People are going to now learn that this is a tax that compels a private citizen to pay a private company, thus there really is no tax to government coffers. That sounds pretty creepy, but now this arrangement is on the Left, which should - in theory - be completely opposed to a government compelling people to buy stuff from corporations. In any event, people will like the mandate even less.
.[/quote]
I see a lot of the same people who were all pro-occupy now celebrating the government forcing them to give their money to billion dollar corporations…
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
So how many of you will stand on your principles and refuse to buy into the program? [/quote]
Well lets look at this:
I live in Mass. I would be paying twice for this shit. Thanks Romney
My wife would never allow us not to have insurance with a 6 month old
I have a 6 month old
My principle of “don’t give the government any more of my money to piss away than I absolutly have to in order to stay out of prison” might out weigh my “fuck these fuckers” principle
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t think the court is nearly as political as some others do, but if you believe politics factored into the decision coming out the way it did, Chief Justice Roberts just outsmarted the President by a magnitude.[/quote]
The more that I have reflected on this ruling today, the more I have come to agree with this assessment.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< I am at a loss as to why creating a single payer system is so abhorrent to so many Americans, I would guess that is because most people think there care will suffer, when in reality it will probably improve. >>>[/quote]Psst. I know you’re in the people’s republic of New York from which I barely escaped with my life, but here’s a stab at breaking through that poisonous leftist shell you live in. Listen close I’ll type real slow. Some people still love the foundational principles that made the United States the United States and refuse to live in a toxic fantasy world of coerced social equity. I KNOW. I know how utterly foreign anything like conviction is to enlightened progressives like you. That is the explanation though. It’s not about health care at all. Who gets covered how, blah blah blah? That’s YOUR delusion. My conviction is freedom and liberty. Rightly defined. At our founding we the closest lot yet. YOU are a sniveling spineless nanny state coward. They can pull my fingernails out and kill my family. I will die in prison before being strong armed into buying their state brand on my soul. A state brand we fought a 50 year cold war to defeat. You’re pathetic and you deserve what’s coming.
[/quote]
Tribulus,
So very christian of you, your maker must be very proud.
When I was in the Army, before a gravitational mishap broke my back, ankles, knees, ass (yes I actually broke my ass), arm and shoulders, I remember never ever caring about my future VA health care benefits, I was young, strong and very healthy. After my fuck-up I couldn’t help but feel how damn lucky I was to be covered. If I were a civilian climbing up a tree to get out a kitten and fell 40 feet to the ground without insurance (breaking all the same shit), I would have lost my job, my house, all my money, everything I owned (I was laid up for awhile) When I got out of the hospital I would have been staring at hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt all because of an accident, at that point I realized that health care (even mediocre health care) is important for a young man, and of course if that is true, how important must it be for someone with a family.
How would the orginal bill accomplished it then. Please explain to me as I don’t see it.[/quote]
Beans,
I am not sure of what the original bill said, if you read what I wrote it says a “watered down version of the bill they should have…”
my argument is that this bill was never going to go far enough to be successful, they needed to eliminate the model where people actually get rich off of illness.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< So very christian of you, your maker must be very proud. >>>[/quote]I agree or I wouldn’t have said it. [quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< When I was in the Army, before a gravitational mishap broke my back, ankles, knees, ass (yes I actually broke my ass), arm and shoulders, I remember never ever caring about my future VA health care benefits, I was young, strong and very healthy. After my fuck-up I couldn’t help but feel how damn lucky I was to be covered. If I were a civilian climbing up a tree to get out a kitten and fell 40 feet to the ground without insurance (breaking all the same shit), I would have lost my job, my house, all my money, everything I owned (I was laid up for awhile) When I got out of the hospital I would have been staring at hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt all because of an accident, at that point I realized that health care (even mediocre health care) is important for a young man, and of course if that is true, how important must it be for someone with a family.[/quote]I knew it. You missed the point entirely. I sincerely thank you for your service and am sorry for your suffering. I mean that. I support absolutely every benefit for people who protect my country. That is earned. It does not however translate into a right for everybody because they exist.
How would the orginal bill accomplished it then. Please explain to me as I don’t see it.[/quote]
Beans,
I am not sure of what the original bill said, if you read what I wrote it says a “watered down version of the bill they should have…”
my argument is that this bill was never going to go far enough to be successful, they needed to eliminate the model where people actually get rich off of illness.[/quote]
I think you mean get rich for helping illness? Because taking away reward from surgeons, doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies would be a great way to make care better… [/sarcasm]
36% think its a “good idea” compared to 44% that don’t and 20% that are unsure.
[/quote]
So 36% of the population think it’s a good idea to adopt the same systems that have bankrupted Europe and the Eastern Bloc…and that’s some sort of mandate?
Where as 44% say hell no and another 20% are like…“I dunno about this”.
36% think its a “good idea” compared to 44% that don’t and 20% that are unsure.
[/quote]
So 36% of the population think it’s a good idea to adopt the same systems that have bankrupted Europe and the Eastern Bloc…and that’s some sort of mandate?
Where as 44% say hell no and another 20% are like…“I dunno about this”.
Yep…great day for America!![/quote]
Keep in mind Obama that much of Obama’s constituency is now made up of those dependent on the government. This plays quite well with those people. But as you point out most Americans are against it and todays’ ruling will undoubtedly help Mitt Romney. Obama can celebrate today but I think when the other shoe drops he may not be so happy. Now the only way to ditch Obamacare is to oust Obama!
“…I don’t think the court is nearly as political as some others do, but if you believe politics factored into the decision coming out the way it did, Chief Justice Roberts just outsmarted the President by a magnitude…”
I agree with this.
From what I’ve gathered (so far) from the decision; Roberts didn’t give the President and Dems some “resounding” victory. 1) It was a very narrow and carefully thought out decision 2) made it CLEAR that the Constitutionality of the Mandate was because it WAS a tax and not based on some vague interpretation of the Commerce Clause and 3) Places the repeal of the law in the hands of the Law Makes, NOT the SCOTUS.
There are 2 years worth of fighting the whole law before it takes effect.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
they needed to eliminate the model where people actually get rich off of illness.[/quote]
In a perfect world, I can agree with this. Virtue would be nice.
But, part of me knows that greed will fuel one company to be better than the rest, because the better you are, the more people come to you, the higher your top line. People will only come if your product or service is better than the others, so the companies have to get better to do better.
I’m not saying health care isn’t fucked up, sure it is. But, dictating where your citizens spend their money is more fucked up.
I didn’t notice where I said we shouldn’t pay doctors and pharma companies a premium for their products, please point that part out to me, then when you have some time tell me the last time a claims representative at Blue Cross removed a malignant tumor from a patient, maybe that would justify the BC/BS Excellus chief getting a $5.2 million dollar bonus just weeks after announcing a rate increase.
Insurance companies making record profits while denying claims and letting customers die is far from a value added service.
I didn’t notice where I said we shouldn’t pay doctors and pharma companies a premium for their products, please point that part out to me, then when you have some time tell me the last time a claims representative at Blue Cross removed a malignant tumor from a patient, maybe that would justify the BC/BS Excellus chief getting a $5.2 million dollar bonus just weeks after announcing a rate increase.
Insurance companies making record profits while denying claims and letting customers die is far from a value added service.[/quote]
Insurance averages like a 4% profit. And participation with a company is voluntary. Either you agreed that they offered you the best bang for your buck and bought it, none of it is your money and you are nothing but envious, or you should stop buying something you think is a bad deal.
Start your own company and put all those terrible rich people out of business. if what you are saying were true, it’d be easy.
The 4-5% profit turned out to be $11.7 billion for the top five wall street owned insurers in 2011, the CEO’s of the 10 largest health insurers received just over $1 billion in bonuses from 2000-2010, and during the economic collapse of 2009 the CEO’s received a collective pay raise of 167%. Getting super wealthy by raising deductibles and premiums while increasing your rate of denied services is acceptable to you?
The 4-5% profit turned out to be $11.7 billion for the top five wall street owned insurers in 2011, the CEO’s of the 10 largest health insurers received just over $1 billion in bonuses from 2000-2010, and during the economic collapse of 2009 the CEO’s received a collective pay raise of 167%. Getting super wealthy by raising deductibles and premiums while increasing your rate of denied services is acceptable to you?[/quote]The problem with insurance IS insurance. If people had to commit the outrageous act of paying their own bills, health care could not possibly cost what it does or nobody would ever be paid.
The 4-5% profit turned out to be $11.7 billion for the top five wall street owned insurers in 2011, the CEO’s of the 10 largest health insurers received just over $1 billion in bonuses from 2000-2010, and during the economic collapse of 2009 the CEO’s received a collective pay raise of 167%. Getting super wealthy by raising deductibles and premiums while increasing your rate of denied services is acceptable to you?[/quote]
On how much capital? 11.7 billion was a really poor profit. And if being an insurance CEO is easy money, go and do it. Either way, you have no right to complain about it if someone else does. With the ever growing regulation, CEOâ??s deserve more and more money.
If return was lower, there would be o insurance because theyâ??d all be bankrupt. And speaking of claim denials, government insurance has the highest rate of denial, largest cost, and lowest rate of satisfaction in comparison to these evil companies. What exactly donâ??t you get? It isnâ??t stolen money. All money changing hands is done so on a voluntary basis because the parties involved think the deal improves their life.
Again, why arenâ??t you a CEO getting that easy money?
