SCOTUS to hear case on Obamacare

[Parkbandit]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, setting up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement.
The justices on Monday revealed they would take the case. That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

The health care case could be the high court's most significant and political undertaking since the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore nearly 11 years ago. That ruling effectively sealed George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election victory.
Republicans have called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional since before Obama signed it into law in March 2010. But federal appeals courts have been split on their assessment.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hear-health-care-case-term-150759881.html

Good. Figure it out, once and for all.

[Tgo01]

Finally.

I see in the near future this thread being visited by ClydeR and Tsa`ah.

[Rinualdo]

If a decision comes before the elections, one way or another, I wonder what impact this will have, if any, on the elections.

[Parkbandit]

If a decision comes before the elections, one way or another, I wonder what impact this will have, if any, on the elections.

I don't see either scenario good for Obama. If it's defeated, then it will look like a failure. If it's upheld, it will be going against the polling on this law and will played as the Government getting bigger and bigger.

[ClydeR]

There is no way in the world the mandate will be upheld by the court. We already know that everybody can get free medical care at the emergency room. If the government can force you to buy health insurance, then emergency rooms won't be giving out free care anymore because everybody will have insurance, completely upending the way things have been done forever. People don't want change, and neither do the courts.

Besides which, if the government can make you buy health insurance, they can make you buy all sorts of other insurance, like life insurance or car insurance or pet insurance or flood insurance. There would be no end.

[ClydeR]

I don't see either scenario good for Obama. If it's defeated, then it will look like a failure. If it's upheld, it will be going against the polling on this law and will played as the Government getting bigger and bigger.

You are so wrong. A ruling striking down Obamacare would be very bad for Obama, unless he's running against Romney, in which case it won't make much difference because Romney has, at various times, been a strong supporter of a national health insurance mandate. If the court upholds Obamacare, it will be a huge boost to Obama's prospects. For that reason, the judges are more likely to strike it down because most of them are conservative and don't want four more years of a Democrat president.

[Latrinsorm]

Good. Figure it out, once and for all.Worked for civil rights and abortion, amirite?

[ClydeR]

Worked for civil rights and abortion, amirite?

And minimum wage. They first said Congress could not mandate that employers pay a minimum wage to their employees. Several years later, they reversed course and upheld a mandatory minimum wage.

[Atlanteax]

This may be of interest to the lawyer-crowd here...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303863404577283631472580966.html?m od=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird


WASHINGTON—The hottest ticket of the season isn't for the White House Easter Egg Roll or Opening Day for the Washington Nationals baseball team.

It's for a spot inside the Supreme Court to watch three days of arguments challenging the 2010 health-care law that begin here a week from Monday.

Given the town, people are working every angle.

Ezekiel Emanuel, a former White House adviser who helped craft the health-care law, hit up conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for a ticket even though the two men disagree on almost everything, he said, except "we like sharing good food."

Inside the White House, aides are elbowing for a spot but fear there won't be enough to go around, said one person familiar with the matter. Many of the 26 state attorneys general and governors who are plaintiffs worry they will be left empty-handed. Ilya Shapiro of the conservative Cato Institute said he might even camp in line overnight.

"It's like the most important ticket of the decade," said Dr. Emanuel, an oncologist and brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Justice Scalia, "who I have come to know and find very likable," he said, came through.

With only about 400 seats in the court—and no TV or radio broadcasts, or any commercial photos or recordings, period—the limited chance to witness arguments in one of the highest profile legal battles in memory has triggered an equally historic scramble, even by the local standard of exceptionally big egos and sharp elbows.

The central issue is whether the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a fee violates the Constitution.

People not in the courtroom during arguments will have to rely on secondhand reports on lawyers' arguments—and justice questions—until the official audio recordings are released at week's end.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, who helped draft the law, and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a top-ranking Republican on the Judiciary committee, say they have confirmed seats.

Others receiving a polite "we'll see" from the court include Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, a former GOP presidential candidate and an outspoken critic of the law.

Regardless of whether she gets in, Ms. Bachmann will be perched on the court's steps during the case railing against the law, her spokeswoman said.

The court wouldn't discuss seating arrangements, and officials say they are still working out a plan.

In general, court officials said, most seats are reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar, court staff, the dueling parties, tickets controlled by the justices themselves—about nine apiece—tickets controlled by court officers and the media.

Usually, at least 50 seats are reserved for people waiting in line. Others can wait in a separate line for a three-minute glimpse of the proceedings.

Mr. Shapiro, who helped draft briefs against the law, failed to get one of the seats allotted to plaintiffs.

So Mr. Shapiro, who also edits Cato's Supreme Court review publication, asked the website Daily Caller to name him its reporter, hoping he can squeeze into the press section.

Media seats are scarce, too. Mr. Shapiro said he was mapping out a backup plan: "I think overnight camping might be in order, or a relay of interns in shifts."

John Winslow, owner of Linestanding.com, a Bethesda, Md., queue-for-hire service, said he was fielding an increasing number of inquiries. He is telling callers he can place someone in line for $36 an hour, and he suggests they start them at midnight.

Mr. Winslow had this advice for those planning a do-it-yourself approach: Stay awake. Otherwise, he said, "You're one step away from camping," which is prohibited and enforced by court security officers.

His employees plan to bring pop-up chairs and laptops for entertainment so they don't doze.

In the 19th century, a seat at oral arguments before the Supreme Court was considered prime entertainment, attracting socialites and the wives of the justices.

More recent Supreme Court cases that attracted a crush of requests for seats include the presidential election case, Bush v. Gore, in 2000. Arguments in that case were piped into the public information office, which seated an additional 15 people.

When the court heard arguments in the 1974 Watergate case, U.S. v. Nixon, about a dozen upholstered chairs were replaced with 80 folding seats to accommodate the media, according to the memoir of a former court public information officer.

Most days, many attendees are tourists who wait in the line that allows 30 people at a time to get a three-minute glimpse of the proceedings.

Some attorneys hoping for a seat during the health-care arguments have plunked down $200 to join the Supreme Court Bar, which has its own line that some people predict will be shorter than the lines for the public. Members also have access to a 60-seat lawyers' lounge where they can listen to a live audio feed.

"There's a point when it becomes an endurance race," said Ian Millhiser, an analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, who is weighing how early to arrive in line. "This is going to involve insane amounts of wait."

Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who filed a friend of the court, or amicus curiae, brief for the House and Senate Democratic leadership, said attorneys on such briefs typically get a seat.

"But in this case, there are more authors of amicus briefs than there are seats," Mr. Dellinger said. He was still waiting Thursday to hear from the court clerk.

Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, was a catalyst for the health-care challenge after writing a 2009 article on why he thought the legislation was unconstitutional.

He attended all the lower-court appeals arguments and became one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

"I wasn't even sure if I was going to get in," Mr. Barnett said. He secured a seat with the plaintiffs, but wasn't able to get one for his wife, who has attended previous arguments.

"I didn't ask anybody," he said. "It was just hopeless."

[ClydeR]

I didn't have any desire to see it until I read that. But now I'm mad that I will be denied the opportunity. It's elitist that have to know somebody to watch the proceedings. Catch up last century's technology and put it on the teevee.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't see why they had to take a cheap shots at the Nats like that. Haven't the Natinals suffered enough?

[~Rocktar~]

Finally.

I see in the near future this thread being visited by ClydeR and Tsa`ah.

Do not mention the name of the one-who-must-not-be-named-lest-he-show-up.

[Atlanteax]

Well, good news...

The 'Mandate' may *not* survive the Supreme Court judgement...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[Androidpk]

Well, good news...

The 'Mandate' may *not* survive the Supreme Court judgement...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I sure hope so.

"Those who don't participate in health care make it more expensive for everyone else," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in support of the law. "It is not your free choice" to stay out of the market for life, she said.

This shit above makes me nervous. It most certainly IS my choice if I want to be a part of it or not.

[Buckwheet]

"If the federal government can tell you, when you are not doing anything, that you must do something, then the federal government can tell you anything,"

So where is this logic when it comes to welfare? Sitting at home, not doing anything, not contributing to society? GREAT! Nobody can tell you different!

I bet she has a different take on that eh?

This lady is a crackho who smoked just a little too much. I am sad to have her say she is from MN.

[ClydeR]

I bet Obama is wishing about now that he had not embarrassed Judge Alito (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc) in his 2010 state of the union address. The reports are that Alito was in payback mode today.

The Intrade market for the court to overrule Obamacare before the end of the year is up to 65% right now.

[Parkbandit]

I bet Obama is wishing about now that he had not embarrassed Judge Alito (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc) in his 2010 state of the union address. The reports are that Alito was in payback mode today.

The Intrade market for the court to overrule Obamacare before the end of the year is up to 65% right now.

What "reports" are you referring to? Let me guess.. moveon.org, mediamatters.org and MSNBC.com?

[Wrathbringer]

I think the very decision that the mandate penalty is not a tax is pretty telling about how the court will find. In my mind, it's just a question of how much of Obamacare they'll deem unconstitutional. Just the mandate? Just the mandate and all the things inseparable from the mandate? Or the entire program?

[Androidpk]

Hopefully the entire program, along with Citizens United, for shits and giggles.

[Liagala]

I sure hope so.

"Those who don't participate in health care make it more expensive for everyone else," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in support of the law. "It is not your free choice" to stay out of the market for life, she said.

This shit above makes me nervous. It most certainly IS my choice if I want to be a part of it or not.
Actually, it isn't. You can not choose whether some idiot will hit you with his car and put you in the hospital. If you don't have insurance, the cost of your treatment will be passed on to those of us who actually plan ahead in the form of increased premiums and such. In that way, it is not your free choice to stay out of the market for life. Sooner or later, you will need medical care. You may be able to choose whether you want to pay for your own care or sit back and let someone else pick up the slack, but you can not choose to be completely apart from the system.

[Androidpk]

but you can not choose to be completely apart from the system.

Like hell I can't.

[TheEschaton]

Considering Citizens United was decided by the conservative justices, I'd find it quite hilarious if they struck down both health care and their own decision.

[Ryvicke]

Like hell I can't.

I think it's kind of like, if you make your choice not to have insurance, it would be nice if I could make a choice for my tax dollars to not pay to save your life when you randomly get brain cancer, or hit by a car.

We don't get that choice, why do you?

[Liagala]

Like hell I can't.
How can you choose to go your entire (adult) life without having any contact whatsoever with any health care system?


I think it's kind of like, if you make your choice not to have insurance, it would be nice if I could make a choice for my tax dollars to not pay to save your life when you randomly get brain cancer, or hit by a car.

We don't get that choice, why do you?
This, exactly.

[TheEschaton]

Like hell I can't.

I find it hilarious when people call my viewpoints naive, but somehow the libertarian viewpoints are those that most espouse freedom and individuality, but not naivety.

[Keller]

Actually, it isn't. You can not choose whether some idiot will hit you with his car and put you in the hospital. If you don't have insurance, the cost of your treatment will be passed on to those of us who actually plan ahead in the form of increased premiums and such. In that way, it is not your free choice to stay out of the market for life. Sooner or later, you will need medical care. You may be able to choose whether you want to pay for your own care or sit back and let someone else pick up the slack, but you can not choose to be completely apart from the system.

Just don't treat anyone until their insurance pre-approves any emergency medical care.

[Wrathbringer]

Actually, it isn't. You can not choose whether some idiot will hit you with his car and put you in the hospital. If you don't have insurance, the cost of your treatment will be passed on to those of us who actually plan ahead in the form of increased premiums and such. In that way, it is not your free choice to stay out of the market for life. Sooner or later, you will need medical care. You may be able to choose whether you want to pay for your own care or sit back and let someone else pick up the slack, but you can not choose to be completely apart from the system.

Not to skew the thread topic here, but I think this quote illustrates the real problem. Health care is too expensive. If it weren't so expensive, more people would be able to afford it and we wouldn't need a billion healthy people's money to pay for those currently in need. Again, this is why I actually liked the public option. It would have leveled the playing field and forced insurance companies to drop their prices in an effort to compete for subscribers.

[Ryvicke]

I find it hilarious when people call my viewpoints naive, but somehow the libertarian viewpoints are those that most espouse freedom and individuality, but not naivety.

Solving the problems of government and society is as old as the Greeks and Roman, no one has figured it out--it is very fucking hard, messy and imperfect.

Libertarianism is when you admit you have no possible interesting or constructive thing to add to the conversation.

[Buckwheet]

Just don't treat anyone until their insurance pre-approves any emergency medical care.

Or you have to pre-pay with a credit card or other guaranteed form of payment.

[Wrathbringer]

I think it's kind of like, if you make your choice not to have insurance, it would be nice if I could make a choice for my tax dollars to not pay to save your life when you randomly get brain cancer, or hit by a car.

We don't get that choice, why do you?

This is why nobody's tax dollars should be used for healthcare.

[Atlanteax]

How can you choose to go your entire (adult) life without having any contact whatsoever with any health care system

Do not go to the doctor when sick ... do not go to the hospital for cut & scrapes.

The only time going to a hospital if something serious like collapsing from a heart attack or having been shot.

(and under those circumstances, others are generally taking you there, versus yourself under your own power)

[Drunken Durfin]

How can you choose to go your entire (adult) life without having any contact whatsoever with any health care system?


I'm pretty sure that the Church of Christian Science (http://christianscience.com/prayer-and-health) folks have been doing this for quite some time.

I also had a couple of incidents where I responded to an accident scene (I was a medic right out of college) and people who were obviously injured refused medical treatment, signed a waiver and went on their way.

I'm not saying that these are the best choices, but they were their choices. You can go your entire (adult) life without having any contact with the healthcare system that would incur cost.

[Keller]

Not to skew the thread topic here, but I think this quote illustrates the real problem. Health care is too expensive. If it weren't so expensive, more people would be able to afford it and we wouldn't need a billion healthy people's money to pay for those currently in need. Again, this is why I actually liked the public option. It would have leveled the playing field and forced insurance companies to drop their prices in an effort to compete for subscribers.

Health care is expensive because we have thousands of new ways to make people "better." Not only does this create a direct cost of the equipment, facilities, professional time, insurance, etc to provide these new treatments, but the treatments have the effect of making people live longer. As we all know, old people require significantly more health care. So the more old people there are, and the older they become, the more of these new life-saving/extending treatments they will need to continue living.

It's not going to get cheaper any time soon. That is why Obamacare will work. Because we will kill the old people.

[Androidpk]

I find it hilarious when people call my viewpoints naive, but somehow the libertarian viewpoints are those that most espouse freedom and individuality, but not naivety.

I don't know your viewpoints so I can't comment.

[Atlanteax]

I think it's kind of like, if you make your choice not to have insurance, it would be nice if I could make a choice for my tax dollars to not pay to save your life when you randomly get brain cancer, or hit by a car.

We don't get that choice, why do you?


This is why nobody's tax dollars should be used for healthcare.

*BINGO* !!!

[Keller]

Or you have to pre-pay with a credit card or other guaranteed form of payment.

"Uhh, Dr. Russell, the patient's available credit is only $6,500. I guess we're going to have to stop infusing healthy blood and give him the cheaper AIDS blood."

[Drunken Durfin]

It's not going to get cheaper any time soon. That is why Obamacare will work. Because we will kill the old people.

If you kill the old people you are really going to screw the pooch though. My Dad pays more a month on prescription drugs than he does on his mortgage. Take him, and the people of his generation, out of the economic equation and the next thing you know we're going to be bailing out Pfiser and Bayer like we did the banks.

[Androidpk]

I think it's kind of like, if you make your choice not to have insurance, it would be nice if I could make a choice for my tax dollars to not pay to save your life when you randomly get brain cancer, or hit by a car.

We don't get that choice, why do you?

That would be nice, agreed, but when does one really get a chance to say where their tax dollars are spent?

[Buckwheet]

"Uhh, Dr. Russell, the patient's available credit is only $6,500. I guess we're going to have to stop infusing healthy blood and give him the cheaper AIDS blood."

Nah, that means they already put in $6500. I would just stop and tell the family sorry your family member wasn't wealthy enough to be a contributing member of society, so we let him go.

Or, just swipe another card and keep going into debt.

[Warriorbird]

*BINGO* !!!

You don't want to go down the voluntary taxation route.

[Ryvicke]

This is why nobody's tax dollars should be used for healthcare.

I'm definitely excited to hear your solution to keep the 311 million people that reside in the greatest country on Earth healthy. Or are we just rolling things back to the Old West?

Just let me know--I'm cool with either cause I fucking love Deadwood.

[Warriorbird]

I'm definitely excited to hear your solution to keep the 311 million people that reside in the greatest country on Earth healthy. Or are we just rolling things back to the Old West?

Just let me know--I'm cool with either cause I fucking love Deadwood.

They want the Articles of Confederation... because they worked so well the first time.

[Drunken Durfin]

That would be nice, agreed, but when does one really get a chance to say where their tax dollars are spent?

When you are President.

[Atlanteax]

You don't want to go down the voluntary taxation route.

Why not?

Because (most) people will decline to pay tax dollars towards health care?

Healthcare is what you pay for... just like you pay for what kind of house you live in, what kind of car you drive.

[Ryvicke]

Healthcare is what you pay for... just like you pay for what kind of house you live in, what kind of car you drive.

Unfortunately no, it's not like that. In so many many ways.

[Atlanteax]

I'm definitely excited to hear your solution to keep the 311 million people that reside in the greatest country on Earth healthy. Or are we just rolling things back to the Old West?

Just let me know--I'm cool with either cause I fucking love Deadwood.

There is no solution.

If people want to live longer, they (1) live a healthier lifestyle, and (2) pay for better-quality care.

People can still accomplish living longer with just (1) or just (2).

What is 'unfair' is people doing (1) and/or (2) are having to pay for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. That is essentially an imposed tax.

[TheEschaton]

The problem is that illness can and often is completely random, or based on genetics. I could be the healthiest lifestyle motherfucker ever, and get colon cancer tomorrow.

You can't thus argue that health care is an economics-based decision only, because there can easily be people who are 1) poor, 2) living the healthiest lifestyle allowable at their income level, 3) working as hard as possible to try and not be poor, and still 4) get sick and be unable to pay the cost of health care, because of how our system was set up.

[Wrathbringer]

Once Wal-Mart starts offering medical care, this problem will be solved.

[Buckwheet]

Once Wal-Mart starts offering medical care, this problem will be solved.

Is that the plan where they round up 300 people and charter a plane to a border town so people can have their medical procedures done in Mexico for the group discount?

[Atlanteax]

The problem is that illness can and often is completely random, or based on genetics. I could be the healthiest lifestyle motherfucker ever, and get colon cancer tomorrow.

You can't thus argue that health care is an economics-based decision only, because there can easily be people who are 1) poor, 2) living the healthiest lifestyle allowable at their income level, 3) working as hard as possible to try and not be poor, and still 4) get sick and be unable to pay the cost of health care, because of how our system was set up.

Not to be callous, but this is where the saying 'shit happens' come into play.

You could be the safest driver in the world, and one day be hit by a drunk driver (car insurance) ... you could be a diligent homeowner with upkeep on your property, but one day lightning strikes and part of the house burns down (home insurance).

Not sure why health insurance cannot be an economic decision as auto and home insurance are.

(nevermind that auto owners are having to subsidize those who abuse auto insurance, and home owners have to subsidize those who abuse home insurance ... health insurance is already being abused, why make it even easier to abuse?)

[Wrathbringer]

Is that the plan where they round up 300 people and charter a plane to a border town so people can have their medical procedures done in Mexico for the group discount?

Yes, but it's all done by non-union employees, so it costs less and is better quality.

[Wrathbringer]

Not to be callous, but this is where the saying 'shit happens' come into play.

You could be the safest driver in the world, and one day be hit by a drunk driver (car insurance) ... you could be a diligent homeowner with upkeep on your property, but one day lightning strikes and part of the house burns down (home insurance).

Not sure why health insurance cannot be an economic decision as auto and home insurance are.

(nevermind that auto owners are having to subsidize those who abuse auto insurance, and home owners have to subsidize those who abuse home insurance ... health insurance is already being abused, why make it even easier to abuse?)

I agree with you. The main difference is that with car and home insurance, people aren't demanding to live in the biggest homes and drive the best cars on someone else's dime...yet.

[TheEschaton]

Because the chances of getting hit by lightning are much smaller than the chance of "never needing medical attention ever", and driving is a completely optional thing.

The best part is, auto insurance ISN'T optional, it is mandated by law if you choose to drive a car. If you so choose, you pay the "tax" of needing insurance. You cannot choose to be sick or not, thus the need for a "universal mandate."

You've kicked up the retard quotient to over 9000 recently, man, you're starting to make me innately concerned for you mental well-being.

[Wrathbringer]

Because the chances of getting hit by lightning are much smaller than the chance of "never needing medical attention ever", and driving is a completely optional thing.

The best part is, auto insurance ISN'T optional, it is mandated by law if you choose to drive a car. If you so choose, you pay the "tax" of needing insurance. You cannot choose to be sick or not, thus the need for a "universal mandate."

You've kicked up the retard quotient to over 9000 recently, man, you're starting to make me innately concerned for you mental well-being.

Yes. Socialism is the answer. Daddy Government, save us!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Not to be callous, but this is where the saying 'shit happens' come into play.

You could be the safest driver in the world, and one day be hit by a drunk driver (car insurance) ... you could be a diligent homeowner with upkeep on your property, but one day lightning strikes and part of the house burns down (home insurance).

Not sure why health insurance cannot be an economic decision as auto and home insurance are.

(nevermind that auto owners are having to subsidize those who abuse auto insurance, and home owners have to subsidize those who abuse home insurance ... health insurance is already being abused, why make it even easier to abuse?)

Health insurance should not be an economic decision because do you really want doctors to turn away people? There are so many examples where I'd be heartbroken if that happened.

Mom is out jogging, left insurance card at home, hit by car, dying, ambulance arrives, no card, no help. Dies.

Baby is born prematurely, no help for it because parents are poor.

Old man has heart attack, ran out of savings because he worked for <insert corrupt corporation here> and lost his 401k. Sorry buddy.

Do you, as a human, want shit like that to happen to anyone? I personally would rather pay for the occassional skater, than ever turn away anyone in need.

[Menos]

In my life I have dealt with many different institutions and many different goods markets. I have found very few where a higher degree of government involvement has resulted in a better experience, lower cost (net not just to me, but often that too), or better service. I do not see a strong enough argument that health care improves with government aid to give the government the powers it would need to effect the ACA.

There is simply too much incentive for government workers to expand the cost (because it must be paid at the threat of legal action and results in more jobs like their own that they are qualified for) and to ignore the product (because you don't really have to sell something that is "free" to most people who accept it). I rather the self interest of the people working for me be driving them to make a better and cheaper product resulting in happier paying customers.

Edit to add, the sad cases are causes for more charitable organizations to help those people, not a more intrusive government to take freedom and treasure to help some of them. I trust those groups to more efficiently help people with the money than I do almost any governmental agency.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And no, I'm far from a socialist but some things you've got to see the benefit of having like an emergency room when they won't turn you away because your wallet is thin.

I may not have the solution, but I know turning folks away would be worse than it is today.

[Wrathbringer]

In my life I have dealt with many different institutions and many different goods markets. I have found very few where a higher degree of government involvement has resulted in a better experience, lower cost (net not just to me, but often that too), or better service. I do not see a strong enough argument that health care improves with government aid to give the government the powers it would need to effect the ACA.

There is simply too much incentive for government workers to expand the cost (because it must be paid at the threat of legal action and results in more jobs like their own that they are qualified for) and to ignore the product (because you don't really have to sell something that is "free" to most people who accept it). I rather the self interest of the people working for me be driving them to make a better and cheaper product resulting in happier paying customers.

This is well spoken.

[Androidpk]

The best part is, auto insurance ISN'T optional, it is mandated by law if you choose to drive a car. If you so choose, you pay the "tax" of needing insurance. You cannot choose to be sick or not, thus the need for a "universal mandate."



It isn't mandatory in New Hampshire.

[Keller]

If you go into a body shop without insurance, the body shop won't repair your car and then charge more for repairs to insured cars to recoup their losses on your car.

Same goes for contractors and your home example.

[Wrathbringer]

The best part is, auto insurance ISN'T optional, it is mandated by law if you choose to drive a car. If you so choose, you pay the "tax" of needing insurance. You cannot choose to be sick or not, thus the need for a "universal mandate."

To get back around to the OP's topic...

Once the SC rules that the mandate (and maybe the whole shabang) is unconstitutional, perhaps folks will realize that socialist programs (i.e. entitlements) in general aren't in keeping with our constitutional values because we were never meant to be a socialist republic and we can get back around to balancing the budget and operating on a pay as we go system. Hey, a guy can hope...

[Ryvicke]

In my life I have dealt with many different institutions and many different goods markets. I have found very few where a higher degree of government involvement has resulted in a better experience, lower cost (net not just to me, but often that too), or better service. I do not see a strong enough argument that health care improves with government aid to give the government the powers it would need to effect the ACA.

There is simply too much incentive for government workers to expand the cost (because it must be paid at the threat of legal action and results in more jobs like their own that they are qualified for) and to ignore the product (because you don't really have to sell something that is "free" to most people who accept it). I rather the self interest of the people working for me be driving them to make a better and cheaper product resulting in happier paying customers.

Edit to add, the sad cases are causes for more charitable organizations to help those people, not a more intrusive government to take freedom and treasure to help some of them. I trust those groups to more efficiently help people with the money than I do almost any governmental agency.

This kind of blows my mind: I feel the exact same way about privatization of essential services. I might be biased because I've been working with federal government contractors (private companies) that do absolute shit work for more money than anyone in my (public sector) office is payed, and we constantly need to work overtime to bring their shit into line.

NYC has kind of had a really rough decade when it comes to private corporations taking over or being contracted to do city services. I guess because private companies have shareholders and bottom lines, much like insurance companies they want to do expend the least amount of capital (give the least amount of service) and charge as high of fees as the market will bear. This doesn't always bode well for consumers.

I can tell you that quite honestly, working in government (kind of dually between the local city/federal level) that people that choose to work in government are insanely hard working because they know and want to work to improve the lives of their town and city. One horrible thing about government is the bureaucracy, I honestly can't believe the fucking idiot things that stand in our way to actually getting our jobs done sometimes. At the same time, having worked in the private sector for 5 years prior, I really can't say that it was ridiculously more efficient, the roadblocks were just different. I think when it comes to anything regarding the health and safety of Americans, it absolutely cannot be entrusted to a for-profit corporation.

[Warriorbird]

Private health care is one of the reasons that it is so expensive. Certain folks like to forget that.

[Keller]

Private health care is one of the reasons that it is so expensive. Certain folks like to forget that.

What are you talking about?

[Latrinsorm]

In my life I have dealt with many different institutions and many different goods markets. I have found very few where a higher degree of government involvement has resulted in a better experience, lower cost (net not just to me, but often that too), or better service. I do not see a strong enough argument that health care improves with government aid to give the government the powers it would need to effect the ACA.

There is simply too much incentive for government workers to expand the cost (because it must be paid at the threat of legal action and results in more jobs like their own that they are qualified for) and to ignore the product (because you don't really have to sell something that is "free" to most people who accept it). I rather the self interest of the people working for me be driving them to make a better and cheaper product resulting in happier paying customers.

Edit to add, the sad cases are causes for more charitable organizations to help those people, not a more intrusive government to take freedom and treasure to help some of them. I trust those groups to more efficiently help people with the money than I do almost any governmental agency.This really works both ways though. If people can profit, in this case by withholding care, they will pursue that profit. Withholding care is going to result in people suffering. Not all people asking for care, but many. A system where people have a strong motive to exacerbate or outright cause others suffering is just not a good system.

Competition in the free market hasn't resulted in insurance companies being nice over the last 100whatever years, it's time to put that theory to bed.

[Warriorbird]

What are you talking about?

Percentage of GDP spent on it has gone up after pharmaceutical companies were allowed to advertise on tv, for instance.

[Keller]

Percentage of GDP spent on it has gone up after pharmaceutical companies were allowed to advertise on tv, for instance.

Are you saying the percentage of GDP spent on health care would not have gone up if pharmaceutical companies didn't advertise on tv?

If yes, then I take it you're arguing that private health care should exist, but shouldn't be able to advertise?

Here is my main issue with people on either side: the cost of health care is not private insurance profits or medical malpractice insurance or any other rubbish you throw out there. The cost of health care is rising because we're consuming much more of it. Unless we want to have a serious conversation about a utilitarian approach to health insurance (DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!), then the costs are not going to be controlled.

[Androidpk]

Are you saying the percentage of GDP spent on health care would not have gone up if pharmaceutical companies didn't advertise on tv?

If yes, then I take it you're arguing that private health care should exist, but shouldn't be able to advertise?

Here is my main issue with people on either side: the cost of health care is not private insurance profits or medical malpractice insurance or any other rubbish you throw out there. The cost of health care is rising because we're consuming much more of it. Unless we want to have a serious conversation about a utilitarian approach to health insurance (DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!), then the costs are not going to be controlled.

Death panels are a bit extreme, we need something that we all can agree upon, war.

[Keller]

Death panels are a bit extreme, we need something that we all can agree upon, war.

War with exclusively old people. It will solve social security, health care, and provide amazing PPV opportunities for satellite and cable television.

[Lord Orbstar]

I think Obama just wants us to pay for black people to have free health care. Fortunately, the SCOTUS has white people on it and that will stop his efforts.

[Tgo01]

The best part is, auto insurance ISN'T optional, it is mandated by law if you choose to drive a car. If you so choose, you pay the "tax" of needing insurance.

Well technically can't you have a surety bond in many states in lieu of auto insurance?

[Lord Orbstar]

It will be declared unConstitutional on its own (de)merits and attempt to fundamentally change the way we live and govern. Not gonna happen. And...I was just trolling above for the sarcastically challenged.

[Menos]

This kind of blows my mind: I feel the exact same way about privatization of essential services. I might be biased because I've been working with federal government contractors (private companies) that do absolute shit work for more money than anyone in my (public sector) office is payed, and we constantly need to work overtime to bring their shit into line.

NYC has kind of had a really rough decade when it comes to private corporations taking over or being contracted to do city services. I guess because private companies have shareholders and bottom lines, much like insurance companies they want to do expend the least amount of capital (give the least amount of service) and charge as high of fees as the market will bear. This doesn't always bode well for consumers.

I can tell you that quite honestly, working in government (kind of dually between the local city/federal level) that people that choose to work in government are insanely hard working because they know and want to work to improve the lives of their town and city. One horrible thing about government is the bureaucracy, I honestly can't believe the fucking idiot things that stand in our way to actually getting our jobs done sometimes. At the same time, having worked in the private sector for 5 years prior, I really can't say that it was ridiculously more efficient, the roadblocks were just different. I think when it comes to anything regarding the health and safety of Americans, it absolutely cannot be entrusted to a for-profit corporation.

The thing is, those companies can only survive by being the ones picked by the government for that contract work. That can happen because the government does not have to be frugal with the money as they are not the ones earning it. I, as a healthy individual with my own money, am not going to pay for coverage from a company that won't cover the things I want it to. I make those same choices on every purchase or non purchase I make. When the ACA (or another non-market system like fully gov run) forces everyone to buy health insurance it creates a captive market where they can be as shitty as they like. Ditto every other government granted monopoly.

Without the ACA I can decide to sock away that money in a health savings account, or in investments now to pay for care I need later, to pay for health insurance now just incase, or in booze to die in a drunken stupor. If I do not have the means for what I want, I can either work hard for it or ask for help. I have the right to beg people for help (individuals or charitable organizations), I do not have the right to compel them by force to help me. Government is force, never doubt that.

[Menos]

This really works both ways though. If people can profit, in this case by withholding care, they will pursue that profit. Withholding care is going to result in people suffering. Not all people asking for care, but many. A system where people have a strong motive to exacerbate or outright cause others suffering is just not a good system.

Competition in the free market hasn't resulted in insurance companies being nice over the last 100whatever years, it's time to put that theory to bed.

So it is your opinion that the last 100 years has seen a general trend away from regulating insurance?

Lack of competition has not made the DMV people better at serving me. I have had alot better dealings with my insurance than I have had with the DMV, IRS, FINRA, EPA...

The government sectors have always been the worst, followed closely (oddly enough) by those most heavily controlled by the government; insurance, banking.

The best have been markets mostly outside of those regulations and most accountable to the market forces, online shopping, local grocery stores...

[Warriorbird]

Are you saying the percentage of GDP spent on health care would not have gone up if pharmaceutical companies didn't advertise on tv?

If yes, then I take it you're arguing that private health care should exist, but shouldn't be able to advertise?

Here is my main issue with people on either side: the cost of health care is not private insurance profits or medical malpractice insurance or any other rubbish you throw out there. The cost of health care is rising because we're consuming much more of it. Unless we want to have a serious conversation about a utilitarian approach to health insurance (DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!), then the costs are not going to be controlled.

We're saying some of the same thing. Advertisements that say "Ask your doctor to switch you to this!" seems like a poor idea.

[Warriorbird]

So it is your opinion that the last 100 years has seen a general trend away from regulating insurance?

Lack of competition has not made the DMV people better at serving me. I have had alot better dealings with my insurance than I have had with the DMV, IRS, FINRA, EPA...

The government sectors have always been the worst, followed closely (oddly enough) by those most heavily controlled by the government; insurance, banking.

The best have been markets mostly outside of those regulations and most accountable to the market forces, online shopping, local grocery stores...

I don't actually want the 1890's back. I don't think that privatization actually makes much of anything better. I think the deregulation of investment/commercial/mortgage banking was one of the greatest financial mistakes either party has made in recent memory.

[Warriorbird]

The thing is, those companies can only survive by being the ones picked by the government for that contract work. That can happen because the government does not have to be frugal with the money as they are not the ones earning it. I, as a healthy individual with my own money, am not going to pay for coverage from a company that won't cover the things I want it to. I make those same choices on every purchase or non purchase I make. When the ACA (or another non-market system like fully gov run) forces everyone to buy health insurance it creates a captive market where they can be as shitty as they like. Ditto every other government granted monopoly.

Without the ACA I can decide to sock away that money in a health savings account, or in investments now to pay for care I need later, to pay for health insurance now just incase, or in booze to die in a drunken stupor. If I do not have the means for what I want, I can either work hard for it or ask for help. I have the right to beg people for help (individuals or charitable organizations), I do not have the right to compel them by force to help me. Government is force, never doubt that.

You can still do it with it. It's a fantastically defanged law. The sad bit is I think Obama wanted it that way.

Those "government picked companies" produce the same sort of crony capitalism you rail against.

Is auto insurance really that terrible a market? I think not.

[Warriorbird]

It will be declared unConstitutional on its own (de)merits and attempt to fundamentally change the way we live and govern. Not gonna happen. And...I was just trolling above for the sarcastically challenged.

Those awful unconstitutional people trying to stop people being denied for pre-existing conditions. Shame on them. The insurance companies just want to be nice to you.

[Warriorbird]

To get back around to the OP's topic...

Once the SC rules that the mandate (and maybe the whole shabang) is unconstitutional, perhaps folks will realize that socialist programs (i.e. entitlements) in general aren't in keeping with our constitutional values because we were never meant to be a socialist republic and we can get back around to balancing the budget and operating on a pay as we go system. Hey, a guy can hope...

I have this bridge to sell to you. Into nowhere. You're delusional if you believe Congress will ever allow that. Toss on John Roberts rendering politics even more corporate too.

[Warriorbird]

Yes. Socialism is the answer. Daddy Government, save us!

The Articles of Confederation worked so well.

[Menos]

I don't actually want the 1890's back. I don't think that privatization actually makes much of anything better. I think the deregulation of investment/commercial/mortgage banking was one of the greatest financial mistakes either party has made in recent memory.

My roommate is an auditor for the investment industry. They have not been without very heavy government regulation in my lifetime (which I consider about the extent of recent memory).

Edit: I think I do want the 1950's back, except for all the racism stuff. They can keep that. I sure as hell want to be able to drink brandy/bourbon in a business meeting though.

[Menos]

Don't get me wrong. I think there is a perfect amount of government control within these systems. Total lassefair can lead to non-governmental means of constricting the market like monopolies. I just think we have gone way past that point and swinging back towards some freedom and enlightened self interest is called for.

[Warriorbird]

My roommate is an auditor for the investment industry. They have not been without very heavy government regulation in my lifetime (which I consider about the extent of recent memory).

Edit: I think I do want the 1950's back, except for all the racism stuff. They can keep that. I sure as hell want to be able to drink brandy/bourbon in a business meeting though.

Eh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act went and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_ Control_Act and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn%E2%80%93St._Germain_Depository_Institutions_A ct and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act.

[Menos]

My issues might be more with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

But mainly I think we have spent enough time going one direction while things get worse, it is time to try doubling back.

Edit: You have to admit that a glass decanter on the work desk is just right.

Edit to actually respond now that all your links are showing. Parts were repealed as parts of larger moves to increase regulation for specific goals (like increasing housing in poorer demographics). That sort of micromanagement by legislation is exactly what the government should avoid. They should set basic rules to maintain a level playing field and then let good providers flourish.

[Warriorbird]

My issues might be more with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

But mainly I think we have spent enough time going one direction while things get worse, it is time to try doubling back.

Edit: You have to admit that a glass decanter on the work desk is just right.

So you'd favor some more banking and insurance regulation? I'm glad.

I can drink all I want... at only one of my jobs. Unfortunate.

[Menos]

So you'd favor some more banking and insurance regulation? I'm glad.

I can drink all I want... at only one of my jobs. Unfortunate.

I think the direction has been for more regulation on all fronts.

Edit to sum up the numbers:
1776 (about 15 pages)
1970- 54,834 pages of regulations
1998- 134,723
2001~ 141,300
2007- 145,816
2008- 157,974
2009- 163,333


According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.

The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations_2.htm


Unlike the Federal Register, which is in effect a posting board for all sorts of agency actions, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the regulatory equivalent of a statute book that includes only the text of existing regulations. In number of pages, the CFR makes the Federal Register look Lilliputian, with the 2007 edition totaling 145,816 pages, more than 4,500 pages longer than in 2001, when Bush took office,[15] and almost 8,000 pages longer than in 2000.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/red-tape-rising-regulatory-trends-in-the-bush-years


The size of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides a second yardstick of regulatory activity. Unlike the Federal Register, which is a catalog of regulatory changes, the CFR is a compendium of all existing regulations. In 2008, the CFR weighed in at 157,974 pages, having increased by 16,693 pages since the start of the George W. Bush Administration.[7] In 2009, the page count hit a record high of 163,333.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/red-tape-rising-regulation-in-the-obama-era

[Warriorbird]

I think the direction has been for more regulation on all fronts.

Edit to sum up the numbers:
1776 (about 15 pages)
1970- 54,834 pages of regulations
1998- 134,723
2001~ 141,300
2007- 145,816
2008- 157,974
2009- 163,333



http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations_2.htm



http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/red-tape-rising-regulatory-trends-in-the-bush-years



http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/red-tape-rising-regulation-in-the-obama-era

You can get a lot of extra nonsense that actually means organizations are more free to act and that's tossing in a lot of non financial industry based regulation. As time passes there become new areas that we need to address as a country or change. A lot of the Bush Era regulations were Homeland Security related. That Department hadn't existed beforehand.

A lot of Obama's are attempting to reverse the dismantling of the EPA that Bush executed. Some are, indeed, the insurance industry. Other than the Volcker Rule (way too light compared to Glass-Steagall) Obama hasn't done as much financial regulations.

You also have to consider your source when you post stuff from Heritage. Of course they're going to declare the regulatory sky is falling.

[Menos]

You can get a lot of extra nonsense that actually means organizations are more free to act and that's tossing in a lot of non financial industry based regulation. As time passes there become new areas that we need to address as a country or change. A lot of the Bush Era regulations were Homeland Security related. That Department hadn't existed beforehand.

A lot of Obama's are attempting to reverse the dismantling of the EPA that Bush executed. Some are, indeed, the insurance industry. Other than the Volcker Rule (way too light compared to Glass-Steagall) Obama hasn't done as much financial regulations.

You also have to consider your source when you post stuff from Heritage. Of course they're going to declare the regulatory sky is falling.

I only used Heritage because google pulled up the CFR numbers listed there. Finding them on a poorly run government site isn't something I wanted to take the time to do. Unless you are suggesting they made those raw numbers of pages on a commonly printed document up out of whole cloth.

And yeah, I always assume 100,000 more pages of regulations are there to reduce the regulations....

[Warriorbird]

I only used Heritage because google pulled up the CFR numbers listed there. Finding them on a poorly run government site isn't something I wanted to take the time to do. Unless you are suggesting they made those raw numbers of pages on a commonly printed document up out of whole cloth.

And yeah, I always assume 100,000 more pages of regulations are there to reduce the regulations....

I think you're doing the "But those are only liberal regulations!" in your head on some level in spite of your Bush link. The bigger systems get the more loopholes develop within them. Some of the CFR is even really clearly pushed by companies to stop competition. It's a mess on many levels.

[~Rocktar~]

If you go into a body shop without insurance, the body shop won't repair your car and then charge more for repairs to insured cars to recoup their losses on your car.

Same goes for contractors and your home example.

You don't know jack shit about how anyone that is paid by an insurance company works in the real world, do you?

[~Rocktar~]

I think not.

At least you got that part right. Auto insurance is idiotic at best and one of the best rackets ever designed at worst. Accidents happen, lawyers sue, laws get past to cover those costs by requiring insurance. You pay insurance at an artificially inflated rate for the legally mandated coverage, simply because it is legally mandated and then hope that you never have to collect. What other racket is there that you pay someone for something that you actively hope and work to never receive from them?

[Tgo01]

What other racket is there that you pay someone for something that you actively hope and work to never receive from them?

Funeral plots?

[Gelston]

At least you got that part right. Auto insurance is idiotic at best and one of the best rackets ever designed at worst. Accidents happen, lawyers sue, laws get past to cover those costs by requiring insurance. You pay insurance at an artificially inflated rate for the legally mandated coverage, simply because it is legally mandated and then hope that you never have to collect. What other racket is there that you pay someone for something that you actively hope and work to never receive from them?

You are paying for peace of mind. I'd rather not have to go heavily in debt if some poor dude without insurance fucks me up in a car accident.

[Parkbandit]

Even Obama knows the mandate is retarded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7-1SMV3ok58

[Keller]

You don't know jack shit about how anyone that is paid by an insurance company works in the real world, do you?

Regardless of my answer, I'd like to hear your explanation.

:popcorn2:

edit - I assumed you were talking about medical insurance billing, which I know a lot about because my family members and friends are doctors. It occurs to me that you're talking about car insurance billing, which I don't know shit about because my family members and friends are smart.

[Jack]

Regardless of my answer, I'd like to hear your explanation.

:popcorn2:

edit - I assumed you were talking about medical insurance billing, which I know a lot about because my family members and friends are doctors. It occurs to me that you're talking about car insurance billing, which I don't know shit about because my family members and friends are smart.

So people who work on cars are not smart?

[Keller]

So people who work on cars are not smart?

They are either not smart or lack ambition, yes.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

They are either not smart or lack ambition, yes.

What?

[Jack]

They are either not smart or lack ambition, yes.

This is exactly why it is difficult to take anything you say seriously. The level of arrogance is astounding, and shows why you have the views you do. Anyone working a blue collar job is obviously less intelligent or ambitious than you, so they should not have any say in how the country is run. They just need to sit back and do whatever you say because you are smarter and more ambitious than they are....

[Keller]

This is exactly why it is difficult to take anything you say seriously. The level of arrogance is astounding, and shows why you have the views you do. Anyone working a blue collar job is obviously less intelligent than you, so they should not have any say in how the country is run. They just need to sit back and do whatever you say because you are smarter than they are....

Re-read what I wrote.

[Wrathbringer]

They are either not smart or lack ambition, yes.

:jerkit:

I find it difficult to believe you're of even average intelligence when you obviously can't recognize and stifle stupidity before it leaks out your fingertips, onto the keyboard and into PC threads like this one.

[Jack]

Re-read what I wrote.

added the word ambitious just for you, though it does little to change the substance of my statement.

[Keller]

Do you really believe that if a person is both smart and ambitious, they will be limited to working at a body shop?

[Jack]

The lead technician at High Tech Collision Center here in Texas pulls in six figures a year, doing mostly diagnosing and repairing electronic systems. Chasing down wiring issues, computer issues, etc. You do realize even a base model car made in the last ten years has half a dozen different computers, communicating through a dedicated network? A competent Automotive Technician must be intelligent, and with the commission system that pretty much the entire automotive world runs on, they must also be ambitious if they want to make good money. Not everyone qualifies for scholarships, has Mommy and Daddy to pay their way, or is willing to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to become a lawyer, or doctor. This does not mean they are less intelligent, or less ambitious than you.

[Celephais]

Heh... I just misread the title as "SCROTUS to hear case on Obamacare".

[Keller]

Not everyone qualifies for scholarships

Great, you agree with me.

That's all I was asking.

[Jack]

Great, you agree with me.

That's all I was asking.

Context....

[Keller]

Context....

If you're ambitious and smart, you can get a scholarship to a professional school.

Not sure it's difficult to follow.

Also, for what it's worth, the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees with your 6-figure salary.

Automotive Body and Related Repairers - $41,570
Automotive Glass Installers and Repairers -$34,360
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics - $38,560

[Wrathbringer]

If you're ambitious and smart, you can get a scholarship to a professional school.

Not sure it's difficult to follow.

Also, for what it's worth, the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees with your 6-figure salary.

Automotive Body and Related Repairers - $41,570
Automotive Glass Installers and Repairers -$34,360
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics - $38,560

Based upon your recent posts, I believe there's enough evidence to judge that you're unhappy with your life because you are neither smart nor ambitious and thus feel compelled to insult others for choosing to successfully exercise the intelligence you so obviously lack in a field that they enjoy. Troll.

[Keller]

Based upon your recent posts, I believe there's enough evidence to judge that you're unhappy with your life because you are neither smart nor ambitious and thus feel compelled to insult others for choosing to successfully exercise the intelligence you so obviously lack in a field that they enjoy. Troll.

Why do all arguments wind up here?

It's ok to be wrong sometimes. You don't need to get upset about it.

[Jack]

If you're ambitious and smart, you can get a scholarship to a professional school.

Not sure it's difficult to follow.

Also, for what it's worth, the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees with your 6-figure salary.

Automotive Body and Related Repairers - $41,570
Automotive Glass Installers and Repairers -$34,360
Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics - $38,560

I provided an example. Nowhere did I state everyone who works on cars makes six figures. The point I made, however, was that your level of arrogance is such that there is no way I can take anything you say seriously. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[Atlanteax]

It's ok to be wrong sometimes. You don't need to get upset about it.

You may find it prudent to regularly practice what you preach, Keller.

[Keller]

I provided an example. Nowhere did I state everyone who works on cars makes six figures. The point I made, however, was that your level of arrogance is such that there is no way I can take anything you say seriously. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

If a simple observation about the interaction of intelligence and ambition makes me arrogant, I have no problem with that. I think you have an odd barometer for arrogance, but so be it.

[Keller]

You may find it prudent to regularly practice what you preach, Keller.

Next time I get mad on the PC, remind me.

The only person that ever riled me on the PC was Mabus, and he's gone.

[Lord Orbstar]

SCOTUS to hear case on...

03-27-2012 09:12 PM

Wow you are a total piece of shit
=====

I am very upset by this. I am not. My mom loves me. And you, sirrah, did not continue to read.

[Parkbandit]

This is exactly why it is difficult to take anything you say seriously.

If you do, that's your own fault.

[Jack]

If a simple observation about the interaction of intelligence and ambition makes me arrogant, I have no problem with that. I think you have an odd barometer for arrogance, but so be it.

The implicit statement you made regarding people who work on cars lacking either intelligence or ambition makes you arrogant.

[Keller]

The implicit statement you made regarding people who work on cars lacking either intelligence or ambition makes you arrogant.

To be absolutely clear, it was an explicit statement.

If you're saying that I was implicitly saying I am either smart or ambitious because I don't work on cars, your logic is failing you.

[Parkbandit]

So people who work on cars are not smart?


They are either not smart or lack ambition, yes.

This is what was posted.

It's pretty cut and dry ignorant.

[TheEschaton]

mmm, my buddy owns a body shop in San Antonio which used to exclusively cater to Lexus owners (now they've broadened it).

Their lead tech, who's up to date on all the qualifications to fiddle with the computers, etc, etc, etc, makes 6 figures, yes. I wouldn't call him doctor smart, but he's not dumb. The six figures comes from the highly specialized skill set and the lack of people qualified in that skill set. It is not indicative of its technical difficulty or his superb grasp and skill over and above that of his peers.

[Parkbandit]

Great... now I'm forced to agree with TheE in a political thread.

December 21st can't come soon enough IMO... I'm ready.

[TheEschaton]

So am I, buddy, so am I. I'll be forever purged of the memories of how awful a healer you were.

<ZING>

[Keller]

This is what was posted.

It's pretty cut and dry ignorant.

So someone with intelligence and ambition is going to decide to work at a body shop?

[Parkbandit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

If they do find the mandate portion unconstitutional, I'm glad they would take this stand rather than try and have Congress "fix" it. That would be a fucking mess.

[Parkbandit]

So someone with intelligence and ambition is going to decide to work at a body shop?

Absolutely.

Let's just agree it was a really, really stupid thing to post and move on before your intelligence is questioned even further.

[Parkbandit]

So am I, buddy, so am I. I'll be forever purged of the memories of how awful a healer you were.

<ZING>

You miss me and you know it. I healed the shit out of your weak ass bear form.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So someone with intelligence and ambition is going to decide to work at a body shop?

I don't see how ambition and intelligence naturally lead to being a Doctor or Lawyer, or any profession at all.

[Keller]

I don't see how ambition and intelligence naturally lead to being a Doctor or Lawyer, or any profession at all.

If you're smart and ambitious and like cars, you become an engineer and design some aspect of them. You don't go work at the local body shop.

[Keller]

Absolutely.

That's cut and dry ignorant.

[Ryvicke]

Let's get back on track with the juicy point everyone from the Times to Fox News is now making:

Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, centrists are appeased by the left being checked, Republicans can't run on appealing the legislation, Obama wins election handily.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If you're smart and ambitious and like cars, you become an engineer and design some aspect of them. You don't go work at the local body shop.

I'd disagree. You seem to think that intelligence and ambition equate to white collar roles.

[TheEschaton]

ruh roh, there's like 1 degree of separation between me and Jack. My internet alter-ego might be dispelled.

(never mind that most of the people on these forums who play WoW know who I am.)

[Parkbandit]

Let's get back on track with the juicy point everyone from the Times to Fox News is now making:

Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, centrists are appeased by the left being checked, Republicans can't run on appealing the legislation, Obama wins election handily.

First of all, it's repealing.. not appealing.... what do you do for a living.. work in a body shop?

And do you believe that the only way a Republican can win is to run on repealing Obamacare?

[Keller]

I'd disagree. You seem to think that intelligence and ambition equate to white collar roles.

I think anyone with intelligence and ambition will be more successful than working at a body shop.

I'm pretty shocked at the number of conservatives in this thread disagreeing with me given the whole "American dream" or "self responsibility" foundation to your political theory.

So you guys think someone with intelligence and ambition is stuck in the middle class in the current American economy?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think anyone with intelligence and ambition will be more successful than working at a body shop.

I'm pretty shocked at the number of conservatives in this thread disagreeing with me given the whole "American dream" or "self responsibility" foundation to your political theory.

So you guys think someone with intelligence and ambition is stuck in the middle class in the current American economy?

Intelligent and ambitious people can do anything is all I'm saying. If I get personal satisfaction working in a body shop, my ambition and intelligence has nothing to do with why I work there - right?

Some of the smartest people I know are working in "common" jobs. Did you not see Good Will Hunting?!

[Ryvicke]

First of all, it's repealing.. not appealing.... what do you do for a living.. work in a body shop?

And do you believe that the only way a Republican can win is to run on repealing Obamacare?

I used the wrong word.

I don't think it's the only way--I think it's a strong topic that appeals to the passions of the conservative base, like gay marriage and swift boats.

In general, it's a strong tool that would be removed.

Just hypothetically: would you rather Obamacare stay in place as is (the individual mandate being an original creation of conservatives, only demonized after it became a victory for Obama) and get Romney into office or would you rather have it repealed but suffer through a grueling second Obama term?

[Keller]

Intelligent and ambitious people can do anything is all I'm saying. If I get personal satisfaction working in a body shop, my ambition and intelligence has nothing to do with why I work there - right?

Some of the smartest people I know are working in "common" jobs. Did you not see Good Will Hunting?!

Will Hunting wasn't ambitious.

[Ryvicke]

Will Hunting wasn't ambitious.

It's not your fault, Keller

[Jack]

I think anyone with intelligence and ambition will be more successful than working at a body shop.

I'm pretty shocked at the number of conservatives in this thread disagreeing with me given the whole "American dream" or "self responsibility" foundation to your political theory.

So you guys think someone with intelligence and ambition is stuck in the middle class in the current American economy?

I'm shocked at the disdain you seem to hold for anyone in the middle class. I do not think there is any shame at all in working a blue collar job. I don't think a person has to work a white collar job to be successful. How does working for a living not live up to politically conservative views?

After 8 years in the Marine Corps I got out and had to figure out what to do with myself. I went through the Toyota Technical Education Network training, and started out working at a Lexus Dealership. Moved up to team leader after a few years, and overall it was a good job. I enjoyed it, but the top down structure of the dealership eventually started to bother me. The opportunity came up to buy a 35% stake in a Lexus Specialist shop, similar to the one TheE's friends run in San Antonio. I took it, and though I still work a fifty to sixty hour week, and I still turn wrenches, I make considerably more money doing it. I do not have the type of personality that would be happy sitting in front of a desk all day. If I'm not actually doing something I get bored quickly. Does this mean I am unintelligent, or unambitious? After all, I didn't go to med school, law school, nor did I study engineering.

[Androidpk]

Just hypothetically: would you rather Obamacare stay in place as is (the individual mandate being an original creation of conservatives, only demonized after it became a victory for Obama) and get Romney into office or would you rather have it repealed but suffer through a grueling second Obama term?

I'm leaning towards the latter choice as sad as that makes me :(

[Ryvicke]

I'm leaning towards the latter choice as sad as that makes me :(

Interesting. What changes do you think will take place in 2014 when the full health care law goes into effect that would be bad enough to entrust the country to someone you obviously have no faith in? I've always really wondered what people that hate the health care law think is going to happen.

[Keller]

I'm shocked at the disdain you seem to hold for anyone in the middle class. I do not think there is any shame at all in working a blue collar job. I don't think a person has to work a white collar job to be successful. How does working for a living not live up to politically conservative views?

After 8 years in the Marine Corps I got out and had to figure out what to do with myself. I went through the Toyota Technical Education Network training, and started out working at a Lexus Dealership. Moved up to team leader after a few years, and overall it was a good job. I enjoyed it, but the top down structure of the dealership eventually started to bother me. The opportunity came up to buy a 35% stake in a Lexus Specialist shop, similar to the one TheE's friends run in San Antonio. I took it, and though I still work a fifty to sixty hour week, and I still turn wrenches, I make considerably more money doing it. I do not have the type of personality that would be happy sitting in front of a desk all day. If I'm not actually doing something I get bored quickly. Does this mean I am unintelligent, or unambitious? After all, I didn't go to med school, law school, nor did I study engineering.

Exactly my point. You're ambitious and went from working at a body shop to owning one.

I have no disdain for anyone. I merely believe that our economy values intelligent hardworking people and, if they are ambitious, they will not be limited in reaching their potential.

It's shocking that others in this thread disagree.

[Parkbandit]

I used the wrong word.

I don't think it's the only way--I think it's a strong topic that appeals to the passions of the conservative base, like gay marriage and swift boats.

In general, it's a strong tool that would be removed.

Just hypothetically: would you rather Obamacare stay in place as is (the individual mandate being an original creation of conservatives, only demonized after it became a victory for Obama) and get Romney into office or would you rather have it repealed but suffer through a grueling second Obama term?

I don't see the decision regarding Obamacare being a factor in the upcoming election to be honest. I also don't see it as the end all be all you are making it out to being.

This is what I see happening... the economy continues to trudge along with some signs of recovery.. the price of gas will climb to be around $4.50 and Obama's poll numbers will suffer.. then around the end of June and beginning of July, the price will slowly go down.. and everyone will forget about it come November. Unless something serious happens, I do believe that Obama will be re-elected and the Republicans will take the Senate by a very narrow margin while keeping control of the House and we will have 4 more years of out of control budgets and Washington politics as usual.

[Atlanteax]

I'd prefer the Supreme Court just strike down the entire ObamaCare legislation, as any attempt to 'fix it' (as per USSC guidelines) or further reforms to it, would only end up coming even more of a discombobulated mess. Particularly since Congress is Congress, and is seemingly unable to generate crisp and concise legislation.

If there is anything that should exist at the federal level as far as 'national healthcare' goes (and this probably already exists now) is a form of healthcare savings account similar to IRAs ... where individuals are encouraged (but *not* mandated) to pay $$$ into it, taxation-free, for healthcare expenses (can be applied to family members).

IMO, Congress should just increase the standard deduction by whatever $$$ amount they figure the 'average' American would have to pay in healthcare premiums over a year ... that would certainly quantify as making healthcare 'more affordable' (and leave it up to individual tax payers to decide just how much on healthcare they will actually spend).

[Androidpk]

Interesting. What changes do you think will take place in 2014 when the full health care law goes into effect that would be bad enough to entrust the country to someone you obviously have no faith in? I've always really wondered what people that hate the health care law think is going to happen.

I have no faith in Romney either but at least no Obamacare would be a partial victory and a step back in the right direction.

[Atlanteax]

I used the wrong word.

I don't think it's the only way--I think it's a strong topic that appeals to the passions of the conservative base, like gay marriage and swift boats.

In general, it's a strong tool that would be removed.

Just hypothetically: would you rather Obamacare stay in place as is (the individual mandate being an original creation of conservatives, only demonized after it became a victory for Obama) and get Romney into office or would you rather have it repealed but suffer through a grueling second Obama term?

I'd agree it is a strong topic for the conservative (and moderate) base to rally around, in support of the non-Obama candidate ... but there are plenty of other issues that voters find to be of significant importance.

Here is a hypothetical question for you... would it *not* be better for the Supreme Court to completely strike down the 'Obamacare' legislation? Resulting in the 2012 election being decided between Obama "our mission is to create a national health care program" (that'll pass muster with the USSC) ... or Romney/whoever who would be "absolutely no national health care program".

If the majority of American voters consider it to be the most compelling issue, then you would have both President and Congress (with a presumably sufficient majority) to be able to enact it.

OR would you be too concerned that Obama would *not* be able to win on such a platform?

[Ryvicke]

I have no faith in Romney either but at least no Obamacare would be a partial victory and a step back in the right direction.

I get that you think that--but I really have always wondered what negative effects you think the health care law will bring?

[Ryvicke]

I don't see the decision regarding Obamacare being a factor in the upcoming election to be honest. I also don't see it as the end all be all you are making it out to being.

This is what I see happening... the economy continues to trudge along with some signs of recovery.. the price of gas will climb to be around $4.50 and Obama's poll numbers will suffer.. then around the end of June and beginning of July, the price will slowly go down.. and everyone will forget about it come November. Unless something serious happens, I do believe that Obama will be re-elected and the Republicans will take the Senate by a very narrow margin while keeping control of the House and we will have 4 more years of out of control budgets and Washington politics as usual.

PB, I honestly don't see this as the 'end all, be all' of anything either. I was at this pizza place at lunch and saw a bit on Fox News where some guy complained that repealing it would hurt Romney's campaign and then I got back to my desk and saw an article from Ross Douthat (a Times token conservative op-ed guy) about the same thing.

I could give a fuck, I too believe that no matter what happens Obama will be reelected, I just thought it was a fun hypothetical to know which you guys would rather have, no ACA or no Obama.

[Atlanteax]

Interesting. What changes do you think will take place in 2014 when the full health care law goes into effect that would be bad enough to entrust the country to someone you obviously have no faith in? I've always really wondered what people that hate the health care law think is going to happen.

I expect healthcare costs to triple, if not more, across the board.

People with pre-existing conditions would be insured (so that would clearly be a significant increase in actual spending on healthcare) ... it would be harder to 'discriminate' against 'unhealthy' people ...the spirit of preventive care (the idea of catching/preempting more serious issues) would be overwhelmed by abuse & excessive visitations (medical professionals only have a limited amount of time in a day).

That is just a few easily identified issues.

[Ryvicke]

I expect healthcare costs to triple, if not more, across the board.

People with pre-existing conditions would be insured (so that would clearly be a significant increase in actual spending on healthcare) ... it would be harder to 'discriminate' against 'unhealthy' people ...the spirit of preventive care (the idea of catching/preempting more serious issues) would be overwhelmed by abuse & excessive visitations (medical professionals only have a limited amount of time in a day).

That is just a few easily identified issues.

But you're also adding a metric fuckton of people onto insurer's rolls. The insurance companies definitely wouldn't be pro-ACA if they weren't seeing the numbers line up. More visitations and more care = more jobs? I know there was a report yesterday in the Times that over 800 doctors had applied for two open positions at one of the least attractive hospitals in Brooklyn last month. Good for the economy?

EDIT: actually let's not get into this, that would be retarded and I can only take two retarded threads on the PC at once. I'll just concede that obviously the cost of medical care would somehow triple under this plan, that doctors and hospitals with more straight quantity would obviously also increase their prices three-fold on top of that. It makes sense.

SECOND EDIT: I am leaving this thread to go see if I can get a handgun for the 4 days I'm in Florida next week.

[crb]

But you're also adding a metric fuckton of people onto insurer's rolls. The insurance companies definitely wouldn't be pro-ACA if they weren't seeing the numbers line up. More visitations and more care = more jobs? I know there was a report yesterday in the Times that over 800 doctors had applied for two open positions at one of the least attractive hospitals in Brooklyn last month. Good for the economy?
Most places report a doctor shortage, so I find this story hard to believe. But, it begs the questions, how many of the doctors spoke English?

Maybe NYC has too many doctors, god knows they have too many psychiatrists.

[Androidpk]

I get that you think that--but I really have always wondered what negative effects you think the health care law will bring?

Cost is pretty important to me and I don't think we can fully afford this program. Not to mention I don't believe it is constitutionally legal.

[Keller]

Most places report a doctor shortage, so I find this story hard to believe. But, it begs the questions, how many of the doctors spoke English?

Maybe NYC has too many doctors, god knows they have too many psychiatrists.

That's my understanding. It's obscene how much doctors can make if they're willing to move to west Texas or North Dakota or another underserviced area.

[crb]

Interesting. What changes do you think will take place in 2014 when the full health care law goes into effect that would be bad enough to entrust the country to someone you obviously have no faith in? I've always really wondered what people that hate the health care law think is going to happen.
The same thing that happens everywhere else.

It goes over budget. It already has. It was passed on a lie, you know that right? You know the gimmicks they used to reduce the costs of it on paper for CBO scoring? It is a big ass lie.

So it goes over budget, like everything else, and every part of the program already launched has done so.

Money doesn't grow on trees though, so we either end up with a situation where the government continues to crowd out the rest of the economy by gobbling up more of it with tax revenue (which is not good for anyone), or they start making cuts.

Cuts are easier, medicaid gets cut constantly to balance state budgets, it will be the same here. They will cut reimbursements to providers.

Now Obama is arguing this very week that EVERYONE is involved in the healthcare market because uninsured people go to the hospital (which by federal law cannot turn them away) and get care subsidized by the rest of us. Left unsaid is that all the people on medicaid, the enrollment of which he wants to triple, do that as well. You think medicaid fully reimburses? Try an experiment, call a bunch of doctors in private practice and ask if they are accepting new medicaid patients. It pays pennies on the dollar.

So medicaid and medicare get cut, and you end up with a class system (which to be fair already exists, but to a lesser extent) where you either have good insurance, or government insurance, and the two are mutually exclusive. Good insurance is rationed by price, government insurance is rationed by time, waiting, and access.

Except... we have the hospital problem again, and that darn law saying they have to treat everyone. So hospitals in poorer areas that get a disproportionate number of patients with government insurance have to choose between offering services at a loss (because there aren't enough good insurance patients to subsidize the others) or cutting the service altogether. This will not be a hard decision for them, so they start cutting things like Obstetrics. Can't happen? Already does happen, a couple years ago the hospital in my hometown closed the OB department for this very reason.

The problem here is now you're rationing access not just for people on government insurance, but for me too, and that pisses me off. Imagine if I had a pregnant wife and was visiting my parents and she goes into labor or something and oops, the hospital has no OB anymore.

So I'm unhappy, and you know the left is unhappy too, because ultimately what they care about is equality, even if it means everyone is equally miserable, and they don't want a safety net, or a class system, or any system where the ability to pay results in better healthcare. They want everyone to be equally miserable rather than allow 85% of people have better care.

So no one is happy. What can the government do at this point? Back to the same choices, cut reimbursements, raise taxes.... or force doctors using the threat of violence (imprisonment) to treat patients on government insurance. Or you can make private insurance illegal, and make it illegal for someone to pay cash to a doctor (which failed in Canada). You can keep going down that road further but it doesn't end well.

Meanwhile, of course, adding all these new patients hasn't increased quality of care for anyone, because the other thing that is done when workload is increased while reimbursements are decreased is corners get cut.

And all this can be yours if Obamacare is left standing.

[crb]

That's my understanding. It's obscene how much doctors can make if they're willing to move to west Texas or North Dakota or another underserviced area.
Its obscene how much anyone can make if they move to North Dakota. McDonalds cashiers pulling $20 an hour, etc.

[Ryvicke]

The same thing that happens everywhere else.

Everybody gets to go to the doctor.

And all this can be yours if Obamacare is left standing.

Awesome!

[Warriorbird]

SECOND EDIT: I am leaving this thread to go see if I can get a handgun for the 4 days I'm in Florida next week.

You won't even have to wait a day if you buy it online in the handgun fantasyland of Virginia.

[Androidpk]

McDonalds cashiers pulling $20 an hour, etc.

???

[crb]

Intelligent and ambitious people can do anything is all I'm saying. If I get personal satisfaction working in a body shop, my ambition and intelligence has nothing to do with why I work there - right?

Some of the smartest people I know are working in "common" jobs. Did you not see Good Will Hunting?!
This has Rich Dad Poor Dad written all over it. I think the Rich Dad in that example actually is a mechanic. Little hints of The Millionaire Next Door too.

You can make far far more in a skilled trade than you can in many many many jobs that require a college degree. If you own your own business or open your own shop you can make even more.

To the point that has been made, an intelligent ambitious mechanic can make a lot of money, as can a plumber, electrician, welder, machinist, builder, etc.

In fact, we have a shortage of many of those jobs right now in this country, and we have an excess of many white collar positions.

Personally, I'd rather my son grow up to be an electrician and an entrepreneur, or a welder and an entrepreneur, or a mechanic and an entrepreneur, than some middle management cubicle creature.

[crb]

Awesome!
If you really wanted your sarcastic edit to be accurate you would have said



Everyone gets 5 minutes with a nurse practitioner or PA after a 6 hour wait.


That would perhaps be accurate.

[Ryvicke]

If you really wanted your sarcastic edit to be accurate you would have said

That would perhaps be accurate.

It's just so tough for me to believe you though! Because, see, although I really do appreciate you writing up those talking points for me--I actually did this totally fucking stupid thing once and lived in Israel for a year, and then stayed in the UK for 8 months after that and holy shit! I watched people go to the doctor the same day they called! And they stayed in there for a lot longer than 5 minutes! It was nutty!

I also met about 15 people that specifically moved to Israel from the US to receive care that wasn't available in the US. I also watched a friend I have known my whole life get diagnosed for vitamin B-12 deficiency for symptoms that were so small, things that we never would've thought to go to the doctor for but that had been around for years, but then one of our Israeli friends was like 'why the fuck don't you go to the doctor?' cause holy shit it's like... in their minds they can just GO TO THE DOCTOR. Preventative care essentially doesn't exist in this country for 150 million people, and it's proven to lead to skyrocketing medical costs here.

Anywho, tl;dr is that it would be so easy to believe you if I hadn't have seen and written extensively about other systems that obviously were working. Were not bankrupting any countries and were quite obviously better than our system.

[Tgo01]

Preventative care essentially doesn't exist in this country for 150 million people, and it's proven to lead to skyrocketing medical costs here.

Preventative care saving a lot of money in medical costs is almost always a myth perpetuated by those who have no real idea how the healthcare system, or healthcare in general, works. In some cases preventative care can save money in the long run but it's not always as simple as saying "hey, preventative care saves money! Let's get in on that shit."

Let's look at annual check ups for example, that's preventative care right? Most doctors and experts feel annual check ups are usually a waste of time and money, costing Americans billions of dollars a year. If you have a symptom of something then you go to the doctor, a doctor can not possibly always catch something in time before it becomes a major problem yet people are still out there getting a checkup every year just to hear from their doctor "everything looks good Jim."

What about cancer screenings? Yes cancer screenings are good if you follow the recommended guidelines. Why not give people more cancer screenings? We would catch cancer earlier and save thousands of dollars in medical costs for that person right? True, but what about the millions and possibly billions of dollars we are spending on people who didn't develop cancer?

My issue with Obamacare is it doesn't accomplish the goal it was set out to do, which was to lower healthcare costs. It should (in theory) lower health care costs for the simple fact of the matter that more people are paying into the system, but that isn't really lowering health care costs as a whole, it's just lowering each person's specific burden of our country's healthcare costs.

Getting people to eat less salt, sugar, fatty foods, getting people to quit smoking, stop drinking, get insurance company profits out of the system, reign in drug costs so the US stops financing the entire world's prescription drug costs. Things like that would lower healthcare costs, you can argue that some of them won't lower healthcare costs by much but they will actually lower healthcare costs and not just spread the costs around.

[Tgo01]

Anywho, tl;dr is that it would be so easy to believe you if I hadn't have seen and written extensively about other systems that obviously were working. Were not bankrupting any countries and were quite obviously better than our system.

By pointing to Israel as an example? Might be better to name some countries that don't receive upwards of 6% of their yearly revenue from aid and donations from other countries/private individuals and still manage to have a 74% GDP/debt ratio. If the US were receiving 120 billion dollars (6% of revenues) in aid each year I'm sure our situation would be better as well.

[Wrathbringer]

I get that you think that--but I really have always wondered what negative effects you think the health care law will bring?

Oh, I don't know... Bankrupting the country? I know we're nearly there as is, I'm just saying. Even if we were starting with a 14 trillion dollar surplus, Socialist policies would eventually bankrupt us. Yet for some reason, with a 14 trillion dollar deficit (which socialist programs have contributed to) people think now is a good time to implement more socialist policies. Really? What's the thinking on the math there? Any at all? Does no one care? Someone explain why people think this is a good idea.

[Ryvicke]

Preventative care saving a lot of money in medical costs is almost always a myth perpetuated by those who have no real idea how the healthcare system, or healthcare in general, works. In some cases preventative care can save money in the long run but it's not always as simple as saying "hey, preventative care saves money! Let's get in on that shit."

Let's look at annual check ups for example, that's preventative care right? Most doctors and experts feel annual check ups are usually a waste of time and money, costing Americans billions of dollars a year. If you have a symptom of something then you go to the doctor, a doctor can not possibly always catch something in time before it becomes a major problem yet people are still out there getting a checkup every year just to hear from their doctor "everything looks good Jim."

What about cancer screenings? Yes cancer screenings are good if you follow the recommended guidelines. Why not give people more cancer screenings? We would catch cancer earlier and save thousands of dollars in medical costs for that person right? True, but what about the millions and possibly billions of dollars we are spending on people who didn't develop cancer?

My issue with Obamacare is it doesn't accomplish the goal it was set out to do, which was to lower healthcare costs. It should (in theory) lower health care costs for the simple fact of the matter that more people are paying into the system, but that isn't really lowering health care costs as a whole, it's just lowering each person's specific burden of our country's healthcare costs.

Getting people to eat less salt, sugar, fatty foods, getting people to quit smoking, stop drinking, get insurance company profits out of the system, reign in drug costs so the US stops financing the entire world's prescription drug costs. Things like that would lower healthcare costs, you can argue that some of them won't lower healthcare costs by much but they will actually lower healthcare costs and not just spread the costs around.

Ohhhh you were talking about the health care plan where you get no doctor's visits, no preventative screening or any medical care of any kind. That plan is actually super cheap, and fuck, if we actually want medical care we can just hop down to Venezuela.

[Tgo01]

Ohhhh you were talking about the health care plan where you get no doctor's visits, no preventative screening or any medical care of any kind. That plan is actually super cheap, and fuck, if we actually want medical care we can just hop down to Venezuela.

Now you're getting it. It would be cheaper if we just paid for people to travel to India to get the healthcare they needed.

[Ryvicke]

Oh, I don't know... Bankrupting the country? I know we're nearly there as is, I'm just saying. Even if we were starting with a 14 trillion dollar surplus, Socialist policies would eventually bankrupt us. Yet for some reason, with a 14 trillion dollar deficit (which socialist programs have contributed to) people think now is a good time to implement more socialist policies. Really? What's the thinking on the math there? Any at all? Does no one care? Someone explain why people think this is a good idea.

Is war a socialist program now?

Here's a secret that everyone that's not crazy knows: America is not in danger of going bankrupt. You're welcome.

[Back]

You don't know how things REALLY work. We've never done it before and it'll never work. Trust the people who tell you that. Because they know something about something we've never done before.

[Ryvicke]

You don't know how things REALLY work. We've never done it before and it'll never work. Trust the people who tell you that. Because they know something about something we've never done before.

No Back, don't you come in here with your sarcasm. These dudes stay up nights with translucent green bankers' visors crunching the numbers man, this shit is going to TRIPLE HEALTH CARE COSTS and AMERICA WILL END.

[Parkbandit]

You don't know how things REALLY work. We've never done it before and it'll never work. Trust the people who tell you that. Because they know something about something we've never done before.

Or.. we can just do what doesn't work in other places and think somehow, we can make it work here.. because we're Americans and we have money to burn baby!

[Parkbandit]

No Back, don't you come in here with your sarcasm. These dudes stay up nights with translucent green bankers' visors crunching the numbers man, this shit is going to TRIPLE HEALTH CARE COSTS and AMERICA WILL END.

Maybe they can appeal it?

[Back]

Or.. we can just do what doesn't work in other places and think somehow, we can make it work here.. because we're Americans and we have money to burn baby!

I'd like to think we have the ingenuity and compassion to succeed where others may have failed.

Considering some of the systems that are out there that DO work it should be no problem. The only thing really holding us back are greedy bastards.

[Atlanteax]

I'd like to think we have the ingenuity and compassion to succeed where others may have failed.

Considering some of the systems that are out there that DO work it should be no problem. The only thing really holding us back are greedy bastards.

I'd like to think we have the ingenuity and compassion to succeed too.

However, people as a rule are lazy and will put in the least amount of work required to get by, and will rush to take advantage of any 'free' or low-cost opportunities.

I do not understand why blind idealists just cannot percieve how badly massively 'subsized' 'universal health care' would be abused ... especially by an American population that has an extreme sense of self-entitlement.

[Parkbandit]

I'd like to think we have the ingenuity and compassion to succeed where others may have failed.

Considering some of the systems that are out there that DO work it should be no problem. The only thing really holding us back are greedy bastards.

lulz.

You're too dumb for words.

[Back]

I'd like to think we have the ingenuity and compassion to succeed too.

However, people as a rule are lazy and will put in the least amount of work required to get by, and will rush to take advantage of any 'free' or low-cost opportunities.

I do not understand why blind idealists just cannot percieve how badly massively 'subsized' 'universal health care' would be abused ... especially by an American population that has an extreme sense of self-entitlement.

I find it interesting that you have less faith in America and the American people than I the "blind idealist" has. It would not surprise me, however, if you had more sympathy for the corporation than the common man.

[Warriorbird]

I'd like to think we have the ingenuity and compassion to succeed too.

However, people as a rule are lazy and will put in the least amount of work required to get by, and will rush to take advantage of any 'free' or low-cost opportunities.

I do not understand why blind idealists just cannot percieve how badly massively 'subsized' 'universal health care' would be abused ... especially by an American population that has an extreme sense of self-entitlement.

Wow. Corporations really are people.

[Atlanteax]

I find it interesting that you have less faith in America and the American people than I the "blind idealist" has. It would not surprise me, however, if you had more sympathy for the corporation than the common man.

I do not have issues with corporations, just the amoral executives that can cause a lot of damage at times (and are generally those responsible for egregious corporate behavior).

The problem is that they can too easily hide behind company-paid lawyers.

[Wrathbringer]

Is war a socialist program now?

Here's a secret that everyone that's not crazy knows: America is not in danger of going bankrupt. You're welcome.

If you mean we're in no danger of running out of paper, I agree with you.

[Parkbandit]

Here's a secret that everyone that's not crazy knows: America is not in danger of going bankrupt. You're welcome.

What is your definition of bankruptcy?

[Kembal]

Preventative care saving a lot of money in medical costs is almost always a myth perpetuated by those who have no real idea how the healthcare system, or healthcare in general, works. In some cases preventative care can save money in the long run but it's not always as simple as saying "hey, preventative care saves money! Let's get in on that shit."

Let's look at annual check ups for example, that's preventative care right? Most doctors and experts feel annual check ups are usually a waste of time and money, costing Americans billions of dollars a year. If you have a symptom of something then you go to the doctor, a doctor can not possibly always catch something in time before it becomes a major problem yet people are still out there getting a checkup every year just to hear from their doctor "everything looks good Jim."

Very bad definition of preventative care. Preventative care is encouraging people to visit their primary care doctor for symptoms they experience before the symptoms result in something that requires a visit to the ER. Guess what: Uninsured people don't do that, because they don't have insurance that makes that primary care visit cheap.


What about cancer screenings? Yes cancer screenings are good if you follow the recommended guidelines. Why not give people more cancer screenings? We would catch cancer earlier and save thousands of dollars in medical costs for that person right? True, but what about the millions and possibly billions of dollars we are spending on people who didn't develop cancer?

If you'd been paying attention to recent developments, they're actually starting to develop better guidelines that indicate when people should have recommended cancer screenings so that we don't spend on early screenings for people who were low risk in the first place (due to age, primarily). I know that's the new trend for colon cancer, specifically.


My issue with Obamacare is it doesn't accomplish the goal it was set out to do, which was to lower healthcare costs. It should (in theory) lower health care costs for the simple fact of the matter that more people are paying into the system, but that isn't really lowering health care costs as a whole, it's just lowering each person's specific burden of our country's healthcare costs.

That's just one section of the law (dealing with the individual mandate). There's the rest of the law that has lots of different provisions looking at how to reduce health care costs in different areas so that health care costs are lowered as a whole. But yes, getting more people insured should, in theory, get less people to visit the ER as their primary mode of care when something happens to them, and that reduces costs as a whole.


Getting people to eat less salt, sugar, fatty foods, getting people to quit smoking, stop drinking, get insurance company profits out of the system, reign in drug costs so the US stops financing the entire world's prescription drug costs. Things like that would lower healthcare costs, you can argue that some of them won't lower healthcare costs by much but they will actually lower healthcare costs and not just spread the costs around.

You realize that what's in bold would require an increased government role in healthcare, not less, right? It's been the dream of liberal Democrats to do exactly those things (by establishing a government-run health insurance plan and by giving government the power to collectively negotiate drug prices). Republicans objected to those proposals so vehemently that we ended up with the individual mandate (a Republican plan, cooked up by the Heritage Foundation, no less). And then they objected to that too.

Any serious health policy expert will tell you there are no solutions to the right of the individual mandate. The status quo is unsustainable, and any other proposals that have proposed by Republicans/conservatives in the past 2 years are pretty much just bandaids on the problem or will have trouble becoming law if the mandate gets struck down. (I know PB's favorite is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. If the mandate gets struck down along Justice Kennedy's line of thinking, I'm not sure that proposal can pass muster anymore. That would be Congress creating interstate commerce in order to regulate it.)

[Tgo01]

Very bad definition of preventative care. Preventative care is encouraging people to visit their primary care doctor for symptoms they experience before the symptoms result in something that requires a visit to the ER.

Wrong. Treating a patient for a symptom they are already experiencing? Isn't that just called treatment?


Guess what: Uninsured people don't do that, because they don't have insurance that makes that primary care visit cheap.

I still don't get this argument, let's blame it all on the uninsured. About 10 years ago I worked at a place that offered health insurance, it came with a 5,000 dollar yearly deductible. I wonder how many people on that health plan had five grand to blow every year on 'preventative care.'


There's the rest of the law that has lots of different provisions looking at how to reduce health care costs in different areas so that health care costs are lowered as a whole.

Such as?


You realize that what's in bold would require an increased government role in healthcare, not less, right? It's been the dream of liberal Democrats to do exactly those things (by establishing a government-run health insurance plan and by giving government the power to collectively negotiate drug prices). Republicans objected to those proposals so vehemently that we ended up with the individual mandate (a Republican plan, cooked up by the Heritage Foundation, no less). And then they objected to that too.

Yes I'm well aware of that. I don't always agree with everything Republicans do and say. I think Obama was in a position to follow through on his promise for some real "change" but instead backed down a bit when he thought it might hurt his chances for reelection.

[Kembal]

Wrong. Treating a patient for a symptom they are already experiencing? Isn't that just called treatment?

No. If I have a cough for three weeks, and I go in and see my primary care doctor, he'll prescribe me antibiotics and I'll get better in a week, presuming it's a bacterial infection. If I don't go in to see a primary care doc (because I don't have insurance, for example), keep coughing, and then develop pneumonia, requiring a visit to the ER and potentially a hospital stay, then that's a lot more expensive. That's what's prevented by seeing a primary care doc for symptoms.

(I use that as an example, because I get persistent coughs once every year for the past 5 years. Only once has it been a bacterial infection. But there's no point in me taking the risk that it's not.)



I still don't get this argument, let's blame it all on the uninsured. About 10 years ago I worked at a place that offered health insurance, it came with a 5,000 dollar yearly deductible. I wonder how many people on that health plan had five grand to blow every year on 'preventative care.'

Preventative care is generally visits to a primary care doctor. Unless that plan was screwy and didn't offer co-pays for primary care visits, the deductible is not really an issue there.

In any case, having the insurance company there gets you the insurance company's negotiated discount, even if you pay it as part of the deductible. That's generally very substantial.


Such as?

Look up Independent Payments Advisory Board (IPAB) for the best example. There are many others though in the law.


Yes I'm well aware of that. I don't always agree with everything Republicans do and say. I think Obama was in a position to follow through on his promise for some real "change" but instead backed down a bit when he thought it might hurt his chances for reelection.

Don't think this is Obama's inclinations toward getting re-elected that prevented this. The public option was scrapped because there weren't 60 votes in the Senate for it. (Sen. Ben Nelson was against it, amongst other conservative Dems)

[Parkbandit]

No. If I have a cough for three weeks, and I go in and see my primary care doctor, he'll prescribe me antibiotics and I'll get better in a week, presuming it's a bacterial infection. If I don't go in to see a primary care doc (because I don't have insurance, for example), keep coughing, and then develop pneumonia, requiring a visit to the ER and potentially a hospital stay, then that's a lot more expensive. That's what's prevented by seeing a primary care doc for symptoms.


If you go to a doctor for symptoms you currently have, it's called treatment.. it's not called preventative medicine.

[Kembal]

If you go to a doctor for symptoms you currently have, it's called treatment.. it's not called preventative medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_medicine

While my example (and initial argument) are incorrect in regards to preventive medicine (though a valid example of how insurance reduces costs), the point still stands that Tgo's use of annual checkup as preventive medicine is a fairly narrow aspect.

[Parkbandit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_medicine

While my example (and initial argument) are incorrect in regards to preventive medicine (though a valid example of how insurance reduces costs), the point still stands that Tgo's use of annual checkup as preventive medicine is a fairly narrow aspect.

You were wrong, Tgo pointed out that you were wrong.. you double downed on being wrong and I pointed it out.

At least you now realize how utterly silly your argument was. There is hope.

[Ryvicke]

Kembal--your post was thoughtful and a cogent representation of the debate at hand. Thanks for it.

[Ryvicke]

You were wrong, Tgo pointed out that you were wrong.. you double downed on being wrong and I pointed it out.

At least you now realize how utterly silly your argument was. There is hope.

No, you both sat on one sentence that he wrote and went retarded on it, ignoring everything else, despite the sentence having everything to do with what we're talking about. You looked foolish and dim-witted.

Now post a relevant gif as quickly as your withered, viagra-addled brain can!

[Tgo01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_medicine

While my example (and initial argument) are incorrect in regards to preventive medicine (though a valid example of how insurance reduces costs), the point still stands that Tgo's use of annual checkup as preventive medicine is a fairly narrow aspect.

How is my example of an annual checkup not an example of preventative care? What is the point of an annual checkup if not to check for problems that could lead to serious health issues if left untreated?


Preventative care is generally visits to a primary care doctor. Unless that plan was screwy and didn't offer co-pays for primary care visits, the deductible is not really an issue there.

Meh, this insurance was horrible, the yearly deductible was for everything. Although to be fair I'm sure I'm exaggerating on the 5000 dollar cost and it was closer to 2000. My point on this still stands though.


Look up Independent Payments Advisory Board (IPAB) for the best example. There are many others though in the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#Mission


IPAB is tasked with developing specific proposals to bring the net growth in Medicare spending back to target levels if the Medicare Actuary determines that net spending is forecast to exceed target levels, beginning in 2015.

So by "provisions looking at how to reduce health care costs" you meant "a board is being set up to make sure Medicare spending doesn't go above target levels"?

[Parkbandit]

No, you both sat on one sentence that he wrote and went retarded on it, ignoring everything else, despite the sentence having everything to do with what we're talking about. You looked foolish and dim-witted.

Now post a relevant gif as quickly as your withered, viagra-addled brain can!

You're the only one looking foolish, ignorant and retarded at this point, Child.

[Ryvicke]

You're the only one looking foolish, ignorant and retarded at this point, Child.

I was totally not expecting the 'Child' at the end. It was creepy.

[Parkbandit]

I was totally not expecting the 'Child' at the end. It was creepy.

I'm simply moving down to your level, kid.

[Ryvicke]

I'm simply moving down to your level, kid.

I feel like we have a real father/son thing going on now. I'm heading up to Schenectady for work next week, wanna toss a ball around?

[Parkbandit]

I feel like we have a real father/son thing going on now. I'm heading up to Schenectady for work next week, wanna toss a ball around?

Wait, you're a guy?

Um, no thanks. I have normal kids whom I am proud of.

If I wanted a special needs kid, I would simply adopt one that's not a lost cause.

[TheEschaton]

One day, we'll have an actual dialogue on the PC, following formal debate rules, where misdirection and strawmen will be forbidden and called out...

...and the world will end.

[TheEschaton]

For example, Kembal said, Tgo, that your annual check up example is too narrow an aspect of preventative care - not that it wasn't preventative care. You then proceeded to attack him for saying it wasn't preventative care.

Then, you (and PB) quibbled over whether a specific example provided was preventative care, to which Kembal answered he was actually mistaken about it being preventative care, which PB then took as proof AGAINST Kembal's position, "that preventative care saves money," which, it in fact, did not.

[Parkbandit]

One day, we'll have an actual dialogue on the PC, following formal debate rules, where misdirection and strawmen will be forbidden and called out...

...and the world will end.

So, you wouldn't be on the debate team....

[TheEschaton]

I only call you names like "obtuse" and "deliberately ignorant" and "retarded" because your (lack of) comprehension has to be due to one of those previous adjectives.

[Parkbandit]

For example, Kembal said, Tgo, that your annual check up example is too narrow an aspect of preventative care - not that it wasn't preventative care. You then proceeded to attack him for saying it wasn't preventative care.

Then, you (and PB) quibbled over whether a specific example provided was preventative care, to which Kembal answered he was actually mistaken about it being preventative care, which PB then took as proof AGAINST Kembal's position, "that preventative care saves money," which, it in fact, did not.

Shit.. it only took you 1 minute to criticize the discussion.. then utilize misdirection to attempt to score points.

Please show me my post where I even discussed Kembal's position that preventative care saves money.

This is why you would never be on the team.

[Parkbandit]

I only call you names like "obtuse" and "deliberately ignorant" and "retarded" because your (lack of) comprehension has to be due to one of those previous adjectives.

Seriously, I'm so glad I responded to your posts here.. it is a perfect illustration of how much of a flaming hypocrite you are... and you're too stupid to even know it.

[TheEschaton]

That's exactly what I'm saying though - you're arguing an irrelevant portion that doesn't speak to the point at hand. You'd never be on the team at all. You wouldn't even be eligible for the team.

[Parkbandit]

That's exactly what I'm saying though - you're arguing an irrelevant portion that doesn't speak to the point at hand. You'd never be on the team at all. You wouldn't even be eligible for the team.

Seriously, if you can't effectively communicate.. why do you even bother?

It's not exactly what you are saying.. at all.

Please stop being stupid.

[Tgo01]

For example, Kembal said, Tgo, that your annual check up example is too narrow an aspect of preventative care - not that it wasn't preventative care. You then proceeded to attack him for saying it wasn't preventative care.

What does 'too narrow an aspect' even mean in this regard? Also I hardly say I 'attacked' him.


Then, you (and PB) quibbled over whether a specific example provided was preventative care, to which Kembal answered he was actually mistaken about it being preventative care, which PB then took as proof AGAINST Kembal's position, "that preventative care saves money," which, it in fact, did not.

PB and I 'quibbled' over whether a specific example provided was preventative care? Kembal admitted he was wrong about what preventative care even was.

[Kembal]

How is my example of an annual checkup not an example of preventative care? What is the point of an annual checkup if not to check for problems that could lead to serious health issues if left untreated?

Preventive medicine is broader than that, and the Wiki article provides a good summary. That's my only point. Annual checkups cannot be the only aspect used to judge whether preventative care will save money on a broad scale or not. (interestingly, some of the points you had the end of your post, about smoking and fatty foods, qualify as preventative care)


Meh, this insurance was horrible, the yearly deductible was for everything. Although to be fair I'm sure I'm exaggerating on the 5000 dollar cost and it was closer to 2000. My point on this still stands though.

I wonder if that coverage would actually meet the minimum requirements under ACA. (I don't know) In any case, it may have been crap insurance, but crap insurance with high deductibles that has negotiated discounts is still better than no insurance. I don't know how many Americans realize that. (you only realize it if you read the Explanation of Benefits from your insurance company when they process your claims, or read your health care bills closely.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board#Mission


So by "provisions looking at how to reduce health care costs" you meant "a board is being set up to make sure Medicare spending doesn't go above target levels"?

Insurance companies follow Medicare's lead. If Medicare negotiates really hard discounts and/or straight up cuts payments to providers, the insurance companies follow. Medicare is the baseline for all health care spending in the U.S., and it is going to be the government's primary vehicle to move the needle on health care spending if the mandate gets struck down.

[Kembal]

You were wrong, Tgo pointed out that you were wrong.. you double downed on being wrong and I pointed it out.

At least you now realize how utterly silly your argument was. There is hope.

Taking a victory lap, are we? I haven't done the same to you in recent previous arguments, and it'd be nice if you responded in kind.

[Tgo01]

Preventive medicine is broader than that, and the Wiki article provides a good summary. That's my only point. Annual checkups cannot be the only aspect used to judge whether preventative care will save money on a broad scale or not. (interestingly, some of the points you had the end of your post, about smoking and fatty foods, qualify as preventative care)

I said some preventive care can indeed save money but at the sametime I named annual checkups as an example of preventive care that does little to no good. The problem is people hear 'preventive medicine' and automatically think "Damn that shit gonna save us money, why aren't we doing it?"


In any case, it may have been crap insurance, but crap insurance with high deductibles that has negotiated discounts is still better than no insurance.

This is true. However my whole point with this was the accusation that the reason we have such high premiums and medical costs is because of uninsured people. What about people who have catastrophic health plans and have deductibles as high as 5000 to 7500 dollars a year? Sure if they get hit by a bus and require hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care the vast majority will be paid for by the insurance company but chances are that person is still going to file bankruptcy for their deductible. What about chronic smokers and morbidly obese people who consume far more medical resources than the average person for a problem that is 100% in their control?


Insurance companies follow Medicare's lead. If Medicare negotiates really hard discounts and/or straight up cuts payments to providers, the insurance companies follow. Medicare is the baseline for all health care spending in the U.S., and it is going to be the government's primary vehicle to move the needle on health care spending if the mandate gets struck down.

Medicare pays out less than private insurance companies do. Why do you think so many places refuse Medicare altogether or won't accept any new Medicare patients? The reason Medicare gets away with paying less is because they are so large they have more bargaining clout then hospitals in turn charge private insurance companies and the uninsured more. Ironic isn't it? The uninsured (who are supposedly the root of all evil in the medical care world) are charged more so Medicare can pay less. I just don't see how private insurance companies are going to be able to 'follow Medicares lead' unless we start looking at ways to reduce the actual cost of medical care.

[Parkbandit]

Taking a victory lap, are we? I haven't done the same to you in recent previous arguments, and it'd be nice if you responded in kind.

No lap is needed. You were attempting to make a case for something I never brought up. My issue with you was your definition of preventive care and that alone.

[crb]

Here is the thing about things that supposedly save money.

If something will save money, insurance companies will do it, they need no regulatory push. This is the beauty of capitalism, it automatically creates efficiency like water finding a lowest point.

If a preventative medicine step saves money it will be covered, and patients will be encouraged to do it.

I do find it ironic though that government groups have been lately pulling back cancer screening recommendations ostensibly to save money. Obviously not all preventative things save money.

What things do we know actually do save money? Stopping smoking, exercising, and losing weight? Right? If only insurers could penalize or reward people based on their lifestyle.... isn't that exactly the sort of thing the left would like to stop?

Why would someone think a Washington bureaucrat afflicted with moral hazard playing with other people's money would be better at finding cost savings in some soviet style top down command and control decision making process than people playing with their own money with no moral hazard problems?

The ultimate in cost savings is just to push more and more onto consumers. I don't mean for the government, I mean for healthcare at large. Right now insurers have incentive to save money on preventative care (if it is indeed money saving) as do employers, and the tiny minority of people who are in the individual market. But for most people who consume healthcare but do not purchase it, they have little incentive outside of copays, deductibles, and out of pocket maximums.

If you did something like abolish employer and government provided health insurance on any healthcare spending under $10k a year per person (making insurance not able to kick in until you exceed $10k out of pocket in a year, or a $10k deductible basically), and instead with the money savings just wrote people checks, either straight government transfer checks for people on medicaid/medicare, or wage increases for people with employer provided coverage. Overall healthcare spending would plummet, every consumer of healthcare would become essentially a purchaser of healthcare and would be very price aware. They would shop around like people do for any purchase. If in the hospital a nurse wanted to give them ibuprofen they might ask if it costs $20 a pill, and if it does they'd just have someone go get it from Walgreens instead.

If a screening or scan or something was proven to save money, everyone would get it, and if not, they wouldn't.

Truly consumer driven care and purchasing would save so much money by trimming all the excess unnecessary usage out of the system.

[Wrathbringer]

What things do we know actually do save money? Stopping smoking, exercising, and losing weight? Right? If only insurers could penalize or reward people based on their lifestyle.... isn't that exactly the sort of thing the left would like to stop?

As an interesting aside, a friend of mine in the insurance business asked me which I thought cost them the most money. Smokers? Or non-smokers? Of course I answered with what I thought was the obvious answer. Smokers. He said, "You'd think so, wouldn't you." He then went on to explain that in actuality, the smokers are cheaper because they die sooner. It's the non-smoking long living health nuts that end up costing more over time." I thought that was interesting, if true.

[Tgo01]

As an interesting aside, a friend of mine in the insurance business asked me which I thought cost them the most money. Smokers? Or non-smokers? Of course I answered with what I thought was the obvious answer. Smokers. He said, "You'd think so, wouldn't you." He then went on to explain that in actuality, the smokers are cheaper because they die sooner. It's the non-smoking long living health nuts that end up costing more over time." I thought that was interesting, if true.

So the health nuts end up going to the doctor a lot more than the ones living unhealthy lifestyles eh? Not sure I buy that.

Also since Medicare kicks in at 65 and becomes your primary healthcare insurance it seems unlikely that it matters much to insurance companies how long people live.

[Atlanteax]

As an interesting aside, a friend of mine in the insurance business asked me which I thought cost them the most money. Smokers? Or non-smokers? Of course I answered with what I thought was the obvious answer. Smokers. He said, "You'd think so, wouldn't you." He then went on to explain that in actuality, the smokers are cheaper because they die sooner. It's the non-smoking long living health nuts that end up costing more over time." I thought that was interesting, if true.

Yea, I think it is that since smokers die sooner, they end up consuming less health care resources over the longer-term ... and the old, by their nature, are harder to care for (more costly) ... than someone young.

[Ryvicke]

As an interesting aside, a friend of mine in the insurance business asked me which I thought cost them the most money. Smokers? Or non-smokers? Of course I answered with what I thought was the obvious answer. Smokers. He said, "You'd think so, wouldn't you." He then went on to explain that in actuality, the smokers are cheaper because they die sooner. It's the non-smoking long living health nuts that end up costing more over time." I thought that was interesting, if true.

Oh good job figuring out that private sector insurers want us to die sooner, that's only been obvious to anyone that's picked up a fucking newspaper in the last 8 years.

READING IS SOCIALISM.

[Wrathbringer]

Oh good job figuring out that private sector insurers want us to die sooner, that's only been obvious to anyone that's picked up a fucking newspaper in the last 8 years.

READING IS SOCIALISM.

umadbro?

[Ryvicke]

umadbro?

isomadbro

[crb]

So the health nuts end up going to the doctor a lot more than the ones living unhealthy lifestyles eh? Not sure I buy that.

Also since Medicare kicks in at 65 and becomes your primary healthcare insurance it seems unlikely that it matters much to insurance companies how long people live.
This.

It is factually true that smokers often cost the GOVERNMENT less because they both...

A. pay more in taxes.
B. die sooner, thus collecting less medicare/social security benefits, possibly none at all.

But considering Medicare eventually kicks in for seniors, private insurers aren't concerned about customer longevity. If you get sick before age 65 (or 62, or 67, depending) you cost them money, if you don't, you don't.

So considering the chances of developing diabetes/heart disease/cancer before age 65 are so very very much lifestyle related, private insurers definitely care about such things, and given freedom would adjust for it through premiums.

[Warriorbird]

I heard insurance and pharmaceutical companies reduce costs voluntarily all the time.

[ClydeR]

Coolest thing anybody has written about the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare..



http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/obi-wan.png

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/what-to-do-if-the-court-strikes-down-obamacare.html

We should give that writer a Pulitzer.

[Parkbandit]

President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.

Obama, a Democrat, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court's deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week.

Known as the "Affordable Care Act" or "Obamacare," the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama's signature domestic policy achievement.

A rejection by the court would be a big blow to Obama going into the November 6 presidential election.

Republican presidential candidates, who are vying to take on Obama in November elections, have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House.

Obama's advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president -- who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law -- made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.

POLITICAL DEBATE

The Supreme Court justices are expected to issue decisions in the dispute by late June, a time when the presidential campaign season is likely to be in full swing.

"It's not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court," said Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman. "But it's also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president's central legislative accomplishments."

A spokeswoman for the court declined to comment on Obama's remarks.

A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, took issue with Obama's preemptive strike and his use of the word "unprecedented."

"What was ‘unprecedented' was the partisan process President Obama used to shove this unconstitutional bill through despite the overwhelming objections from Americans across the country," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

"Even if the law is upheld, Governor Romney will begin the process of repealing it on Day One in office."

Romney shepherded healthcare reform through the state of Massachusetts when he was governor there. Democrats note that Romney's law was an inspiration for Obama's.

The president, who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said the "individual mandate" that requires most people to buy insurance was critical to the success of the healthcare overhaul.

The Supreme Court is looking at whether Congress exceeded its power to regulate commerce in U.S. states with that mandate.

"I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care," Obama said.

"So there's not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-obama-healthcare-idUSBRE8310WP20120402

Sounds like he's either trying to change one of the Justice's minds.. or he's already trying to spin the decision he thinks is coming into some political "clout".

[Menos]

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Raise your hand if this is how you would describe a vote of 219 to 212 in the house with every single vote coming from one party. One that required the bill (purposefully skewed with 10 years of funding vs 6 years of outlays) to be labeled a "cost cutting measure" to bypass the voting rules in the senate so it could pass there as well.

[Parkbandit]

Raise your hand if this is how you would describe a vote of 219 to 212 in the house with every single vote coming from one party. One that required the bill (purposefully skewed with 10 years of funding vs 6 years of outlays) to be labeled a "cost cutting measure" to bypass the voting rules in the senate so it could pass there as well.

Whoa... wait a minute...

Are you suggesting that Obamacare won't save us money????????

Racist.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

I thought this was a pretty big slap in the face to the SCOTUS. I don't remember reading this tactic in the "How to win friends and influence people" book.

[Back]

Raise your hand if this is how you would describe a vote of 219 to 212 in the house with every single vote coming from one party. One that required the bill (purposefully skewed with 10 years of funding vs 6 years of outlays) to be labeled a "cost cutting measure" to bypass the voting rules in the senate so it could pass there as well.

If the Constitution had a hand it would raise it.

QQ

[Atlanteax]

Heh, Back considers 219:212 to be 'a strong majority' ... guess we should not be surprised by such idiocy at this point.

Now if it was something like 319:112 ...

[Atlanteax]

President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.

TheE, you would even say this is a 'BS' thing to say regarding the USSC, right?

I cannot fathom how/when the USSC has ever done 'judicial activism'.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database) the US Supreme Court overturned 158 Acts of Congress between 1789-2002, the most recent year for which information is available.

That's a lot of duly constituted and passed laws overruled by an unelected group of people.

[Tgo01]

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Even assuming it was passed by a "strong majority" this certainly wouldn't be "unprecedented" would it?


"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.

Obama sure seems to like the way our government works when it suits him and doesn't like the way it works when it doesn't suit him.

[Androidpk]

I love how he tries to undermine the Supreme Court of the United States by calling them an "unelected group of people". Is he fucking serious? How many czars is Obama up to now?

[Wrathbringer]

I love how he tries to undermine the Supreme Court of the United States by calling them an "unelected group of people". Is he fucking serious? How many czars is Obama up to now?

Either he's patently stupid, or he has an agenda. I see no third option.

[Latrinsorm]

Raise your hand if this is how you would describe a vote of 219 to 212 in the house with every single vote coming from one party. One that required the bill (purposefully skewed with 10 years of funding vs 6 years of outlays) to be labeled a "cost cutting measure" to bypass the voting rules in the senate so it could pass there as well.Was it so it could pass, or so it could pass by simple majority?

I am confused about that comment for another reason though. Isn't it the Supreme Court's express purpose to overturn laws passed by Congress when necessary?

[Atlanteax]

I am confused about that comment for another reason though. Isn't it the Supreme Court's express purpose to overturn laws passed by Congress when necessary?

Aye, as a CHECK on both the Executive & Legislative branches.

[Back]

Heh, Back considers 219:212 to be 'a strong majority' ... guess we should not be surprised by such idiocy at this point.

Now if it was something like 319:112 ...

I recall something about a Constitution being the end all be all of government rules. If you want to talk about picking and choosing when it suits you...

[Menos]

I recall something about a Constitution being the end all be all of government rules. If you want to talk about picking and choosing when it suits you...

Not saying it did not pass, just saying the characterization is a bit absurd. Sort of like when it was talked about a week ago as bipartisan legislation.


“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

[TheEschaton]

I don't understand the characterization of "unprecedented" either.

Judicial activism is often bandied about rather loosely, but overturning a law is not de facto activism. It's my personal opinion that in this case it would be, but that's a matter up for debate.

[Jarvan]

If anything, the statement is a way to help him if it is Overturned, so he can point out to his base he needs 4 more years in the hopes that a "Conservative" Justice dies, or retires. OR that another "Liberal" one does.

That way they would have a majority on the Bench, and could do anything they wanted, knowing clear thinking Justices would rule in their favor.

I always thought the Commerce clause was added to the Constitution to prevent some states from basically starting trade wars with other states, or just refusing to trade with them. I never knew it was added to make me buy something I didn't want to buy.

[Atlanteax]

I always thought the Commerce clause was added to the Constitution to prevent some states from basically starting trade wars with other states, or just refusing to trade with them. I never knew it was added to make me buy something I didn't want to buy.

Bolded why the 'Mandate' likely will be struck down.

[TheEschaton]

Well, it's a political statement no doubt, but I know people voted the similarly with Bush (who put two justices on the court, and sneaking Sam Alito on was one of the biggest mistakes the Dems ever allowed). Politicians will always defend their own laws, the hope is that the judges overturning them aren't being political.

As for why the Commerce clause was added, it started out as a check on states competing with each other, not only for trade between themselves, but imports/exports. It helped poor states to not be allowed to be manipulated by rich states. But as early as 1824 (less than 40 years after adoption of the Constitution), it was being expanded and extrapolated on.

Only the biggest fools in our country believe that the Constitution is a freeze frame taken in 1790 and forever immutable, and impervious to interpretation.

The irony of this case is that proponents of the law want to suggest that "people are free to not participate in the market", but the very nature of our market economy forces people to participate in it if they want vital services, services that most of the international community call a human right. If you decide that a person is unable to freely choose to not be a part of the market in re: to health care, then (I think) it logically follows that Congress is allowed to regulate how you participate in this market.

Also, please, please make an argument that you can choose to never visit a doctor. Then, I can point out that no reasonable person would ever choose that, and Commerce Clause questions are predicated on a rational basis review, which defers to the results of legislative process by duly elected officials as long as there are rational facts and reasons that could support the Congressional decision to pass this law, even if the justices don't agree (with either the facts or the decision based on those facts).

[TheEschaton]

Also, the argument is over whether people can choose to not participate in the health care system. There exists overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of people, from birth, will in some way be a part of that system whether by choice or necessity. If that is the case, Congress can regulate that the person has to pay for insurance to mitigate the costs later, over paying out of pocket later.

There is no rational argument that people can forego the health care system if they choose to.

[Androidpk]

There is no rational argument that people can forego the health care system if they choose to.

And yet there are plenty of people that do, go figure.

[Tgo01]

Well, it's a political statement no doubt, but I know people voted the similarly with Bush (who put two justices on the court, and sneaking Sam Alito on was one of the biggest mistakes the Dems ever allowed). Politicians will always defend their own laws, the hope is that the judges overturning them aren't being political.

I don't blame Obama for defending Obamacare, I would be surprised if he didn't. What really surprises me is he is basically attacking the supreme court, calling them a bunch of "non elected" people who are striking down a law passed by "a vast majority of a Democratically elected congress" because of "judicial activism."

Almost as if he just now learned how supreme court officials are appointed and how the supreme court works. It really is baffling.


Also, the argument is over whether people can choose to not participate in the health care system. There exists overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of people, from birth, will in some way be a part of that system whether by choice or necessity. If that is the case, Congress can regulate that the person has to pay for insurance to mitigate the costs later, over paying out of pocket later.

So because a majority of people will at some point participate in the health care system Congress can force someone to buy a product from a private business? Can they force someone to buy a car too because most people buy a car at some point in their lives?

[TheEschaton]

And yet there are plenty of people that do, go figure.

Do you have statistics on the people who, in the course of their entire life, completely forego the health care system? Cause I'd LOVE to see that.

I'm not talking about ER visits. I'm talking about any doctor visit.

[TheEschaton]

I don't blame Obama for defending Obamacare, I would be surprised if he didn't. What really surprises me is he is basically attacking the supreme court, calling them a bunch of "non elected" people who are striking down a law passed by "a vast majority of a Democratically elected congress" because of "judicial activism."

Almost as if he just now learned how supreme court officials are appointed and how the supreme court works. It really is baffling.



So because a majority of people will at some point participate in the health care system Congress can force someone to buy a product from a private business? Can they force someone to buy a car too because most people buy a car at some point in their lives?

Your analogy fails because cars aren't analogous to health care. Every human being has "health", and thus will need care for it at some point. It is intrinsic to the natural process of aging. Cars are still considered luxury items, though less and less so nowadays.

Edit: Furthermore, Congress *can* regulate that if you are going to own a car, you must own insurance, if they so chose. Since "health" is intrinsic to a person, Congress can regulate you in the sense that they require you to purchase insurance to look after your health.

[Tgo01]

Do you have statistics on the people who, in the course of their entire life, completely forego the health care system? Cause I'd LOVE to see that.

Isn't it rather unfair to say over the course of their entire life? I'm sure you mean their entire adult life because their parents are responsible for their healthcare up until that point.

[TheEschaton]

Parents are subject to the same decision making processes, since they are adults. Assuming idealogically similar parents, what are the statistics of someone going their life without health care?

And, what're the statistics for people not interacting with the health care system post-18?

[Androidpk]

Your analogy fails because cars aren't analogous to health care. Every human being has "health", and thus will need care for it at some point. It is intrinsic to the natural process of aging. Cars are still considered luxury items, though less and less so nowadays.

Edit: Furthermore, Congress *can* regulate that if you are going to own a car, you must own insurance unless you live in New Hampshire. if they so chose. Since "health" is intrinsic to a person, Congress can regulate you in the sense that they require you to purchase insurance to look after your health.

Fixed that for you, again. And no I don't have any statistics on people that don't use the health care system.

[Tgo01]

Your analogy fails because cars aren't analogous to health care. Every human being has "health", and thus will need care for it at some point.

That's the point of contention isn't it?


Edit: Furthermore, Congress *can* regulate that if you are going to own a car, you must own insurance, if they so chose. Since "health" is intrinsic to a person, Congress can regulate you in the sense that they require you to purchase insurance to look after your health.

As you point out it's not analogous because 1) you can easily choose not to drive a car you own to avoid auto insurance and 2) because most states allow you to avoid auto insurance altogether if you purchase a bond.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't blame Obama for defending Obamacare, I would be surprised if he didn't. What really surprises me is he is basically attacking the supreme court, calling them a bunch of "non elected" people who are striking down a law passed by "a vast majority of a Democratically elected congress" because of "judicial activism."

Almost as if he just now learned how supreme court officials are appointed and how the supreme court works. It really is baffling.I think he's learning very quickly. You have to give him time, he was born in Kenya after all.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If SCOTUS repeals it, will your faith in the American justice system be strengthened or weakened?

[Tgo01]

I think he's learning very quickly. You have to give him time, he was born in Kenya after all.

Exactly! Thank you.

[Menos]

As for why the Commerce clause was added, it started out as a check on states competing with each other, not only for trade between themselves, but imports/exports. It helped poor states to not be allowed to be manipulated by rich states. But as early as 1824 (less than 40 years after adoption of the Constitution), it was being expanded and extrapolated on.

Only the biggest fools in our country believe that the Constitution is a freeze frame taken in 1790 and forever immutable, and impervious to interpretation.


To be fair, those of us who like the 1790 version are apt to point out that a mechanism was put inside the framework (IE legal) means of changing the constitution. Something so self evident as a need for change in the law should require the broad support the amendment process requires, rather than some majority of robbed figures. Reinterpreting the reinterpretations just ends up with a telephone game like effect where the modern jurisprudence really does not resemble the law as written. I am not saying this method is not almost as old as the document itself (or maybe as old), but it is certainly outside the framework laid down.

Also, you are probably right about the trouble Sam "Machine Gun" Alito will cause for the Dems.

[Warriorbird]

To be fair, those of us who like the 1790 version are apt to point out that a mechanism was put inside the framework (IE legal) means of changing the constitution. Something so self evident as a need for change in the law should require the broad support the amendment process requires, rather than some majority of robbed figures. Reinterpreting the reinterpretations just ends up with a telephone game like effect where the modern jurisprudence really does not resemble the law as written. I am not saying this method is not almost as old as the document itself (or maybe as old), but it is certainly outside the framework laid down.

Also, you are probably right about the trouble Sam "Machine Gun" Alito will cause for the Dems.

Way to disagree with John Marshall and the entire history of American jurisprudence.

[Atlanteax]

If SCOTUS repeals it, will your faith in the American justice system be strengthened or weakened?

Strengthened, despite the the American justice system continuing to be grossly understaffed, court circuit-wise (too many cases/lawyers, not enough judges).