5-4 Insurance Mandate Upheld

SkyzykS · July 5, 2012, 3:54am

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
666Rich wrote:

You of course were calling me an idiot, saying I was too young to understand shit.
[/quote]

Gee…I wonder why he would say such a thing? [/quote]

He said such a thing because he honestly thought that Freidrich Nietsche said that television was the opiate of the masses. Weren’t you listening?

Silly goose. hee hee[/quote]

Damn. I should have read on further.

That really stuck in your craw, huh?

Sorry man. That was a terrible thing I did. You are obviously a very mature and well balanced person. I’ll definitely be more careful about miss crediting quotes and malapropisms with you from now on.
(especially when it comes to german philosophers and failed ideologies. you seem very well versed in both)

DrSkeptix · July 5, 2012, 5:03am

For Schlenkatank, regarding “volume,” expanding coverage, and “pay-for-quality.”

If one doubts the mind of the bureaucrat, and its ability to strangle medical care, consider this.
Next year, coding for medical billing will change from ICD-9 (15,000 codes) to ICD-10 (about 250,000 codes at the last count.) ICD-10 has 9 codes for macaw bites, and separate codes for injuries due to your water skis catching fire. I am not joking.

Of what use is any of this? “Quality assessment?” Are we to believe that the quality of medical care is somehow to be enhanced by strangling the providers of it?

SkyzykS · July 5, 2012, 5:48am

I seriously doubt that a thought about truly improving the quality of care has ever been formed by a politician who is for this or any of the people who want it.

The people who want it think it is great because it is “free” and politicians love it for its infinite leverage points.

Quality of care, actual cost, and stampeding any previously established rights aren’t even on proponents of this acts list of things to give a crap about.

ZEB · July 5, 2012, 12:45pm

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
666Rich wrote:

You of course were calling me an idiot, saying I was too young to understand shit.
[/quote]

Gee…I wonder why he would say such a thing? [/quote]

He said such a thing because he honestly thought that Freidrich Nietsche said that television was the opiate of the masses. Weren’t you listening?

Silly goose. hee hee[/quote]

Damn. I should have read on further.

That really stuck in your craw, huh?

Sorry man. That was a terrible thing I did. You are obviously a very mature and well balanced person. I’ll definitely be more careful about miss crediting quotes and malapropisms with you from now on.
(especially when it comes to german philosophers and failed ideologies. you seem very well versed in both)

[/quote]

Take it easy on him SkyzykS after all he is from the socialist state of Vermont and doesn’t really know any better.

countingbeans · July 5, 2012, 1:32pm

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
For the record, I will admit that health insurance and car insurance are not 100% analogous. [/quote]

Hey, look, progress. Let us look at this one more time for shits and giggles, and mainly because I don’t want to do the work I have in front of me right now:

When the state government can force you to buy car insurance:

When you choose to buy, rent or lease a car
When you choose to drive said car
When you choose to do said driving on state maintained medium

When the federal government can force you to buy health insurance

When your heart beats
When your parents are no longer obligated to buy it for you
Because you are alive and reside within the borders of the United States of America

Note the multitude of differences there.

Not really, no. See the problem is you are looking at this from such a micro point of view that just about anything could be analogous at this point. Your thinking is trapped in a narrow micro box, and I blame college. It does it to many many people. Please allow me to explain:

If I micro the details down I can make just about anything analogous:
a) Homosexual men are the same as heterosexual men because they both like to put their penis in another person’s mouth
b) Eating Apple Pie is just like eating sauteed spinach because the man ingredient in both dishes are vegetation.

Now if you look at both of those from a macro sense, the comparison is crazy. Most people, in particular those of us with years of higher education, often need to train themselves to be able to take a step back and look at things from a big picture perspective. (Not to get off topic but this is my biggest complaint with resent grads. They need to STFU and learn from those that have been doing it in the real world for decades. I had the same problems, lol)

In a perfect world, yes. But in the real world that we live in, the reason for enforcing health insurance is because Obama knew that he could make up a bunch of shit, and as long as the masses thought they were getting free shit, they would vote for him.

Don’t get it twisted. The ACA, as written, is more about getting the bottom 48% to vote for him and less about actually fixing the mess that is our health care system. Anyone with a brain knows this is going to raise costs, why do you think they lie about it lowering costs? They don’t give a shit about costs, all they care about is you and I voting for them because they gave us some “free” shit.

BrianHanson · July 5, 2012, 2:00pm

Beans,

“Don’t get it twisted. The ACA, as written, is more about getting the bottom 48% to vote for him and less about actually fixing the mess that is our health care system”

The “extremely poor” already receive medicaid. The 48% you are referring to more than likely is meant to encompass the roughly 50% that pay no Federal Income Tax (correct me if I’m wrong on this assumption), however 50% of those 48% are actually seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare, and for them the ACA has already proved beneficial:

"Factual information is always better than overheated rhetoric. Here?s the latest dollars-and-cents news about how the Affordable Care Act is helping senior citizens across the country, according to figures released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS):
$724 ? Average savings for seniors and people with disabilities on prescription drugs in 2012, thanks to closing of ?donut hole? (January-April).
416,000 ? Number of people who saved an average of $724.
$301.5 million ? Total donut hole savings in 2012 (January-April).
5.1 million ? People who benefited from shrinking of donut hole in 2010 and 2011.
$3.2 billion ? Total savings for 2010 and 2011.
$3.5 billion ? Total savings from March 2010 to April 2012.
Another benefit of the health care law is wellness care for seniors ? staying healthy and preventing more debilitating illnesses. Many preventive benefits, including cancer screenings and smoking-cessation counseling, are provided at no cost. Here are some figures:
12.1 million ? Medicare recipients who received at least one preventive service at no cost in 2012 (January-April).
856,000 ? Of the 12.1 million recipients, the number who participated in an annual wellness visit.
26 million ? People who received one or more preventive benefits at no cost in 2011.
?Thanks to the health care law, millions of people with Medicare have paid less for health care and prescription drugs,? said Marilyn Tavenner, acting CMS administrator. ?The law is helping people with Medicare lower their medical costs, and giving them more resources to stay healthy.?

I know that someone somewhere is/will be/should be paying for all the savings, but rather than listening to a bunch of partisan hacks guessing at what COULD happen, I am more interested in what HAS happened. Do I think each side will paint this in the best possible light for their own narrative? Yes, do I think either side will be completely honest? Not a chance in hell. But somewhere in the middle you will find the truth and until we KNOW what that is well we’re all just guessing and acting like we know shit.

countingbeans · July 5, 2012, 2:45pm

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
but rather than listening to a bunch of partisan hacks guessing at what COULD happen, I am more interested in what HAS happened. [/quote]

What state has the highest Health Insurance costs in the nation?

Does that happen to be the same state that already as a ACA like mandate?

I pay the truth every month man.

countingbeans · July 5, 2012, 2:54pm

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
The 48% you are referring to more than likely is meant to encompass the roughly 50% that pay no Federal Income Tax (correct me if I’m wrong on this assumption), [/quote]

I was actually taking a back-handed jab at the % of the population of this country that think the government giving people free shit is a good idea. Yes I’m playing partisan asshole.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some issues I tend to side with liberals on, but…

It is like the middle-right think: “Give me the opportunity to go out and take what is mine, because so-an-so has more than me and that is bullshit. GET TO THE CHOPPA”

and the left is like: “so-an-so has more than me and that is bullshit, take what is his and make it mine. NO MAN LEFT BEHIND”

I’m getting off topic, but yes. Obama was pandering for votes from the roughtly half the population (yes I’m pulling that number out of my ass) that want shit handed to them.

Mufasa · July 5, 2012, 3:55pm

ALL Politicians pander to their base.

Mufasa

ZEB · July 5, 2012, 4:10pm

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
ALL Politicians pander to their base.

Mufasa[/quote]

They do but the democratic party is pandering to those who live off, or are in some way subsidized by the government. And that is very dangerous because it forces people like Obama to continue to deliver more and more freebies!

Where does it end Mufasa?

Aragorn · July 5, 2012, 9:06pm

Brian

First, would you please include links when you cite sources? I would like to look at that link but unfortunately I seem to not be able to find it from CMS’s website.

Secondly, I would like to hear your response to thunderbolt and DrSkeptix’s points on this page and prior. You have perhaps not read the posts, or maybe not gotten time to respond. Regardless, these are intelligent points that an intelligent poster (such as Schlenkatank) should at least take on board before continuing, because they are both well reasoned and relevant.

DoubleDuce · July 5, 2012, 9:49pm

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Oddest thing… Romney did this first, and when he did it, it wasn’t a tax, it was a penalty.

Romney has been in part running on his tax record, but if it turns out this is indeed a tax and not a penalty, we need to revisit what a penalty is and a tax is on quite a few things on his record… Is this a good thing?

[/quote]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but what was done in Massachusetts and Obamacare are completely different. Obamacare is a law under the authority of the federal government as laid out in the US constitution. What Romeny did was under the powers of the Massachusetts constitution.

It is not contradictory to think that Obamacare is both bad policy and unconstitutional while state programs are not. Romeny had the will of his constituents and, presumably, authority under the state constitution. It is not contradictory for him to institute something in his state that he is against on a federal level.

“conservatism”, at heart, is not against government, but for as localized government as much as possible (with ultimate localization being the individual). A state doing something is still much more conservative in nature than the federal government doing that same thing.

It really pains me to defend Romney by the way.

BrianHanson · July 6, 2012, 5:16am

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Brian

First, would you please include links when you cite sources? I would like to look at that link but unfortunately I seem to not be able to find it from CMS’s website.

Secondly, I would like to hear your response to thunderbolt and DrSkeptix’s points on this page and prior. You have perhaps not read the posts, or maybe not gotten time to respond. Regardless, these are intelligent points that an intelligent poster (such as Schlenkatank) should at least take on board before continuing, because they are both well reasoned and relevant.
[/quote]

Aragorn,

Sorry about the link here it is:

http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/06/05/opinion-affordable-care-act-benefits-seniors/

And I haven’t read the thread, been doing holiday stuff instead I will post tomorrow.

thunderbolt23 · July 6, 2012, 3:12pm

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

You seem like a sensible enough person–I appreciate thoughtful responses without attacks or accusations. It’s the 4th, but I’d love to address this later. The basic premise of the argument I’d make though is that obese people are already payed for in your insurance premiums; I would say healthcare is unavoidably a communal issue so why not go universal?
[/quote]

Well, a couple of things - obesity is, in part, captured in our premiums, but that number is not static. But we can set that aside.

You say health care is a “communal” issue - well, let’s use your approach to figures that out.

Since it is “communal”, you believe there is a “communal” right involved - i.e., each person, as a member of a community, has a right to receive health care paid for by other members of the community because that it is the community’s best interests that that person get the health care services he needs. Fine. So he has the right.

What about his responsibility to the community? Resources are always limited, and so as a matter of common sense, any person in the community has an obligation - a responsibility - to not use the “communal” health care resources frivolously or indulgently or irreponsibly. Surely you can agree with that?

Well, in this “communal” arrangement, how does the community enforce the “communal” responsibility in combination with the “communal” right? How does the community make sure that its members don’t abuse the “right” to use communal resources, which such abuse would infringe on others’ communal rights?

I’ve yet to hear any proponent of “universal” health care explain how to enforce health care responsibility by the many members that enjoy its rights.

storey420 · July 6, 2012, 6:04pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

You seem like a sensible enough person–I appreciate thoughtful responses without attacks or accusations. It’s the 4th, but I’d love to address this later. The basic premise of the argument I’d make though is that obese people are already payed for in your insurance premiums; I would say healthcare is unavoidably a communal issue so why not go universal?
[/quote]

Well, a couple of things - obesity is, in part, captured in our premiums, but that number is not static. But we can set that aside.

You say health care is a “communal” issue - well, let’s use your approach to figures that out.

Since it is “communal”, you believe there is a “communal” right involved - i.e., each person, as a member of a community, has a right to receive health care paid for by other members of the community because that it is the community’s best interests that that person get the health care services he needs. Fine. So he has the right.

What about his responsibility to the community? Resources are always limited, and so as a matter of common sense, any person in the community has an obligation - a responsibility - to not use the “communal” health care resources frivolously or indulgently or irreponsibly. Surely you can agree with that?

Well, in this “communal” arrangement, how does the community enforce the “communal” responsibility in combination with the “communal” right? How does the community make sure that its members don’t abuse the “right” to use communal resources, which such abuse would infringe on others’ communal rights?

I’ve yet to hear any proponent of “universal” health care explain how to enforce health care responsibility by the many members that enjoy its rights. [/quote]

Totally agree and to me its one of the biggest holes in people’s argument for universal healthcare. First off our healthcare system is broken, so putting everyone on a broken system doesn’t make it better it makes a broken system worse. More to TB’s point though is if there was a way to ensure that my tax dollars were paying into a responsible system I would be for it but we all know that is never going to happen. As long as Fatty McGee gets to eat themselves into chronic disease with no personal responsibility, I have zero interest in paying for their healthcare.

sufiandy · July 8, 2012, 12:21am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

You seem like a sensible enough person–I appreciate thoughtful responses without attacks or accusations. It’s the 4th, but I’d love to address this later. The basic premise of the argument I’d make though is that obese people are already payed for in your insurance premiums; I would say healthcare is unavoidably a communal issue so why not go universal?
[/quote]

Well, a couple of things - obesity is, in part, captured in our premiums, but that number is not static. But we can set that aside.

You say health care is a “communal” issue - well, let’s use your approach to figures that out.

Since it is “communal”, you believe there is a “communal” right involved - i.e., each person, as a member of a community, has a right to receive health care paid for by other members of the community because that it is the community’s best interests that that person get the health care services he needs. Fine. So he has the right.

What about his responsibility to the community? Resources are always limited, and so as a matter of common sense, any person in the community has an obligation - a responsibility - to not use the “communal” health care resources frivolously or indulgently or irreponsibly. Surely you can agree with that?

Well, in this “communal” arrangement, how does the community enforce the “communal” responsibility in combination with the “communal” right? How does the community make sure that its members don’t abuse the “right” to use communal resources, which such abuse would infringe on others’ communal rights?

I’ve yet to hear any proponent of “universal” health care explain how to enforce health care responsibility by the many members that enjoy its rights. [/quote]

What is an example of abusing communal resources in regards to healthcare? I can see how some communal resources could be abused but its a little harder to define for healthcare.

thunderbolt23 · July 8, 2012, 4:18pm

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is an example of abusing communal resources in regards to healthcare? I can see how some communal resources could be abused but its a little harder to define for healthcare.[/quote]

Are you reading the thread? How about the example of obesity?

njrusmc · July 8, 2012, 11:59pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is an example of abusing communal resources in regards to healthcare? I can see how some communal resources could be abused but its a little harder to define for healthcare.[/quote]

Are you reading the thread? How about the example of obesity? [/quote]

Obesity is a great example. Smoking is another good one.

DrSkeptix · July 9, 2012, 12:59am