5-4 Insurance Mandate Upheld

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You want US health care to be like VA health care?

You are a sick individual, indeed.[/quote]

Au contraire- he must be a very healthy individual.

[/quote]

orion,

thanks, I stay hydrated and eat plenty of fiber.[/quote]

I meant physically healthy.

And I would pray that it stays that way because when you will get old and Obamacare is still around you might not like as much as you thought you would.

Of course, there is no way the US the way that they are will survive that long.

Something has to give, so something will-

82
83

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
they needed to eliminate the model where people actually get rich off of illness.[/quote]

Bullshit. They need to make sure whomever invents the cure for cancer will be so disgustingly rich a different bimbo comes to his house, drops to her knees, and sucks him off, every day, for the rest of his life.

Aside from war, greed is, by far, the greatest motivator of human accomplishment.

84

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

“On the bright side, we are almost certainly to be officially in a Depression with this fall, so presumably no one would be dumb enough to let Obama continue to destroy the economy.”

Yes I guess you would see that as a bright side.[/quote]

In about a week it will look more like a depression, I mean if the stocks dropped that much before noon they must have dropped twice that by closing right?

85

In case anyone wondered what free market healthcare looks like, that is what it looks like:

http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php

Yeah, they have their prices on their web page.

Yes, they started out with the average infection rate of US hospitals and brought it down to 0,0001%.

Someone must have caught a cold while he spent time there.

Bastard.

Just for shits and giggles lets take a random procedure that is pretty straightforward:

Carpal Tunnel Release $ 2,750.00

Average cost in the US: $ 8,185.00

Yeah, thats like 66% cheaper.

Thyroidectomy $ 6,160.00

What real people paid somehwere else, you might want to see for yourself:

Tonsillectomy $ 3,050.00

Average cost US: 4000-7000

Adenoidectomy $ 2,695.00

Average cost US: 5000-8000

http://www.costevaluation.com/tonsillectomy-cost.php

All of these costs of course assume that the hospital in question does not spring any nasty surprises on you, which it will, whereas said hospital above has an all inclusive policy.

I never want to hear that “oooohhh, lests take the profit motive out of healthcare” BS again, THAT is whata free market hospital looks like.

86

WOOO OBAMACARE!! FREE HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE GIMME SOME O DAT OBAMA MONEY!!!#

87

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
So how many of you will stand on your principles and refuse to buy into the program? [/quote]

I’m not buying shit. They can do whatever they want.

I am disgusted beyond all measure at this. Not only is it a terrible, TERRIBLE disrespect to the Constitution and jurisprudence, but it is a dangerous precedent to set on purely party politics level–one which I am sure will garner all of the ire and shouting of the democrats as soon as the tool on mandating the individual buy into a market that THEY pushed through gets used against them.

As far as I am concerned, NOBODY needs this tool in either party.

88

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

But what if it works and the economy doesn’t collapse? Is that a bad thing? Additionally there are still going to be roughly 20-25 million folks without insurance (this was a watered down version of the original bill), how is it universal health care if everyone is not covered?[/quote]

Lets leave out the first part of that and concentrate on the second–you just admitted it was watered down. You really want to create such a precedent over a self-admitted watered down compromise? Personally I’d only want to if it was a slam-dunk total victory for my side. Anything less than that leaves the door open for the other side to deal some severe damage in their own pet issues. I would be unwilling to create such a dangerous precedent unless it meant total victory for my party on that issue. From a purely political and Machiavellian standpoint that’s my opinion. I still stand on principles and say “fuck off” to them. And I still believe this a sad, sad, irreversible violation of the Constitution.

89

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[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]

Perhaps you are correct there, but the brinkmanship is unworthy. To set a permanent judicial precedent as a way of politically outsmarting a temporarily elected official is a poor, short-sighted trade-off. It serves no greater purpose. From that standpoint, the greatest good was served by striking this down.

90

I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa

91

I still don’t completely understand the reasoning behind the ruling that the mandate is a tax. The obvious intention of the bill was that it was a fine or penalty, both by what is written in the bill and what was said by the president and those trying to pass the bill. From what I gathered from the arguments it certainly seemed like the argument that it was a tax was dismissed by the justices for these reasons. I feel like the intention of the bill was lost in the search of a way to rule it constitutional.

92

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.

94

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

“On the bright side, we are almost certainly to be officially in a Depression with this fall, so presumably no one would be dumb enough to let Obama continue to destroy the economy.”

Yes I guess you would see that as a bright side.[/quote]

In about a week it will look more like a depression, I mean if the stocks dropped that much before noon they must have dropped twice that by closing right?[/quote]

Siliandy,
I assume you are referring to the near miraculous recovery that the markets made this afternoon into the close. What you use to bolster your myopic view of the world, I see as further proof as to the whole “rotten to the core” nature of our current state. Let me explain (though I am sure I am wasting my time)…

It seems a 50k block of S&P 500 e-mini futures (or around $3.3bn notional equivalent) was enough drive the nominal price index up 1% to close the day-session almost green. So there you have it. All is well, move along, there is nothing to see here. But what if you stop and wonder who in the ever loving fuck could drop $3.3bn all at once, on this day in this market. After all, Europe is crumbling and Merkel just told the Euromoochers to get fucked, that Germany won’t except any ani-crisis measurements. Consumer sentiment is falling like a stone and I can tell you that auto sales have fallen off a cliff the last few weeks.

Could it have been the Fed and the Plunge Protection Team? Oh silly conspiracy theorist me. Never mind. All is well and Bam is gonna save the world.

95

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

Well, I do.

I prefer a constitutional republic, where the constitution is written on roughly 16 pages in simple declarative sentences so that no judge could possibly interpret anything into it that it clearly not there.

Its a pipedream, I know.

96

[quote]Juris DOC wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Loving today.

Progress at its finest.

x2 Proud to be an American today. [/quote]

Lol.

97

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

It’s a bit disheartening that people have been so poisoned against the concept of “Universal Health Care”[/quote]

No one is poisoned against the concept of universal health care. Universal health care is not the same thing as universal government insurance.

98

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Loving today.

Progress at its finest.

I agree with you, as do many Americans.[/quote]
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-280877/Poll-Only-36-percent-of-Americans-support-the-ACA.html

Yea roughly 1/3…congrats on that.[/quote]
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-280877/Poll-Only-36-percent-of-Americans-support-the-ACA.html

36% think its a “good idea” compared to 44% that don’t and 20% that are unsure.
[/quote]

Yes, roughly 1/3. You do know how to compute factions, right?

99

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

False dichotomy.

100

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Loving today.

Progress at its finest.

I agree with you, as do many Americans.[/quote]
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-280877/Poll-Only-36-percent-of-Americans-support-the-ACA.html

Yea roughly 1/3…congrats on that.[/quote]
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-280877/Poll-Only-36-percent-of-Americans-support-the-ACA.html

36% think its a “good idea” compared to 44% that don’t and 20% that are unsure.
[/quote]

Yes, roughly 1/3. You do know how to compute factions, right?[/quote]

Nope. No clue. But I’d love you to teach me. what sort of statistical analysis do you use? Is it an independent samples t-test? No? How about a dependent samples test, I’ve heard of them before. No? How about a complex statistical analysis, like a one way ANOVA, you must need one of those right? RIGHT???

Awww shit, I guess computing fractions is out of my league.

But if I was a thinking man I wouldn’t need to,I’d notice that their’s an 8% difference in frequencies of a nominal variable from a small poll that asks a stupid question. Then I’d notice that the question is so stupid that it isn’t even followed up by a useable statistical measure that can be used to determine if the difference is ACTUALLY significant.

But you were saying something about fractions, right?