[quote]pushharder wrote:
The behemoth: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/06/29/scotus-ruling-means-bigger-more-intrusive-irs/[/quote]
Does this mean that he has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“Just-Say-No” will not solve the problem any more than “Hope-and-Change” will.[/quote]
Completely agreed, but there was never any reason to come out with a detailed plan before the ruling. Best to keep your powder dry and then tailor your message (and policy proposal) to the state of affairs as they stand now.
I expect the details to now start showing up, and I bet dollars to donuts it will be a reform package that emphasizes no taxes on the middle class as its lead sentence. Politically, this is a gold mine for Romney.[/quote]
Agreed, this could be the “GW Bush from 2008” that the GOP could capitalize on for 2012.
I think Orion might (I stress might) back me up on this, Europe has an obesity rate of 8%, while the US has a rate of 66%. I just wonder if Bambi considered this. [/quote]
Depends on how you define obesity.
I prefer comparisons where I have at least a fighting chance that the same definitions were used:
As far as I can tell, Anglo-Saxons do not so well.
Appropriate ?
I liked it sooooo much when people claimed that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Hence insurance.
It is not exactly the same, but breathing is pretty much a privilege now, not a right.
Cant breathe without health insurance, oh no Sir.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“Just-Say-No” will not solve the problem any more than “Hope-and-Change” will.[/quote]
Completely agreed, but there was never any reason to come out with a detailed plan before the ruling. Best to keep your powder dry and then tailor your message (and policy proposal) to the state of affairs as they stand now.
I expect the details to now start showing up, and I bet dollars to donuts it will be a reform package that emphasizes no taxes on the middle class as its lead sentence. Politically, this is a gold mine for Romney.[/quote]
Agreed, this could be the “GW Bush from 2008” that the GOP could capitalize on for 2012.
I think Orion might (I stress might) back me up on this, Europe has an obesity rate of 8%, while the US has a rate of 66%. I just wonder if Bambi considered this. [/quote]
Depends on how you define obesity.
I prefer comparisons where I have at least a fighting chance that the same definitions were used:
As far as I can tell, Anglo-Saxons do not so well. [/quote]
Mexico is #2? Well, I suppose it makes sense. After all, fat people aren’t very good at hopping fences.
holds for applause
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“Just-Say-No” will not solve the problem any more than “Hope-and-Change” will.[/quote]
Completely agreed, but there was never any reason to come out with a detailed plan before the ruling. Best to keep your powder dry and then tailor your message (and policy proposal) to the state of affairs as they stand now.
I expect the details to now start showing up, and I bet dollars to donuts it will be a reform package that emphasizes no taxes on the middle class as its lead sentence. Politically, this is a gold mine for Romney.[/quote]
Agreed, this could be the “GW Bush from 2008” that the GOP could capitalize on for 2012.
I think Orion might (I stress might) back me up on this, Europe has an obesity rate of 8%, while the US has a rate of 66%. I just wonder if Bambi considered this. [/quote]
Depends on how you define obesity.
I prefer comparisons where I have at least a fighting chance that the same definitions were used:
As far as I can tell, Anglo-Saxons do not so well. [/quote]
Mexico is #2? Well, I suppose it makes sense. After all, fat people aren’t very good at hopping fences.
holds for applause[/quote]
I think the worlds fattest living man is from Mexico, but the rest of the top 10 list is still the US
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
my apologies already for writing you a smarmy post in response to this, but in all seriousness the numbers just aren’t that compelling given the nature of the poll.[/quote]
Never said they were compelling.
[quote]If you study statistics than one of the first things you learn is that variables are ranked on a scale of usefulness. The question they asked precludes data that can be deemed significant. Actually, there is one test–Chi-square goodness of fit-- that can determine if the percent differences are significant; I did the calculations myself and found that there were significant differenceS in the frequencies reported. BUT, what the test actually showed is that because only 20% are unsure the significant difference is between people that have an opinion and those that don’t. Ergo, this poll is stupid.
Also, if you study this in college one funny thing you learn is that depending on how these types of questions are asked can WIDELY impact responses. For instance if the questioner asked “do you think ACA is a bad idea” the frequencies would be very different.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll take that into account next time I write up a statistical analysis.
Well, I’ll put this out there. I could care less about what people think when it comes to situations like this. However, the issue stands that he dropped a number based off the comment of many americans liking this decision. However…
Nothing new under the sun. I’m all for UHC, but Europe already tried a UHC by having UHI and that just back fired. There has to be some solidarity in the matter. And, so I say again…opinion means jack.
[/quote]
just found this on my homepage. Look brother, the point I was trying to show to the guy who said “congrats on that” is that it’s easy to misrepresent the data if you just say “only 1/3 of americans support it”. By showing all the statistics it exposes the true value of the poll. In other words, when somebody see’s 1/3 supports the law they typically think that means 2/3 are against it. I was trying to show the other guy–who was acting like a sore loser btw–that that wasn’t the case.
In any case their new poll shows America evenly divided on a different but similar question. Not that I’m saying that this data is compelling either.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I agree with you, as do many Americans.[/quote]
Yea roughly 1/3…congrats on that.[/quote]
Well if you believed the last poll, that means you believe this too…
Edit:
This reaction, from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted June 28, is consistent with Gallup polling on the 2012 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act earlier this year, which showed roughly equal percentages of Americans calling congressional passage of the act a good thing vs. a bad thing.
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Actually it’s a good thing for people that already have insurance. If you have kids under 26 they can be insured under your plan for less than what they would pay with a seperate policy. Also, it’s quite likely that overtime if more people are insured that the cost of insurance will go down.
That’s why I’m kind of curious to hear some people claiming they’ll be dropping their insurance.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Actually it’s a good thing for people that already have insurance. If you have kids under 26 they can be insured under your plan for less than what they would pay with a seperate policy. Also, it’s quite likely that overtime if more people are insured that the cost of insurance will go down.
That’s why I’m kind of curious to hear some people claiming they’ll be dropping their insurance. [/quote]
Yeah, it is fucking great man… Just think, my freedom of choice has been completely removed and the government has laid a blue print and set a precedence to force private citizens to spend their money on privately produced goods of the governments choosing.
I mean, I’m so happy I don’t get to choose what I spend my money on anymore, it is so fucking awesome.
SO I heard, on like page 1,186, they are going to require everyone, whether you want to drive or not, (sorry to those that live in Manhattan) to buy a car, and insure it. But, get this, you get to choose which car company you buy it from. How nice of them right? We get to choose which car we are required, through taxation, we must buy.
Make sure you pick Chrysler, the government didn’t bail them out with my tax money for nothing.
Sorry for being a douchbag about it, but are you for real? This issue isn’t even about health insurance, not at all.
Also:
What state has mandated insurance already? Mass
What state has the highest health insurance costs in the nation? Mass
How is bringing a fuck load more people into the fold, increasing demand, without increasing supply going to be a good thing for costs?
Serious question: Can anyone explain how people feel this will lower costs? I have 6 years of data from a small North East state full of assholes that pretty much says the costs are going to raise.
Fuck politicians. Can we burn the whole shit down and start over with people that aren’t assholes?
Beans,
Nobody likes being told what to do, but the fact is that if you have insurance already this probably won’t affect you, if you don’t have insurance this will protect you (and me) since nobody wins when you end up in the hospital getting reactive rather than proactive health care.
I would be fine with letting people choose to not get insurance as long as they signed an organ donor card, a DNR, and agreed to not be treated in emergency rooms, it seems like a fair trade.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,
Nobody likes being told what to do, but the fact is that if you have insurance already this probably won’t affect you, [/quote]
Homie, what part of government dictating what privately produced good or service I am required to buy through taxation won’t affect me?
Seriously. You can’t have just typed that with a straight face.
You know what happens next time there is “too big to fail” and the government doesn’t want to look bad and hand over 700 billion of our tax dollars? Instead of a hand out, they will just force you to go buy some Chevy trucks, or give them $1,500.
[quote]if you don’t have insurance this will protect you (and me) since nobody wins when you end up in the hospital getting reactive rather than proactive health care.
I would be fine with letting people choose to not get insurance as long as they signed an organ donor card, a DNR, and agreed to not be treated in emergency rooms, it seems like a fair trade.[/quote]
What people are missing about this whole thing, is this isn’t a health insurance issue. This is the continued theft of our liberty. And if “Occupy the sidewalk” gets their way they will start to take away our ability to make more money than anyone else.
No offense but people who choose not to have insurance, but can afford it and/or qualify for state assistance are idiots. These people cost us more
But, adding in a whole bunch more demand, without adding to supply (I believe the number of doctors is dropping currently) how on Earth do you expect this to reduce cost to the subscriber?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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. [/quote]
It’s a good thing some people didn’t listen to Sufi here when the SCOTUS upheld slavery.[/quote]
It was democrats who upheld slavery, too.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
If you already have insurance does this even affect you? The way it seems to be right now this will only impact people that can afford healthcare but refuse to buy it, so how can that be a bad thing?[/quote]
Actually it’s a good thing for people that already have insurance. If you have kids under 26 they can be insured under your plan for less than what they would pay with a seperate policy. Also, it’s quite likely that overtime if more people are insured that the cost of insurance will go down.
That’s why I’m kind of curious to hear some people claiming they’ll be dropping their insurance. [/quote]
Yeah, it is fucking great man… Just think, my freedom of choice has been completely removed and the government has laid a blue print and set a precedence to force private citizens to spend their money on privately produced goods of the governments choosing.
I mean, I’m so happy I don’t get to choose what I spend my money on anymore, it is so fucking awesome.
SO I heard, on like page 1,186, they are going to require everyone, whether you want to drive or not, (sorry to those that live in Manhattan) to buy a car, and insure it. But, get this, you get to choose which car company you buy it from. How nice of them right? We get to choose which car we are required, through taxation, we must buy.
Make sure you pick Chrysler, the government didn’t bail them out with my tax money for nothing.
Sorry for being a douchbag about it, but are you for real? This issue isn’t even about health insurance, not at all.[/quote]
Yes, I’m for real haha.
I’m a pretty young guy, so there are many things about the real world that i don’t understand or haven’t experienced. I do understand why people are upset about the mandate because your right; the insurance mandate is a little like being fed an oversized pill, and we won’t find out for a while if the pill will help fix our failing health care system.
I know that something absolutely has to be done to improve healthcare in this country, and personally I’m willing to sacrifice some freedom to improve the cost of care in this country and our nations health. The ACA isn’t perfect, but I do see it as necessary evil of sorts.
I guess your metaphor is pretty sound, although the main issue with it as I see it is that everyone owning a car does nothing to improve our rather large government spending. I think the way most pro ACA people look at it is that we have to sacrifice freedom to help solve a major problem. Also, nobody is required to own insurance for the record.
You bring up an interesting point though. Why is car insurance required in all 50 states for anyone that own a vehicle?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also:
Serious question: Can anyone explain how people feel this will lower costs? I have 6 years of data from a small North East state full of assholes that pretty much says the costs are going to raise.
[/quote]
I believe insurance is a pool of sorts. More people that contribute to it, the greater the security and the less you pay.
The cost of ER care is ridiculous, and that’s where everyone goes that doesn’t have insurance. I believe your insurance policies and hospital bills are ultimately more expensive because of people who rely on ER care. Part of the idea is that a healthier country means less money needs to be spent on healthcare. If more people are insured then they will make use of walk in clinics which will ultimately lower their risks of needing ER care or developing chronic health problems.
