Sombras on 28/6/2012 at 19:06
Thursday is one of my no-FB days, so I'll be happy to not see you there today.
Also am glad about the Supreme Court's ruling today. "Repeal" will quickly become the GOP's rallying cry for the Romney campaign.
demagogue on 28/6/2012 at 20:02
I'll cross post what I posted today (maybe more to come...) --
Quote:
A big determinant in premium amount is the size of the pool (the larger, the more risk hedged, the lower you can keep them), which was most of the whole point of an individual mandate. The other thing is costs... Right now (according to my doctor friends [actually fett's comment, lol, but whatever]) hospitals have to raise costs & cut services to pay for uninsured patients. So there's two birds with one stone. So premiums will go down, hospital costs will go down, and hospital services will go up... The only bad thing is it's a mandate and if you don't pick up insurance you get taxed to pay for what's effectively functioning as a government service through the private market, gasp.
I want to write more about something that always struck me odd, ok horrifying. I'll spit out something now and maybe clean it up later... My mentor in law school was a professor named Dick Stewart who is like the guru on administrative law with market mechanisms, and he represented the Republican Party of the 1970s-80s (the rational part, sans Reagan's voodoo economics)... Market mechanisms are a way to do some governance things and still get some of the efficiencies that market forces work out (as opposed to pure command & control administration). So like he always argued for cap & trade for emitting air pollution because you can reduce the
same amount of pollution for waaaaay less cost.
Anyway, that same line is why individual mandates for health insurance came out of the Republican Party and, at the time, were practically the poster child of what the Republican Party represented... We can do governance through market mechanisms, rationalize some of this mess & save a ton of money in the deal.
What really strikes me now is how fiercely the Reps of today (Tea Party folk) went after the individual mandates as somehow really alien to Conservatism, which IMO is really worrying what they're trying to say. And the fact they went after it with the Commerce Clause! Using that ban-hammer of all things to my mind is like saying "The private market is somehow tainted when the gov't gets involved. Government does not need to be using private markets in administration." And sometimes you hear them accuse conservative fans of the mandates as RINOs (Republicans in name only) -- And I can only think to myself WTF?! Are you seriously trying to make the case that Republicans are now against using private markets for some governance tasks. That's the terrible betrayal?? What the hell
do Republicans want if not that?
It's just part of the same old story that Reps have become completely derailed from classic conservative principles... They aren't just at war with government, but
governance altogether. It's like they're saying they're not only against health care being under government control, but being a governance issue at all... I guess because Alexander Hamilton didn't think about it 250 years ago... hell if I know.
As an aside, of course the real issue here is that, if we wrote the constitution today there'd be no question that the right to health would be a core constitutional principle written right in -- it's one of the most established rights in human rights law there is -- and we wouldn't have to play this silly gerrymandering game to find a niche for governing it in its creaky old text.
Ok that's all the soapbox I got in me for now... Maybe I'll post more later...
Volitions Advocate on 28/6/2012 at 20:23
I saw this earlier today and nearly had a hernia laughing about it.
(
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare)
now, I don't think i'm speaking to the majority of the crowd here, but man, Americans have got to be the most ignorant group of people I know of. (like I said, probably not the lot of you Americans on here, since you pay attention) but a complete lack of understanding of the world out side of the country or state makes for some surprisingly moronic comments.
Canada is a mixed-market economic country, We are right of centre, but even with the Tories in power, whom I support, we are not completely right-wing. Our health-care system has resembled obama-care for decades, I have never paid out of pocket for a single medical expense. So moving to Canada to avoid Obama-care is.... well... completely misinformed. (i'm not poking fun at you Dethy, you already said it wouldn't be the reason you'd move)
I really don't understand the controversy though. Why the hell are Americans so damn scared of any government involvement. Is the ghost of the USSR and the stigma of communism in the 1950s and 60s that horribly ingrained in you that anything that resembles a mixed market economy is something to be shunned and avoided like "them dirty commies." Having social programs does not make you a socialist state. Canada isn't socialist despite its government involvement in the free market. I just don't get why so many people complain about not forcing people to chose between which fingers to re-attach after a work accident because of what their insurance will cover. It's madness.
having said that. I understand the concerns about being forced to buy into the insurance plan and getting fined if you don't. I didn't know about that before reading the link. but still... i am forced to pay my taxes so that my health care is paid for, so I'm already in that boat, and I'm not at all worried about it.
Muzman on 28/6/2012 at 20:46
They chose such a poor word for that fee. Everyone jumps on the fact its a fine. I wonder if they'd have preferred it was called a tax. Probably largely the same result, bitching wise.
Still, they even caught my mum out with that one (ardent socialist and long range Obama fan) "OMG a fine?! that's awful!"
No mum, here it's called the Medicare Levy. Same thing pretty much. If you don't want to pay it (and your income is high enough) you buy in to private.
CCCToad on 28/6/2012 at 23:12
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I saw this earlier today and nearly had a hernia laughing about it.
(
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare)
now, I don't think i'm speaking to the majority of the crowd here, but man, Americans have got to be the most ignorant group of people I know of. (like I said, probably not the lot of you Americans on here, since you pay attention) but a complete lack of understanding of the world out side of the country or state makes for some surprisingly moronic comments.
I really don't understand the controversy though. Why the hell are Americans so damn scared of any government involvement. Is the ghost of the USSR and the stigma of communism in the 1950s and 60s that horribly ingrained in you that anything that resembles a mixed market economy is something to be shunned and avoided like "them dirty commies." Having social programs does not make you a socialist state. Canada isn't socialist despite its government involvement in the free market. I just don't get why so many people complain about not forcing people to chose between which fingers to re-attach after a work accident because of what their insurance will cover. It's madness.
having said that. I understand the concerns about being forced to buy into the insurance plan and getting fined if you don't. I didn't know about that before reading the link. but still... i am forced to pay my taxes so that my health care is paid for, so I'm already in that boat, and I'm not at all worried about it.
I'd suggest turning off the TV and actually talking to people. What scares most people you talk to isn't government involvement per se, but the growing partnership between corporate America and government.....something that the current incarnation of the health bill benefits, not hinders.
Overall though, the rulings have been wacky all week. A lot of the decisions remind me of the warped logic used to arrive at the Citizen's united case(which I now agree with Burn's assessment of).
edit: making it even more bizarre, it (
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote/) appears that Roberts changed his verdict at the last minute
Yakoob on 30/6/2012 at 01:16
(
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138646&highlight=health+saving) As I noticed a while ago, what most people don't realize is that they are confusing health
CARE with health
INSURANCE. There is a big difference.
If I was forced to get private healthcare and could thus get my doctor visits and rudimentary procedures done, I'd be all over it. But that's not how it works; insurance plans are emergency health insurance, not preventative care. There's deductibles, and many of the government programs (like Health Saving Account) actually legally require a high-premium plan (plus, many of those plans also do away with "free" doctor visits).
So the end result is that, I am paying for my insurance, while STILL paying for my health care like all my doctor vistis, procedure or drugs, because I simply never surpass the deductible. Where do do all my premiums go? Into the profit margins of insurance companies, where else. And now, if I don't give my money to those insurance companies for NO BENEFIT, I will get
fined taxed. Great!
Lets look at an example: I broke my arm! Oh but luckily, I was paying my premiums and am covered, right? WRONG. The few 1000s I will spend in hospital fees will not reach my deductible or out of pocket costs. I still have to pay it MYSELF. So what did paying all those premiums do for me? NOTHING.
Again, if this was proper healthCARE I would be all for it. But it's not, it's forced emergency health insurance from private corporations.
Also a funny comment I saw somewhere else: Microsoft should lobby the government to pass a tax on everyone who doesn't buy an XBox. Cause you know, XBox reduces stress, and shit...
Shug on 30/6/2012 at 01:25
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
So moving to Canada to avoid Obama-care is.... well... completely misinformed. (i'm not poking fun at you Dethy, you already said it wouldn't be the reason you'd move)
That's really not what he said, though
Muzman on 30/6/2012 at 02:22
Quote Posted by Yakoob
So the end result is that, I am paying for my insurance, while STILL paying for my health care like all my doctor vistis, procedure or drugs, because I simply never surpass the deductible. Where do do all my premiums go? Into the profit margins of insurance companies, where else. And now, if I don't give my money to those insurance companies for NO BENEFIT, I will get
fined taxed. Great!
Doesn't that just put you in the bracket for whom this bill really changes nothing? That was most people from memory. If you are really unhappy with your situation and healthy the idea is you drop out and take the 'fine' and save some money. You still get some emergency care (I think) and can opt back in any time.
I get people being mad this reform doesn't do everything, but many seem to say that not changing everything is the same as making things worse which doesn't seem to be the case.
Sg3 on 30/6/2012 at 03:57
This appears to completely screw people who, like me, are medically disabled (but not recognized as such by the U.S. government) and thus unemployed (but not receiving any assistance from the government). I mean, even worse screwed than "not being able to afford medical service," like it already is. Now it's "not able to afford medical service" AND "being fined for not being able to afford medical service," if I understand aright. I don't really care what you call it. Fine/tax/fee/baksheesh. Amounts to the same thing--another way of screwing poor people who are already being screwed. Fuck you. Fuck you very much.
Of course, it's entirely possible that I have no clue how this is actually going to work, but I'm pretty much willing to take a bet that it won't work out for the good of those who need a break. I'm far from a Republican, but it looks to me as though Mr. Obama has taken some bribes from some insurance companies. From what I'm hearing, they're the ones who will benefit the most (and possibly the only ones who will really benefit much at all). Maybe I should move to Canada, because this socialism thing is looking better and better. Not this fake socialism which is really cleverly-disguised rampant capitalism. Grr. "Steals from the poor and gives to the rich--stupid bitch!"
