the price of medical school. Once you're faced with 200k plus school loans, people are not too interested in taking "low" paying primary care positions. They want to find the specialties that shell out a lot more so they can pay off school and make the big bucks to afford fancy stuff. However, the government could fix this by excusing the loans people took out if they serve as a primary care doctor in a government funded facility.

Ailaros wrote:Meanwhile, the cost of employing people will go up as employers will likewise be taxed for not providing insurance. Who are the people who don't get health insurance from work? Poor people. Now there will be fewer jobs for them.

Worse, for many companies, it's cheaper to pay the tax(if the tax rate from when the bill was first passed stays the same) than it is to provide insurance for their employees. So now, not only are companies spending less, but they're paying the same amount as before to people whose insurance costs suddenly went up drastically(some to the point that they're looking at your situation).

azazel the cat wrote:
Y'all should; socialized medicine friggin' awesome.

Yup.
Just takes a government with real balls to implement it. That's unlikely in most democracies, unfortunately.

Ailaros wrote:

bogalubov wrote:Isn't this a good reason to write to your congressman to vote for the single payer option next time that comes up? That's what makes the current plan stupid. They got rid of the single payer option so the people who are not quite broke and not quite well off have no recourse.

If quid proed quo, then yes, I'd write to ask for a single payer. As actual empirical data shows, it does not, so I wouldn't.

Single-payer medicine does allow the government to arbitrarily fix prices, but when you step back and look at things comprehensively, a single-payer system is still more expensive than the old system.

A single payer system is most certainly not more expensive then a private, premium based model. Currently were paying 1.5-2 times more then any other country in the world for health care.

youbedead wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

bogalubov wrote:Isn't this a good reason to write to your congressman to vote for the single payer option next time that comes up? That's what makes the current plan stupid. They got rid of the single payer option so the people who are not quite broke and not quite well off have no recourse.

If quid proed quo, then yes, I'd write to ask for a single payer. As actual empirical data shows, it does not, so I wouldn't.

Single-payer medicine does allow the government to arbitrarily fix prices, but when you step back and look at things comprehensively, a single-payer system is still more expensive than the old system.

A single payer system is most certainly not more expensive then a private, premium based model. Currently were paying 1.5-2 times more then any other country in the world for health care.

However we really can't compare the US with European countries. being the size of Europe, we have issues that Europe doesn't have.

We can't centralize or socialize medicine as easily as they do because of our landmass. Think about what would happen if the EU was what provided medical coverage for everyone coming out of one pocket. It would be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare.

I think that healthcare, if it ever gets done by the government, should be done by the states. The Federal government's influence should extend to the military, interstate commerce, and facing external and, some, internal threats.

Medical problems are way too invasive for the government to be involved in, even Statewide coverage is iffy IMO.

It's a tax that the rich can EASILY avoid paying, and the the middle class mostly already can avoid paying. Meanwhile, it only taxes people who couldn't afford health insurance in the first place - the poor.

A lot of them are going to be exempt. Wonder where they're going to make up the shortfall

Except alot won't be exempted.

A family that is living at the poverty line is going to benifit from it. but a family thats living above the poverty line, but still barely hanging on, is not going to be exempt. It will increase their costs because they will be forced to pay the tax.


its kinda like how my family is middle class, and because of that I am not eligible for many scholarships. But being middle class doesn't mean I can afford to go to college any more then others. In some ways, I have less money for school then people several income brackets below my family.

"Help, Im white and middle class and because of that i can't get scholarships to pay for school. But some broke black student from Oakland has all the money he needs"

Grey Templar wrote:
However we really can't compare the US with European countries. being the size of Europe, we have issues that Europe doesn't have.

Hi. I live in a country that absolutely dwarfs you. We have socialized health care. It's great.

Oh, also, your argument is ridiculous and unfounded. The size of the territory and the populate has no bearing on the argument, as the costs are conducted as a rate. What you are saying is exactly what I tried to discount when I asked in the other thread: outside of propaganda-fueled rhetoric, why would anyone not want universal health care?

With the waste and fraud found in all Government programs, and a weak economy, this will be the final straw that will break our back. With over 14 trillion in debt and a weak economy, It is unsustainable.

Grey Templar wrote:"Help, Im white and middle class and because of that i can't get scholarships to pay for school. But some broke black student from Oakland has all the money he needs"

Don't get me wrong; I'm against statistical-average-based affirmative action. However, the odds of a middle class white male getting into college is exponentially higher than the odds of a poor African-American girl, living in an impoverished city/sometimes warzone, if you're thinking of Campbell, CA.

bogalubov wrote:The one payer system would not really be over burdened by adding the rich people into it. There's not that many of them

But there are a nonzero amount. In any case, poor healthy people like me are still needing to pay for what will be a deluge of poor sick people.

bogalubov wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "poor people need to be able to consume the appropriate level of healthcare".

The amount they can afford.

Would I like unlimited free healthcare? Certainly. Would I like a solid gold toilet? How about three? The amount of any good or service you consume must be limited by the amount of productive labor that you can trade for it. Everybody getting something for nothing eventually leaves everybody with nothing. That's the empirical position.

bogalubov wrote:The issue now is that the only time the poor show up at the hospital is if they are really sick and injured. That takes a lot of money to fix usually. If they went to the doctor more regularly than problems could be caught early and treated before they spiraled out of control.

Once again, though, this isn't true. Preventative medicine costs more than it saves. For every one person you save a hundred thousand dollars on by catching their cancer early (or whatever), you have to pay the cost of millions of physical examinations that yield no results (other than "you're healthy").

It may save those lucky individuals, but someone's got to pay for all that unnecessary preventative care that does nothing.

bogalubov wrote:That's how the Japanese system works.

The japanese system is almost completely bankrupt (as is their country as a whole). There's a really good frontline on this about how the japanese system is, in fact, one of the worst in the developed world as doctors get paid so little that they're in poverty while access is still so limited that there's rationing, while it's still so expensive that it's brought Japan to the brink of fiscal ruin.

As much as I don't want to lose my apartment, I don't think I'd be better off if the US government becomes insolvent.

youbedead wrote:A single payer system is most certainly not more expensive then a private, premium based model. Currently were paying 1.5-2 times more then any other country in the world for health care.

That's spending per capita, not spending per illness. Americans overconsume healthcare. Of course we're going to have to pay more for it.

The only way to bring the price down is to decrease people's access to healthcare (like they do in all those other countries on that graph), or to create a maximum wage law for doctors.

Plus, that graph only shows a couple of european countries. What about other countries that also have socialized medicine? It may be cheaper to pay for healthcare in spain (when you have access to it), but spain is on the brink of total collapse. Much like Italy. Much like greece.

The plain fact is that, regardless of price, when you move more of your society's resources towards something, you move it away from something else. If you are going to increase the amount of healthcare consumed, you are going to decrease the amount of food, housing, cars, and eduction (etc.) that you are able to consume instead. In my particular case, I'm now going to be homeless or begging for food from the church in order to be able to pay for healthcare that I'm not even using.

If you wanted to make the argument that it's better because socialized medicine reduces the amount of healthcare consumed (and thus frees up stuff for other use), then fine, but I was already not consuming healthcare (nor, I would note, aren't a lot of people), so making me pay for it is just screwing the poor in my case (and in the case of millions of others).

Jihadin wrote:

It's a tax that the rich can EASILY avoid paying, and the the middle class mostly already can avoid paying. Meanwhile, it only taxes people who couldn't afford health insurance in the first place - the poor.

A lot of them are going to be exempt. Wonder where they're going to make up the shortfall

More won't be.

The worst part is that if I choose to pay the tax (which, currently, I'm going to have to, as it's going to be much cheaper than paying for insurance), I now have to spend money I don't have and get absolutely nothing in return.

azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
However we really can't compare the US with European countries. being the size of Europe, we have issues that Europe doesn't have.

Hi. I live in a country that absolutely dwarfs you. We have socialized health care. It's great.

Oh, also, your argument is ridiculous and unfounded. The size of the territory and the populate has no bearing on the argument, as the costs are conducted as a rate. What you are saying is exactly what I tried to discount when I asked in the other thread: outside of propaganda-fueled rhetoric, why would anyone not want universal health care?

True but the US has @10x the population:
Canadian population - 33,487,208
US Population - 307,212,123
And it is more widely dispersed.

Also, "Obamacare" is not "universal healthcare", It is a bow to the insurance companies. The law requires all 307,212,123 US citizens to buy insurance. Yeah, the ins companies have to accept them, but they also are getting all those payments as well.

The law also requires the insurance companies to actually cover the insured instead of simply taking their money and saying "you had cancer before you got insurance, so we are not paying for it".

Every time I hear this measure referred to as "Obamacare"( a reference to the original idea that was vehemently protested and stalemated), I die a little inside.

Resurrection Orb FTW

Ailaros wrote:
The japanese system is almost completely bankrupt (as is their country as a whole). There's a really good frontline on this about how the japanese system is, in fact, one of the worst in the developed world as doctors get paid so little that they're in poverty while access is still so limited that there's rationing, while it's still so expensive that it's brought Japan to the brink of fiscal ruin.

I don't know where you get your information but you're wrong.

Japan’s current account surplus — the widest measure of its trade — totaled $196 billion in 2010, up more than threefold since 1989. By comparison, America’s current account deficit ballooned to $471 billion from $99 billion in that time. Although in the 1990s the conventional wisdom was that as a result of China’s rise Japan would be a major loser and the United States a major winner, it has not turned out that way. Japan has increased its exports to China more than 14-fold since 1989 and Chinese-Japanese bilateral trade remains in broad balance.

I lived in Japan and my wife is Japanese; as of her conversation with her parents a few days ago there is no "rationing" and the country is anything but broke, even after the earthquake and nuclear disaster.

A good read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/the-true-story-of-japans-economic-success.html?pagewanted=all

Ailaros wrote:The only way to bring the price down is to decrease people's access to healthcare (like they do in all those other countries on that graph), or to create a maximum wage law for doctors.

Please explain to me how Canada, the UK, Sweden, etc. have decreased access to healthcare?
Outside of right-wing-radio LIES, nobody gets turned away in Canadian hospitals, nor is our quality of care inferior to that of the US.

Ailaros wrote:Plus, that graph only shows a couple of european countries. What about other countries that also have socialized medicine? It may be cheaper to pay for healthcare in spain (when you have access to it), but spain is on the brink of total collapse. Much like Italy. Much like greece.

But they're not on the brink of total collapse due to their health care, so please try not to create a straw man.

helgrenze wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
However we really can't compare the US with European countries. being the size of Europe, we have issues that Europe doesn't have.

Hi. I live in a country that absolutely dwarfs you. We have socialized health care. It's great.

Oh, also, your argument is ridiculous and unfounded. The size of the territory and the population has no bearing on the argument, as the costs are conducted as a rate. What you are saying is exactly what I tried to discount when I asked in the other thread: outside of propaganda-fueled rhetoric, why would anyone not want universal health care?

True but the US has @10x the population:
Canadian population - 33,487,208
US Population - 307,212,123
And it is more widely dispersed.

Also, "Obamacare" is not "universal healthcare", It is a bow to the insurance companies. The law requires all 307,212,123 US citizens to buy insurance. Yeah, the ins companies have to accept them, but they also are getting all those payments as well.

Right. That's why I didn't say "Obamacare"; I said "Universal Health Care". As in, the real kind.
And for what it's worth, the population size doesn't really factor in any more than does the territorial size. That's why I said as much. I've underscored that part for your so that you won't miss it a second time.

Ailaros wrote:What's so bad is that it's the most regressive tax hike in american history.

Well, that's a really wild claim. The mandate is $600... and meanwhile you have sales taxes of around 10%. So no, it really, really isn't the most regressive tax hike at present, let alone in history.

Second up, it's a huge mistake to look at a single piece of legislation in isolation and dismiss it because of a regressive impact, when that piece of legislation is tied to a system with a strongly progressive element. Right now if you can't afford insurance then your option is to hope you don't get sick, and if you do get really sick then you liquidate your assets to pay for it and declare bankruptcy. That $600 charge means if you do get sick you can go and get coverage. It might not be ideal, but it is a million times better than the current situation, and hyper-focusing on the regressive impact of the $600 charge shouldn't be used to ignore that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:Single-payer medicine does allow the government to arbitrarily fix prices, but when you step back and look at things comprehensively, a single-payer system is still more expensive than the old system.

This is objectively false. Healthcare systems in France, the UK, Germany, Australia and other developed nations deliver results that are at least as good as US health outcomes, and do it for somewhere between a third to a half as much per capita.

I mean, you just have to go and actually look at the numbers, and it becomes clear the US system has the most incredible waste.

There could have been a lot of changes that would have helped, like breaking up hospital cartels and ending insurance collusion.

Actually, for a system that costs as stupidly high an amount as US healthcare, it's surprising how few people are making much from the system. Private Insurers are very profitable, but that's about it. Hospitals make little money, and doctors aren't really paid much better than in other healthcare systems. Most of the extra cost in the US system is actually just waste - the cost of overtreatment, the systemic bias to emergency treatment over preventative care, the cost of additional account expenses (as money goes through so many more hands than in a more streamlined system), and the cost of chasing people through law courts for outstanding bills (and the eventual cost of bankruptcy proceedings).

Picking out some randoms and claiming they're making money they shouldn't is an easy answer, but its a wrong one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Yup.
Just takes a government with real balls to implement it. That's unlikely in most democracies, unfortunately.

Except most every democracy has socialised medicine, so it's actually the exact opposite of unlikely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:However we really can't compare the US with European countries. being the size of Europe, we have issues that Europe doesn't have.

We can't centralize or socialize medicine as easily as they do because of our landmass.

Australia and Canada have much lower population density, and yet our socialised systems deliver better outcomes for less money. So that claim is simply wrong. Geography doesn't impact the cost of healthcare meaningfully.

Ailaros wrote:

youbedead wrote:A single payer system is most certainly not more expensive then a private, premium based model. Currently were paying 1.5-2 times more then any other country in the world for health care.

That's spending per capita, not spending per illness. Americans overconsume healthcare. Of course we're going to have to pay more for it.

The only way to bring the price down is to decrease people's access to healthcare (like they do in all those other countries on that graph), or to create a maximum wage law for doctors.

Plus, that graph only shows a couple of european countries. What about other countries that also have socialized medicine? It may be cheaper to pay for healthcare in spain (when you have access to it), but spain is on the brink of total collapse. Much like Italy. Much like greece.

The plain fact is that, regardless of price, when you move more of your society's resources towards something, you move it away from something else. If you are going to increase the amount of healthcare consumed, you are going to decrease the amount of food, housing, cars, and eduction (etc.) that you are able to consume instead. In my particular case, I'm now going to be homeless or begging for food from the church in order to be able to pay for healthcare that I'm not even using.

If you wanted to make the argument that it's better because socialized medicine reduces the amount of healthcare consumed (and thus frees up stuff for other use), then fine, but I was already not consuming healthcare (nor, I would note, aren't a lot of people), so making me pay for it is just screwing the poor in my case (and in the case of millions of others).

Presently American are the least likely to see a doctor for illness then any other western country on earth. Its a combination of having to pay to see a doctor and that businesses in america are more likely to punish a worker for taking sick days then their European counterparts. If you don't have to pay for doctors visits you are far more likely to take preventive measures thereby reducing future costs dramatically and overall reducing the cost of healthcare. Can you show support for your claim that more people are denied healthcare in socialized medicine (This goes out to anyone, does anyone have actual numbers of those denied coverage in America, Britain, canada, etc,) How would a socialized system funded by a progressive tax not benefit you, it would cost you less then current premiums and it would not cost you to see a doctor.

Grey Templar wrote:Except alot won't be exempted.

A family that is living at the poverty line is going to benifit from it. but a family thats living above the poverty line, but still barely hanging on, is not going to be exempt. It will increase their costs because they will be forced to pay the tax.

But when they get seriously sick they can go and apply for health coverage and not get rejected for a pre-existing condition. That's a huge thing that absolutely dwarfs the yearly payment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:With the waste and fraud found in all Government programs, and a weak economy, this will be the final straw that will break our back. With over 14 trillion in debt and a weak economy, It is unsustainable.

Healthcare that's up to double the cost per capita of other countries, for no greater results, is unsustainable. That's what you've got now, as a result of failing to meaningfully reform your healthcare system for many decades*. The rest of us, with our government programs are delivering the same healthcare results for a fraction of the price.

This is easily located information. Go out and read. Learn this. Accept it.




*Nixon recognised it was broken, and the first moves towards a better structured government involvement were first tried when he was president. Minority interests and cheap politics have been preventing reform since then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:But there are a nonzero amount. In any case, poor healthy people like me are still needing to pay for what will be a deluge of poor sick people.

Well, yeah. Healthy people cover sick people. It works that way so that if you do become one of the sick, the other healthy people will cover you. It spreads risk, because one person getting unlucky can't afford the cost of treatment by themselves.

I mean, this is how insurance works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:True but the US has @10x the population:
Canadian population - 33,487,208
US Population - 307,212,123
And it is more widely dispersed.

Okay this is just silly. The US can't provide healthcare as cheaply because it's a bigger landmass than Europe. Then when it's pointed out Canada also delivers cheaper, better healthcare, we see the reasoning that the US has more people. None of these things impact the cost of healthcare in any meaningful way. It's just

There is no magic 'America' reason that healthcare costs so much. It's just a straight up poorly constructed system, that's been outdated for arguably up to 50 years. That's it. You have a system with the worst of both private and public systems, and every year this costs you about 5% of your GDP for no benefit over any other developed country.

Also, "Obamacare" is not "universal healthcare", It is a bow to the insurance companies.

Actually, that's the one thing it isn't. The insurance companies fought the bill tooth and nail, and never engaged in negotiations over it. That's why most of the good parts of it are about curbing their worst excesses - namely the requirement spend at least 80% of their revenue on actual medical costs, and preventing them from rejecting a person with a pre-existing condition.

Pharmaceutical companies, who worked with the administration of producing Obamacare... now those guys made out like bandits.

Poor right-wingers--betrayed by Roberts! Never trust anyone who spends summer vacations in Maine--typical behavior of a closet north-east liberal.

olympia wrote:Poor right-wingers--betrayed by Roberts! Never trust anyone who spends summer vacations in Maine--typical behavior of a closet north-east liberal.

What an intelligent comment. I wish you had entered this discussion on the first page.

Ailaros wrote:

bogalubov wrote:The one payer system would not really be over burdened by adding the rich people into it. There's not that many of them

But there are a nonzero amount. In any case, poor healthy people like me are still needing to pay for what will be a deluge of poor sick people.

bogalubov wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "poor people need to be able to consume the appropriate level of healthcare".

The amount they can afford.

Would I like unlimited free healthcare? Certainly. Would I like a solid gold toilet? How about three? The amount of any good or service you consume must be limited by the amount of productive labor that you can trade for it. Everybody getting something for nothing eventually leaves everybody with nothing. That's the empirical position.

There's no such thing as unlimited free healthcare anywhere. Even in the normal (non-US) systems, there has to be some degree of rationing based on availability and cost of services between different areas.

That said, the reason why "unlimited free" healthcare works is because everyone isn't ill all the time. Most people go though most of their life with hopefully a few incidents when they need some kind of treatment.

People don't go to the doctor every day just because it's free.

bogalubov wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

streamdragon wrote:what's so bad about this one?

What's so bad is that it's the most regressive tax hike in american history.

It's a tax that the rich can EASILY avoid paying, and the the middle class mostly already can avoid paying. Meanwhile, it only taxes people who couldn't afford health insurance in the first place - the poor.

If you're completely destitute then you'll be able to avoid the tax through medicare, but for the millions of poor people just above the poverty line (who are still hand-to-mouth poor, but just don't technically qualify for tax exemption), they're stuck finding out where they're going to magically get $200 per month per person from. Likely it will be by losing their homes (purchased or rented), in favor of even worse living conditions and by defaulting on their other debts (unless they're student loans, which is a crime to attempt to default on). Meanwhile, the cost of employing people will go up as employers will likewise be taxed for not providing insurance. Who are the people who don't get health insurance from work? Poor people. Now there will be fewer jobs for them.

In the end, it crucifies the poor and lower middle class in order to make the extra poor a little better off while rich people don't do anything at all. If you're a liberal, socialist, or progressive, you've got to feel terrible about yourself (as well as less this law), as the democratic party basically screwed the poor yet again.

Of course, if you're a neocon, then there really isn't much to complain about, as you got to meddle with your inferiors and practice social engineering. More importantly, you got to do it without costing rich people anything.

If you're a libertarian, of course, this is also a disaster. Now, instead of the government being to arbitrarily tell you what to do and wave the commerce clause, now the government gets to arbitrarily tell you what to do and magically turn the word "penalty" into the word "tax" and make it constitutional.

Really, the only people who benefit from this are the richest of the rich, and the poorest of the poor. You wonder what's causing the wealth gap in this country...

As for me, personally, what's wrong is that if the ACA stands, my wife and I are going to lose our home. Combined we work the equivalent of two full time jobs, and after rent, food, utilities, car insurance, and student loan repayments, we make only an extra $80 per month. The only way to make ends meet once I have to spend hundreds of dollars per month on insurance will be to move into a smaller place closer to the edge of town. I'll be able to hold off for a little while, what with a new contract job coming up this fall, but even then, it's limited, and, ironically, assumes that nothing bad happens, like unforseen medical expenses...

That's what's wrong with it.

Isn't this a good reason to write to your congressman to vote for the single payer option next time that comes up? That's what makes the current plan stupid. They got rid of the single payer option so the people who are not quite broke and not quite well off have no recourse.

That or a good reason to start a second revolution.
(bad Godfather Lucazi accent) "Revolution II, this time is Bus - i - nezz" (intro Godfather theme)


INteresting take on the tax increases discovered so far:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/health3jpg/

Frazzled wrote:
That or a good reason to start a second revolution.

You know, no one takes this threat seriously anymore. It's like the boy who cried wolf.

At least Daniel Shays went all the way!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

Apparently Kaiser, of all people, has a page up with some good info. It gives specifics that a couple people may or may not find useful, regarding people at or near the poverty line, including even the "I make too much for Medicaid, but not enough to buy insurance, what about me?" group

Link totally stolen from the reddit link someone posted a bit back, but it was useful enough I felt it merited posting directly.

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
That or a good reason to start a second revolution.

You know, no one takes this threat seriously anymore. It's like the boy who cried wolf.

At least Daniel Shays went all the way!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

Was it a threat? Did you miss the part about the Godfather music right below it? Who put a corn cob up your ass this morning?

Oh Frazz can dish out the troll, but can't take it.



In all seriousness Frazz, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts (and others) about the potential limitations the Supreme Court put on the Commerce Clause?

olympia wrote:Poor right-wingers--betrayed by Roberts! Never trust anyone who spends summer vacations in Maine--typical behavior of a closet north-east liberal.

He actually gift wrapped it for opponents of the bill while preserving the image of the SCOTUS and shielding himself from future accusations of partisanship. It's a giant you to Obama and most people don't even realize it yet. It's hilarious. Obamacare supporters are in for a rude awakening in a few years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

A tax must originate from the House (Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution). Guess where the Obamacare bill comes from? It begins with S and ends with enate. Also, since it is a tax, it would only take 51 votes (not 60) in the Senate to strike down (that is to say, there are plenty of ways to crack this nut). Since it is a tax, the equal protection clause applies...all those waivers will be challenged and thrown out.

The ruling also sets a hard limit on the commerce clause for the first time ever. The Medicare ruling allows states to challenge unfunded federal mandates. The Medicaid ruling prevents Congress from withholding healthcare funding from states that don't comply. These are major victories for states' rights.

And the cherry on top is that Obama was obliged to praise Roberts for all of it. Pure genius.

Ailaros wrote:That's spending per capita, not spending per illness. Americans overconsume healthcare. Of course we're going to have to pay more for it.

The only way to bring the price down is to decrease people's access to healthcare (like they do in all those other countries on that graph), or to create a maximum wage law for doctors.

Because your doctors are paid for investigations performed, it is often the case that Americans are given 2-3 times as many imaging procedures (x-rays, CT's, MRI's etc) for each investigation than you would be given for exactly the same condition here in the UK. I was told this while talking to one of the radiographers/clinical scientists at work.

Grey Templar wrote:
We can't centralize or socialize medicine as easily as they do because of our landmass.

Landmass isn't an issue, as Canada does just fine. You could argue that the real issue if population, but that's still not necessarily a good argument given that there's no particular reason that bureaucracy should scale up faster than the population it serves.

No, the real issue is that most European states are unitary governments, which means administrative regions derive their authority from the state itself. This means that bureaucratic procedure can be easily standardized, as the central authority doesn't have to deal with 50 separate sovereigns, each with their own unique regulations and procedures. This problem gets even worse when you get down to the municipal level as each state has to contend the political distinctions of all the various cities, towns, counties, and townships within its jurisdiction.

You could argue that Canada has a similar issue, but quite frankly that is a case where scale is important. 10 provinces and 3 territories is a much easier system to administrate than 50 states, which in part is why Canada's central government has tended to be stronger than that of the US.

Grey Templar wrote:
Think about what would happen if the EU was what provided medical coverage for everyone coming out of one pocket. It would be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare.

It would be, but only if the various constituent nations maintained their political autonomy (which they would).

There is merit to the idea that universal healthcare should be provided at the state level, lord knows they've gotten away with artificially low taxes for years. Though its likely that any regulation regarding the open borders* of states would have to be made at the federal level, at least eventually. Really that might not even be a bad means of providing an incentive for states to adopt universal healthcare: set the parameters for how "foreign" citizens must be treated if you adopt such coverage, and let them work from there (this also conveniently limits the types of universal healthcare that can be provided).

*eg: What must California cover if a person visiting from Texas gets sick? Or, for that matter, a person visiting from Japan?

Frazzled wrote: Take the best from it, the Swiss, German, etc. Take your time and do it right. Instead that created a bureaucratic monster worthy of Greek myth.

The German system isn't actually all that far off from the one which exists under the mandate (aside from enforcement), its simply that Germany has a long, long history of socialized medicine and so is more receptive to it.

Really, a better written form of mandated health insurance would work well in the US, its simply political will that stands in the way of such a thing existing. Unfortunately, "political will" is a big, amorphous hurdle.

agnosto wrote:...and the country is anything but broke, even after the earthquake and nuclear disaster.

I still don't think you should hold up a country that has had no appreciable growth in GDP over the last 20 years, while bringing debt to GDP up to 200% whilst rapidly de-peopleing itself should be held up as a good example.

azazel the cat wrote:Please explain to me how Canada, the UK, Sweden, etc. have decreased access to healthcare?

So, you only have a certain amount of healthcare available, and it's not going to ever be able to cover the infinite demand for it. In the case of the US at the moment, what brings the amount of healthcare consumption more in line with what's available is the price of healthcare, although with insurance, it's far from a perfect system.

In other countries where things are fixed, the government decides who gets healthcare, and who doesn't, and of what quality (depending on the country). In this case, the government decreases healthcare consumption to the amount that's available.

azazel the cat wrote:But they're not on the brink of total collapse due to their health care, so please try not to create a straw man.

But it's not a straw man entirely. Yes, Greece isn't going under JUST because of healthcare costs. All of these socialist countries are going under, however, because of the burden that government-run institutions are placing on the economy. When a people can use their government to enforce greed, it can only stay afloat so long as it can find suckers to back them.

If there's one thing we've learned from the 20th century, it's that things in an economy which are centrally planned work a lot better in the very short term (say, 5-10 years), but they are always utter disasters compared to decentralized systems in the very long term. It turns out that any one of us isn't as smart as all of us.

Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system. Health care may not be ruining Greece's economy, but really look at it - now that Greece is collapsing due to its state-run programs, are people getting more or less healthcare now? Greed allowed them to overconsume healthcare in the past at the cost of underconsuming it in the future. Greece has hit that tipping point, and, by the looks of it, they're only the first of many.

sebster wrote:Well, that's a really wild claim. The mandate is $600... and meanwhile you have sales taxes of around 10%. So no, it really, really isn't the most regressive tax hike at present, let alone in history.

I didn't say it was the biggest tax hike in history, I said it was the most regressive. Rich and poor alike have to pay sales taxes (while poor people get a break with things like much lower rates on food, and heavily subsidized fuel). In this case, the only people who are going to be subjected to the tax are people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place. The only people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place are poor people.

It's a tax that the rich are already avoiding, and that the middle class, if they're not already avoiding it, will be relatively easy to avoid. A tax that is only practically leveled on poor people and not the rich is regressive. End of.

sebster wrote: That $600 charge means if you do get sick you can go and get coverage.

Firstly, it's not limited to $600. If you're married, your obligation rises to $2000 per family or $600 per uninsured person, whichever is higher.

Secondly, this tax is to recoup the loss of emergency room visits by the uninsured. It does NOT insure the uninsured. If I pay the tax because insurance is still less affordable (which will be the case for me), I still don't get insurance. I'm still not covered. I don't get anything. The only difference is that the burden on the state is reduced if I go to the emergency room anyways.

youbedead wrote: If you don't have to pay for doctors visits you are far more likely to take preventive measures thereby reducing future costs dramatically and overall reducing the cost of healthcare.

But this isn't true. Preventative medicine doesn't save you money over the long term. Preventitive medicine isn't free. All those MRIs and CT scans and doctors visits that yield no benefit (because you weren't sick) cost money and resources. Lots of money goes in, and only once in a very while do you see real savings from individuals. It's exactly the same faulty reasoning that causes people to play the lottery. People see the relatively low up-front cost and see what the payout is on that very rare chance that it benefits you and gets suckered into playing. Just like how the lottery makes poor people poorer, so does a system like this make a whole country poorer.

Plus, think of it practically here. If preventative medicine saved money in the long-term over large populations, then insurance companies would REQUIRE you to engage in preventative care, because it would save the insurance company money. As it is, most insurance companies don't cover preventative care at all, or only minimally cover it. This is because it's a bad investment. You lose money over all. If insurance has taught us anything, it's that it's cheaper to let people get cancer and then pay to cure it, than it is to make everybody go in for mandatory cancer screenings. Indeed, the only places that even do things like this (free mammograms, for example), are places that aren't required to make a profit (like planned parenthood and catholic hospitals).

youbedead wrote: Can you show support for your claim that more people are denied healthcare in socialized medicine (This goes out to anyone, does anyone have actual numbers of those denied coverage in America, Britain, canada, etc,)

It feels like a half dozen times a year, British newspapers break a horror story about their NHS system. If you really want me to dreg up some, I could. But that's not the point, of course.

The point is economic. If you only have so much of a service that you can give out, and you increase the number of people who get a slice of that zero-sum pie, then it makes everyone else's pie slice smaller. It's one of the things that's hidden in the data presented here, actually.

In the UK, there is much more access to healthcare, but the healthcare that people who have access to it get is much poorer than in the US. Conversely, the healthcare that people gain access to in the US is much better, but many fewer people have access to it. This nuance is completely lost when you look at the average of an entire population (and since the US system as its currently "designed" doesn't have this as its prime focus, it's not surprising that it doesn't do the best at this). How would you tell the other way? Well, when the King of Jordan wants the best healthcare in the world, he goes to the Mayo clinic in the United States. The same is true for all of the rest of the worlds dictators and rich folk. If you can afford it, the United States will provide you with the highest quality healthcare in the world today.

So, the question here is if you'd rather have a system where everybody gets fixed up a little bit, or of some people get fixed up all the way. While I like the former in theory, when it gets practiced through socialism, I'd rather go for the latter. Socialized healthcare may look good now, but what happens in 20 years when the states that are supporting it are too bankrupt to be able to pay their doctors? Even were this not the case, we know empirically that over the long term decentralized systems produce more wealth for the poorest people. Equality isn't as important as quality.

Cadorius wrote:And the cherry on top is that Obama was obliged to praise Roberts for all of it. Pure genius.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The victory is much, much less of a victory than it seems, and I also agree that the way the supreme court undermined it was worthy of Machiavelli. I've long held that supreme court justices are some of the smartest people in the United States, and this really just proves it. Were I to try and undermine this law, I couldn't have thought of a way near as smart as this.

Ailaros wrote:
But it's not a straw man entirely. Yes, Greece isn't going under JUST because of healthcare costs. All of these socialist countries are going under, however, because of the burden that government-run institutions are placing on the economy. When a people can use their government to enforce greed, it can only stay afloat so long as it can find suckers to back them.

Actually quite a few socialist countries are doing rather well. Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway (though with Norway its largely from petrochemical resources), and China all seem to be humming along nicely. Hell, even France is in decent shape.

Oh, and incidentally, people can always use the government to enforce greed. People can use the government for whatever they want given sufficient power. Legal protections only work because people agree to them, or the state is willing to enforce them. Of course it takes time to generate that power, or to overcome the compelling state authority, but that gets into the bit below about the absence of superiority with respect to either a socialist or capitalist system (to the extent that they're mutually exclusive, which they really aren't).

Ailaros wrote:
If there's one thing we've learned from the 20th century, it's that things in an economy which are centrally planned work a lot better in the very short term (say, 5-10 years), but they are always utter disasters compared to decentralized systems in the very long term. It turns out that any one of us isn't as smart as all of us.

Well, except over the short term. And even then, all economic systems have a degree of central planning involved, even if we're only talking about things like property rights.

Ailaros wrote:
Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system.

Interestingly the same argument could be made regarding capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no single, perfect system, and the system that works is largely decided by what the population will bear. Start removing regulations and benefits (or outright failing to provide), and eventually you see a negative reaction from the populace, try to enforce your choices against popular will and eventually people start wanting you dead; and perhaps more importantly are willing to risk their own safety in order to compromise yours.

Ailaros wrote:
In this case, the only people who are going to be subjected to the tax are people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place. The only people who couldn't afford insurance in the first place are poor people.

It's a tax that the rich are already avoiding, and that the middle class, if they're not already avoiding it, will be relatively easy to avoid. A tax that is only practically leveled on poor people and not the rich is regressive. End of.

Those for whom the cost of the cheapest possible plan exceeds 8% of their per anum income are exempt from the tax, as are those with incomes below the filing threshold.

Cadorius wrote:
A tax must originate from the House (Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution). Guess where the Obamacare bill comes from? It begins with S and ends with enate.

Actually no, it originated in the House as H.R. 3590. Once the House proposes an appropriations bill the Senate is free to, as with all other proposed legislation, amend it as it sees fit and subsequently agree to the amended version; which must subsequently agreed to by the House. This is why you saw so much back and forth regarding Senate and House version of the bill, and why the House was the final hurdle in passing it.

In practice the House essentially has no more authority over appropriations than the Senate.

Cadorius wrote:
Since it is a tax, the equal protection clause applies...all those waivers will be challenged and thrown out.

The waivers are difficult to challenge, as you have to demonstrate immediate harm to bring the case to trial.

Ailaros wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Please explain to me how Canada, the UK, Sweden, etc. have decreased access to healthcare?

So, you only have a certain amount of healthcare available, and it's not going to ever be able to cover the infinite demand for it. In the case of the US at the moment, what brings the amount of healthcare consumption more in line with what's available is the price of healthcare, although with insurance, it's far from a perfect system.

In other countries where things are fixed, the government decides who gets healthcare, and who doesn't, and of what quality (depending on the country). In this case, the government decreases healthcare consumption to the amount that's available.

No, they really don't. I think you should evaluate where you're getting your sources, and determine how many of them are politically-oriented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:But they're not on the brink of total collapse due to their health care, so please try not to create a straw man.

But it's not a straw man entirely. Yes, Greece isn't going under JUST because of healthcare costs. All of these socialist countries are going under, however, because of the burden that government-run institutions are placing on the economy. When a people can use their government to enforce greed, it can only stay afloat so long as it can find suckers to back them.

If there's one thing we've learned from the 20th century, it's that things in an economy which are centrally planned work a lot better in the very short term (say, 5-10 years), but they are always utter disasters compared to decentralized systems in the very long term. It turns out that any one of us isn't as smart as all of us.

Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system.

I don't really want to get into a political debate about socialism vs. capitalism here, since I'm not a fan of either and those discussions ultimately polarize themselves within the first two posts, but I will say this much:

1) You really ought to stop thinking about things with such a polarized view. Neither system works well in its extreme form. Communist Russia circa mid-20th century and pre-revolution France are excellent examples of what happens when neither system is hedged. IMO, the best system (as has been demonstrated by many countries that are NOT economically crashing, such as Canada, Norway or Sweden, for example. I think even France isn't doing too poorly at the moment.) seems to be a system of capitalist values with socialist restrictions on the marketplace. In other words: the government stays out of private businesses, but does set limits as to how those businesses can operate. It's no different than saying that an NFL team can call any play they want, so long as they stay within the rules of the NFL.

2) The underlined statement is not a reflection of socialism, it is a reflection of laissez-faire capitalism. I understand that you're in a bind about the individual mandate right now, but you would do well to take breather and examine things with a clear head, because the points you are trying to make seem to be rooted in demagoguery rather than fact.

Cadorius wrote:

olympia wrote:Poor right-wingers--betrayed by Roberts! Never trust anyone who spends summer vacations in Maine--typical behavior of a closet north-east liberal.

He actually gift wrapped it for opponents of the bill while preserving the image of the SCOTUS and shielding himself from future accusations of partisanship. It's a giant you to Obama and most people don't even realize it yet. It's hilarious. Obamacare supporters are in for a rude awakening in a few years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

A tax must originate from the House (Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution). Guess where the Obamacare bill comes from? It begins with S and ends with enate. Also, since it is a tax, it would only take 51 votes (not 60) in the Senate to strike down (that is to say, there are plenty of ways to crack this nut). Since it is a tax, the equal protection clause applies...all those waivers will be challenged and thrown out.

The ruling also sets a hard limit on the commerce clause for the first time ever. The Medicare ruling allows states to challenge unfunded federal mandates. The Medicaid ruling prevents Congress from withholding healthcare funding from states that don't comply. These are major victories for states' rights.

And the cherry on top is that Obama was obliged to praise Roberts for all of it. Pure genius.

That's interesting, but if SCOTUS ruled that it was a tax and taxes must originate in the House would they not have immediately declared it unconstitutional or would that require a different suit, or does it fall to the legislative branch to fix it like the hughes amendment?

Actually....I think everyone focusing on the fact the SCOTUS didn't shoot it down and Robert flipping....give it time. Since its now a "tax" I'm sure someone researching it to see if its repealable

Ailaros wrote:

youbedead wrote: If you don't have to pay for doctors visits you are far more likely to take preventive measures thereby reducing future costs dramatically and overall reducing the cost of healthcare.

But this isn't true. Preventative medicine doesn't save you money over the long term. Preventitive medicine isn't free. All those MRIs and CT scans and doctors visits that yield no benefit (because you weren't sick) cost money and resources. Lots of money goes in, and only once in a very while do you see real savings from individuals. It's exactly the same faulty reasoning that causes people to play the lottery. People see the relatively low up-front cost and see what the payout is on that very rare chance that it benefits you and gets suckered into playing. Just like how the lottery makes poor people poorer, so does a system like this make a whole country poorer.

Plus, think of it practically here. If preventative medicine saved money in the long-term over large populations, then insurance companies would REQUIRE you to engage in preventative care, because it would save the insurance company money. As it is, most insurance companies don't cover preventative care at all, or only minimally cover it. This is because it's a bad investment. You lose money over all. If insurance has taught us anything, it's that it's cheaper to let people get cancer and then pay to cure it, than it is to make everybody go in for mandatory cancer screenings. Indeed, the only places that even do things like this (free mammograms, for example), are places that aren't required to make a profit (like planned parenthood and catholic hospitals).

Thats my point preventative health care isn't free thats why it is not practiced in the US. IN countries where cost is covered by taxes preventative care is practiced quite heavily. If the cost is covered by the health care provider then there is a major incentive for practicing preventive care. As for why insurance companies don't cover it it is the same reason that most car insurance companies( that cocer repairs) don't cover general maintenance desptite the fact that it dramatically increases the lifespan of a car and decreases the likelihood of a major failure. No would ever say that it is a bad investment
to make sure your car is well maintained.

youbedead wrote: Can you show support for your claim that more people are denied healthcare in socialized medicine (This goes out to anyone, does anyone have actual numbers of those denied coverage in America, Britain, canada, etc,)

It feels like a half dozen times a year, British newspapers break a horror story about their NHS system. If you really want me to dreg up some, I could. But that's not the point, of course.

The point is economic. If you only have so much of a service that you can give out, and you increase the number of people who get a slice of that zero-sum pie, then it makes everyone else's pie slice smaller. It's one of the things that's hidden in the data presented here, actually.

AustonT wrote:That's interesting, but if SCOTUS ruled that it was a tax and taxes must originate in the House would they not have immediately declared it unconstitutional or would that require a different suit, or does it fall to the legislative branch to fix it like the hughes amendment?

As I said above, the bill did, as with all appropriations bills, originate in the House. Simply because a bill originates in the House does not mean that the final version as passed will not predominantly follow from amendments made by the Senate.

People often overstate the importance of the original source of a bill with respect to its final content. Basically all that forcing a bill to originate in the House does is give the House the final vote on the finished product.

azazel the cat wrote:No, they really don't. I think you should evaluate where you're getting your sources, and determine how many of them are politically-oriented.

What I'm talking about isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of economic common sense. Healthcare is a limited resource at any given time. Giving certain people more and certain people less doesn't change this fact.

If you've got a certain group of people that have access to a resource, and you change the system so that more people have access to said resource, the original group must use less if the new group uses more. Politics doesn't change math.

dogma wrote:Actually quite a few socialist countries are doing rather well. Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway (though with Norway its largely from petrochemical resources), and China all seem to be humming along nicely. Hell, even France is in decent shape.

Germany is a real counterexample (which, I should note, is probably the least socialist of that group, while Belgium is on the verge of its own bailout after its failed bailout of its own banks.

Of course, all the nordic countries (to which I'd also add micro-states like Leichtenstein) are doing fine. You'd be surprised what tiny countries that can basically practice alchemy can afford to get away with. Just look at Quatar, Dubai, or Bhutan. Of course, that's the problem, really. Human beings are virtually incapable of forsight. Yes, they're doing fine now, but the system is deeply flawed. Norway only gets something for nothing because it costs them basically nothing to pump black gold into their economy. Once that stops working, just how sustainable is their free-lunch economic system really?

I'd also note that scandinavian socialism isn't actually as socialist as a lot of people like to think. Their labor laws are much less restrictive, for example.

dogma wrote:Oh, and incidentally, people can always use the government to enforce greed. People can use the government for whatever they want given sufficient power.

If anything, this is an argument for making governments do less. It's basically the same problem that left-leaning people have with corporations. Once power becomes concentrated, you greatly amplify the ability for corruption to exist, as well as greatly expanding the damage done by bad decisions.

dogma wrote:Well, except over the short term. And even then, all economic systems have a degree of central planning involved, even if we're only talking about things like property rights.

Right, and I'm not trying to be an anarchist, here.

The one thing we have learned, empirically, though, is that the best systems in the world are the ones that create an environment of barely controlled chaos. Too much chaos (like everywhere in the least developed world) is bad, but once you hit that point where basic stability is enforceable, every step towards more centralization is a step towards less wealth for fewer people over the long term.

dogma wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system.

Interestingly the same argument could be made regarding capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Not well, though.

Take Korea as a perfect example. In 1948, everything was the same. Same geography (Korea), same demography (they were all Koreans), same economic situation (poor). For the last 60 years, you took a single sample and split it in two and gave one set a very decentralized system (the south), and the other a highly centralized system (the north). 60 years later, the poorest people in south korea are way, way better off than they were 60 years ago. Their lifespans have drastically improved, and they now have access to things like the internet that allows them to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, along with countless improvements in their material standard of life.

Meanwhile in the north, things are so bad that their population has shrunk to the point where they no longer have enough people to maintain what they once had. There aren't enough people to maintain tractors, so people are going back to plowing fields with oxen while previously claimed farmland is going to waste for the inability to maintain it. The people there literally starve to death every day, and they don't have access to things that are considered basic in the west like electricity. Quality of life is slowly returning to where it was in the 1500's.

Same people in the same place. The centralized system has caused utter ruin and misery, while the decentralized system has made things much, much better for nearly everybody.

The same is true when you compare east and west germany. Once again, same place, same people. By the end, east germans had to wait on a 15 year waiting list to get one of the worst cars ever made, while even poor people in the west could just walk down to a local store and buy a beater that was still better than a brand new east german car. Meanwhile, east germany was turned into an ecological wasteland, as well as a country filled with terrible privation.

The same is true when you consider eastern european countries and western european countries, and when you compare the united states to the former soviet union (which, I would emphasize, is the FORMER soviet union).

If the 20th century has taught us anything, it's that decentralized economies bring unparalleled wealth and prosperity to almost everybody, while centralized economies bring unparalleled privation and destitution to almost everybody. The more centralized, the worse off you are. If you want to make an argument to the opposite, you've going to have to come up with an awful lot of data to the contrary.

Some countries that are able to pump money out of the ground in the form of oil or diamonds, or whatever, have been able to make it work in the short term, but even then, if they're centralized, most people are still kept very poor. Just look at African countries suffering from the "curse" of natural resources.

dogma wrote:Those for whom the cost of the cheapest possible plan exceeds 8% of their per anum income are exempt from the tax, as are those with incomes below the filing threshold.

Yes, some people will be exempt. More people than will be exempted won't be.

I'm in this exact case where health insurance would cost only a few percentages of my gross income (so I don't qualify), but still ruins me because my net income isn't high enough to afford insurance. I'm going to lose my home over this. That other people won't isn't all that terribly comforting.

Ailaros wrote:
Germany is a real counterexample (which, I should note, is probably the least socialist of that group, while Belgium is on the verge of its own bailout after its failed bailout of its own banks.

That has less to do with Belgium's economic policy than the tight connections of several of its banks to Greece, among others.

Ailaros wrote:
You'd be surprised what tiny countries that can basically practice alchemy can afford to get away with. Just look at Quatar, Dubai, or Bhutan.

It helps when you're sitting on massive energy reserves (Bhutan's is hydroelectricity), or in the case of Dubai serve as the banking center of a "conglomerate" that does.

Ailaros wrote:
Of course, that's the problem, really. Human beings are virtually incapable of forsight. Yes, they're doing fine now, but the system is deeply flawed. Norway only gets something for nothing because it costs them basically nothing to pump black gold into their economy. Once that stops working, just how sustainable is their free-lunch economic system really?

Not very, but that's sort of the point. Sustainability isn't about permanence, its about making a particular system work for a particular period of time. Inevitably all economies must change in order to adapt to existing conditions, even relatively free market systems ultimately have to accept the fact that the people operating within them will eventually want to take advantage of the fruits of the labor of past generations.

I mean, really, what's the point of pouring effort into a system if it never actually pays dividends to any of its members at any point? Very few people are will to work for the prospect of more work.

Ailaros wrote:
If anything, this is an argument for making governments do less. It's basically the same problem that left-leaning people have with corporations. Once power becomes concentrated, you greatly amplify the ability for corruption to exist, as well as greatly expanding the damage done by bad decisions.

Indeed it is, but historically it doesn't play out that way. Keep in mind I'm not really interested in what should happen, so much as what actually does. Power tends to concentrate simply because any advantage in power you already possess makes it easier to acquire more. If you can develop popular support for government controls on industry, or get enough guns together, you're going to get government controls on industry. If you can do the same for less government intrusion, you'll get less government intrusion, though likely force power to concentrate elsewhere. Conversely, and really powerful state, or private entity (though practically the difference is semantic) will be much harder to oppose due to its ability to exert authority over new threats.

Its a balancing act, not an either or solution.

Ailaros wrote:...but once you hit that point where basic stability is enforceable, every step towards more centralization is a step towards less wealth for fewer people over the long term.

We agree, at least insofar as we're not limiting "centralization" to the state, but also including private entities.

Ailaros wrote:
Same people in the same place. The centralized system has caused utter ruin and misery, while the decentralized system has made things much, much better for nearly everybody.

South Korea is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Its most rapid growth took place under what was, essentially, a series of autocratic regimes that enforced a highly liberal economy from the top down; inevitably being toppled by labor unions and students seeking both democracy and improved social policies.

Ailaros wrote:
If the 20th century has taught us anything, it's that decentralized economies bring unparalleled wealth and prosperity to almost everybody, while centralized economies bring unparalleled privation and destitution to almost everybody. The more centralized, the worse off you are. If you want to make an argument to the opposite, you've going to have to come up with an awful lot of data to the contrary.

I'm not really arguing against that so much as against the notion that its a binary choice. You don't have either a centralized or decentralized economy, you have economies that exist along a sliding scale of centralization and decentralization, and that too much of either produces negative outcomes.

This thread in two pictures:

Us crazy liberals on Dakka:



Frazzled and Company:



All in fun spirit of course

Ailaros wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:No, they really don't. I think you should evaluate where you're getting your sources, and determine how many of them are politically-oriented.

What I'm talking about isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of economic common sense. Healthcare is a limited resource at any given time. Giving certain people more and certain people less doesn't change this fact.

If you've got a certain group of people that have access to a resource, and you change the system so that more people have access to said resource, the original group must use less if the new group uses more. Politics doesn't change math.

Yes they do, because it's all about resource allocation. In Canada, our health care system is controlled by the government in order to ensure that the prices will be constant. Then, we allocate enough economic resources towards health care so that there is enough to go around for everyone. This is where your mindset is tripping you up: you're used to seeing healthcare as being something that there is not enough of in a zero-sum game, whereas in Canada we don't play that, and instead just allocate more resources into health care so that everyone gets it, as much as they need. It's as simple as that. Yes, it is one of the most significant drains on our economy, but nobody ever complains, because we generally all recognize its importance. Instead, we take resources away from things that few people up here give a crap about -like military spending- and invest thta money into our population in the form of education and health care.

Ailaros wrote:Take Korea as a perfect example. In 1948, everything was the same. Same geography (Korea), same demography (they were all Koreans), same economic situation (poor). For the last 60 years, you took a single sample and split it in two and gave one set a very decentralized system (the south), and the other a highly centralized system (the north). 60 years later, the poorest people in south korea are way, way better off than they were 60 years ago. Their lifespans have drastically improved, and they now have access to things like the internet that allows them to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, along with countless improvements in their material standard of life.

Meanwhile in the north, things are so bad that their population has shrunk to the point where they no longer have enough people to maintain what they once had. There aren't enough people to maintain tractors, so people are going back to plowing fields with oxen while previously claimed farmland is going to waste for the inability to maintain it. The people there literally starve to death every day, and they don't have access to things that are considered basic in the west like electricity. Quality of life is slowly returning to where it was in the 1500's.

That argument is so assinine that it must have come from a pop-up book written by Rush Limbaugh.
Here are the most important things that need to be noted:
1) Noth Korea is not an example of socialism; it is an example of despotism. Big, big difference.
2) You can't claim that political ideologies are responsible for North Korea's troubles, when they use something like 65% of their GDP on the military, have almost no trading partners, have generally poor agricultural land. They could be a republic or a feudal monarchy (the latter, they almost are) and they would be in no better shape. In other words, every single thing about North Korea is screwed up, without regard to its political compass.

So again, please stop trying to create straw man arguments.

I think a better example would be the USA and Canada. Generally the same geography, generally the same demographics (excluding some cultural differences), and Canada's economy has been closely linked to that of the US since forever. Now, I'm pretty sure that Canada is doing better economically than the USA, however I will also state that Canada is largely a resource-based country, whereas the USA has traditionally be a manufacturing-oriented one. Too bad that NAFTA allowed all of those capitalist corporations to increase their profits by moving their manufacturing plants to mexico, and thus eviscerated your economy. But as I said earlier: such are the joys of laissez-faire capitalism, though. And anyway, that doesn't take away from the point that universal health care is sustainable, but you first have to cast aside your religious-like zeal for unregulated capitalism. (heavily regulated capitalism is fine, though. That's what we do and it works great.)

d-usa wrote:This thread in two pictures:

Us crazy liberals on Dakka:



Frazzled and Company:



All in fun spirit of course

erm. As one of the evil conservative supervillians of Dakka that wants real socialized medicine...Do I get my own picture?

The funny thing about the Korea example is that S. Korea has socialized medicine while N. Korea doesn't. Just because a country is "Socialist" (actually a dictatorship) doesn't equal universal healthcare.

I lived in S. Korea 4 1/2 years, loved their healthcare system.

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:This thread in two pictures:

Us crazy liberals on Dakka:



Frazzled and Company:



All in fun spirit of course

erm. As one of the evil conservative supervillians of Dakka that wants real socialized medicine...Do I get my own picture?

Riding in the car like in the first picture, partying with guns in hand, and a "keep of my lawn" sign in the back seat?

agnosto wrote:The funny thing about the Korea example is that S. Korea has socialized medicine while N. Korea doesn't. Just because a country is "Socialist" (actually a dictatorship) doesn't equal universal healthcare.

I lived in S. Korea 4 1/2 years, loved their healthcare system.

Not to mention that south korea like most south pacific nations had (and still do) massively government subsidized companies.

I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that the US health system as it stands now is completely broken. Just look up the average cost of getting 4 stitches put in by a med student.

I think we can also all agree that the insurance companies need to be reined in and told who's boss.

Just my thoughts.

_Tim?

I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

BTW... the hospital in question, charged me $350 before I even got seen by the PA. So I got "seen" by a hospital admin before treatment.

On Bill Maher tonight Fareed Zakaria said something interesting. That Taiwan, in the 90s, decided that they had enough money to put together a universal healthcare system, and basically did what Frazzled has repeatedly suggested. They looked at all the healthcare systems extant around the world, and looked for the best features and model. The concluded that a single-payer system like Canada's is actually the best, resulting in the best combination of best outcomes and cost control.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that the US health system as it stands now is completely broken. Just look up the average cost of getting 4 stitches put in by a med student.

I think we can also all agree that the insurance companies need to be reined in and told who's boss.

Just my thoughts.

_Tim?

I'm with ya.

Mannahnin wrote:On Bill Maher tonight Fareed Zakaria said something interesting. That Taiwan, in the 90s, decided that they had enough money to put together a universal healthcare system, and basically did what Frazzled has repeatedly suggested. They looked at all the healthcare systems extant around the world, and looked for the best features and model. The concluded that a single-payer system like Canada's is actually the best, resulting in the best combination of best outcomes and cost control.

Wooooooooo! WE'RE NUMBER (thirty)ONE! WE'RE NUMBER (thirty)ONE!

dogma wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Al you need is superglue. Just sayin'.

_Tim?

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

dogma wrote:It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Al you need is superglue. Just sayin'.

_Tim?

You are both wrong; all you need is duct tape.

Duct tape and drink water

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

dogma wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I dont understand why anyone would pay to get a few stitches, it is not that difficult to do yourself. I suppose the average persons sewing skills are not up to snuff now adays though, since the cencellation of home ec classes in most public education.

It depends on where the cut is, sewing shut your own brow is dicey at best. Though, really, if you only need a few stitches its easier to use Dermabond.

Al you need is superglue. Just sayin'.

_Tim?

Because it was to the bone and on my right hand..... and would not stop bleeding. they tried dermabond first too.

Staples

Who needs health insurance when we have Dakka.

just give no names or addresses...or another american fav past time will ensue...

helgrenze wrote:
Because it was to the bone and on my right hand..... and would not stop bleeding. they tried dermabond first too.

Ah, yeah, deep cuts pretty well require sutures. Though I have heard of Dermabond (the stuff hospitals use, not the commercial product) being used for C-sections.

dogma wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
Because it was to the bone and on my right hand..... and would not stop bleeding. they tried dermabond first too.

Ah, yeah, deep cuts pretty well require sutures. Though I have heard of Dermabond (the stuff hospitals use, not the commercial product) being used for C-sections.

A lot of times they will use sutures that disolve in the deeper layers, and then use Dermabond at the very end.

My Father was a paramedic, mom's a nurse... IF I need to go to the hospital it's usually pretty serious.

Ailaros wrote:Socialized medicine, like everything else in socialism, has had a pretty decent run over the past few decades, but now it's all falling apart because it's a worse system.

These are just wild, largely nonsensical claims. You just can't shout socialism and then pretend it means whatever system you don't like, and that it has a key part in whatever system happens to be doing poorly right now. The same applies for ideologues who shout Capitalism! or anything else really - it's just a fundamentally lazy way of looking at the world. The world is just so much more complicated than shouting some slogan regardless of the situation. Economic systems are so complicated, and differ so greatly from one to next, that you just cannot shout about some system or another being doomed to failure without a study of the actual system in question.

I didn't say it was the biggest tax hike in history, I said it was the most regressive.

Read more closely, I never said you claimed it was the biggest. I just said it was silly to claim that a single impost like the mandate is the most regressive tax in history, when there are sales taxes - of which the regressive nature is well documented.

Rich and poor alike have to pay sales taxes (while poor people get a break with things like much lower rates on food, and heavily subsidized fuel).

I think you need to read about the regressive impacts of sales taxes. Summarised version - the income of poor people goes almost entirely into consumption, and so is all impacted by sales tax, while as you look at middle class and higher incomes, less and less goes into consumption spending, so a smaller and smaller part of their income is impacted by sales tax.

It's a tax that the rich are already avoiding, and that the middle class, if they're not already avoiding it, will be relatively easy to avoid. A tax that is only practically leveled on poor people and not the rich is regressive. End of.

That cannot be the end of the conversation, unless you're a very strong advocate for very, very pointless conversations. You cannot look at the negative impact of a tax in isolation, ignore all benefits, declare it regressive and therefore bad. That's the strategy of idiot, loud mouthed pundits. Actual conversation requires you to consider what the poor would get from the tax- and in this case they get the ability to go and get insured when they get sick.

[quoteSecondly, this tax is to recoup the loss of emergency room visits by the uninsured. It does NOT insure the uninsured.

Seb it wont work, he wont cite sources and when presented with actual sources that appose his view point he just doesn't respond.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that the US health system as it stands now is completely broken. Just look up the average cost of getting 4 stitches put in by a med student.

I think we can also all agree that the insurance companies need to be reined in and told who's boss.

Just my thoughts.

_Tim?

Stitches are nothing. Whats the survival rate for breast cancer between the US, UK, Canada, and Germany. (hint US is higher than UK and Canada as we detect it more quickly. Don't know about Germany). Thats why we need the best of all worlds here and have the opportunity to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:On Bill Maher tonight Fareed Zakaria said something interesting. That Taiwan, in the 90s, decided that they had enough money to put together a universal healthcare system, and basically did what Frazzled has repeatedly suggested. They looked at all the healthcare systems extant around the world, and looked for the best features and model. The concluded that a single-payer system like Canada's is actually the best, resulting in the best combination of best outcomes and cost control.

Exactly. Lets do that. Look at the countries with the best care, including cancer treatment, and move forward.

youbedead wrote:Seb it wont work, he wont cite sources and when presented with actual sources that appose his view point he just doesn't respond.

You never know


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Exactly. Lets do that. Look at the countries with the best care, including cancer treatment, and move forward.

Yeah, this is something not just the US, but every country should be doing all the time, and not just in healthcare. There's limits to it, of course, Singaporean justice might look amazing when you look at their crime rates, but there's cultural reasons there that just can't translate. Or it'd be great to build a venture capital system that's half as effective as the US, but economies of scale and cultural difference drive much of its success, so maybe can't be replicated. But generally yeah, look at who does it best in the world and chase that.

Baby steps.

The US first needs to move into the "Not stupid." phase of political debate.

dogma wrote:Baby steps.

The US first needs to move into the "Not stupid." phase of political debate.

We're never going back you know. There's too much money in stupidity and the people are too stupid to know how to demand they not be lied to.

Frazzled wrote:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:I think the one thing we can ALL agree on is that the US health system as it stands now is completely broken. Just look up the average cost of getting 4 stitches put in by a med student.

I think we can also all agree that the insurance companies need to be reined in and told who's boss.

Just my thoughts.

_Tim?

Stitches are nothing. Whats the survival rate for breast cancer between the US, UK, Canada, and Germany. (hint US is higher than UK and Canada as we detect it more quickly. Don't know about Germany). Thats why we need the best of all worlds here and have the opportunity to do that.

The report I posted earlier has some good information, and yeah the US is miles ahead in terms of advanced cancer treatment, however that is only for the middle class, as you go lower in income the likelihood of early detection and successful treatment drops dramatically in the US.

dogma wrote:Baby steps.

The US first needs to move into the "Not stupid." phase of political debate.

Very true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:We're never going back you know. There's too much money in stupidity and the people are too stupid to know how to demand they not be lied to.

Consequences might change things. When the adults in the room realise that playing up to the crazies has resulted in those crazies getting elected and taking real power within their party, there's a very good chance the adults will move away from relying on the crazy votes.

This has happened in the Republican party, though we're yet to see if Boehner and company, humiliated by the crazy end of the party actually wanting to hit the debt ceiling, can reign things in.

This has happened in the Republican party, though we're yet to see if Boehner and company, humiliated by the crazy end of the party actually wanting to hit the debt ceiling, can reign things in.

The fringe isn't the issue. The core of the conservative movement doesn't deal with reality anymore. There are truly few moderate republicans left in office and even fewer in the media. The problem with that is that truth is relative, when enough people in power espouse or believe something it becomes real enough that the truth stops meaning anything. We're there. We've been there for years, gak that doesn't make any sense and falls flat on it's face under even a childs scrutiny is now true for half this countries population.

Teachers are overpayed because of their unions and don't work hard?

A law set that forces people to buy a private product is a socialist law?

Global warming is a leftist conspiracy?

Iran is a dire threat to our national security?

The way to fix our economy is to deregulate it?


These ideas aren't just untrue, they're stupid and harmful. In some cases they don't even make the barest bit of sense. Every single one of these ideas makes someone a lot of money. No, I don't think people are going to come to their senses sebster. That would imply that rationality is a natural state for humans, or even one that they desire. It's just going to keep getting worse. Democracy is going to die because the kingmakers will break it to save their investments. It had a good run.

Humans are plenty rational.

But pleasant fictions are pleasant.

ShumaGorath wrote:The fringe isn't the issue. The core of the conservative movement doesn't deal with reality anymore.

I was talking about the crazies moving from the fringe and into the mainstream of the party, just like you were.

Our actual point of difference is that you assume now that crazy ideas are a part of mainstream Republican politics that they will continue to be so. I don't believe that is necessarily the case, because people learn from the consequences of their actions. People are free to believe the stupidest things imaginable until that stupidity starts to really hit them in the face.

It's interesting to see this with minor, very stupid political parties around the world, who suddenly find themselves granted some level of political power. Suddenly faced with actual consequences for their political beliefs, most quickly backtrack on their stupidity and inevitably lose their high minded, fail to understand the consequences of their nice sounding political ideology.

The Republicans are a bit different, in that they're not a minor party without any history of actual power, so we can't just assume the above will happen to them. But we shouldn't assume it can't happen, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Humans are plenty rational.

But pleasant fictions are pleasant.

It's perfectly rational to believe something stupid when it's flattering and has no consequences for your own life. It's only when there's consequences for believing something stupid that you start to see change.