RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 4:55:53 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Why do people in the US pay more and recieve less healthcare?

We dont.

Wrong again, willbe.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/article.aspx?post=1800256

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 21

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 4:58:57 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Why do people in the US pay more and recieve less healthcare?

We dont.

Wrong again, willbe.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/article.aspx?post=1800256

No, Im not. When risk factorsand the health/economic costs of delayed treatment are taken into account we pay somewhat more, but have better access and outcomes.

And your link doesnt address the issue, it only discusses increasing costs of employer coverage, more than half of which for next open enrollment are due to Obamacare.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 12/13/2010 5:01:41 PM >

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 22

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 5:00:36 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Why do people in the US pay more and recieve less healthcare?

We dont.

By what metric?

Life expectancy actually went down this year.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 23

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 5:02:28 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Thats why Cuba's infant mortality rate is superior to ours.

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

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 24

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 5:14:30 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Another study you may want to read.

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

It explains how expensive we are, how limited our access is, infant mortality rate, DALE index, responsiveness, financing, attainment and performance, and satisfaction.

We ranked number one in only one of those categories, and the bottom in a few. But i will let you read the report to discover which ones. Its only 8 pages. Im sure you can do that.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 25

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 6:03:03 PM

defiantbadgirl

Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

There are two problems I see with the Affordable Health Care Act.

1. No public option

People should be able to choose if they want public or private insurance. This would force private companies to lower their premiums. Also, if a private insurance company refused to pay for life saving treatments, the person affected could switch to the public option. Right now, people this happens to only have two options - sell everything they own and die when they run out of money or commit felonies and live in prison so they can get the health care they need to stay alive.

2. The marriage penalty

Any program or law that's based on the Federal Poverty Guidlines has a marriage penalty. According to the Federal Poverty Guidelines, a family of one is considered at 133% of the Federal Poverty Level if their yearly income is less than $14,403.90. For a family of two, it's $19,378.10. That's a difference of only $4,974.20. The Federal Poverty Guideline doesn't take into account if the second family member is an adult spouse or a child. So to be at or below 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, a married couple can only make $19,378.10. If two people live together without marrying, each person can make up to $14,403.90. Together, that's $28,807.80. This discourages marriage for anyone with a chronic health condition or a history of cancer or even a pre-cancerous condition unless they can afford to spend $800/month premiums (for them alone), plus co-pays, plus medication. People shouldn't have to choose between marriage and health coverage. The way Federal Poverty Guidelines are figured needs to change. This isn't the 1930's where one income adequately supported most families.

< Message edited by defiantbadgirl -- 12/13/2010 6:06:27 PM >

_____________________________

Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.

Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 26

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 6:18:04 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Why do people in the US pay more and recieve less healthcare?

We dont.

Then show us that Willbeur.

Facts and numbers.

Because plenty of people have done just that to prove what she said is true.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 27

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 7:43:11 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

I have concerns, and serious reservations about government run health care. Most of those are quality based, and not relevant here. Where I hit the big snag with this particular law is the individual mandate. I understand the reasoning of it, but that is thoroughly trumped by the utter lack of governmental authority to do it with (imho).

This is going to the Supreme Court. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that, and has for quite a while. What happens there... fuck. It wasn't that long ago, our Court determined that taking land for public purposes like parks, schools, roads, etc., meant you could just hand it to commercial developers. I have no idea how they will rule when this gets there. That bothers me.

This is a vast new power our government wants to claim over us, based on a sentence fragment. I think that should bother a lot of people. I think it should be talked about in in a bigger context than as a partisan pissing contest. And I really don't give a flying fuck how the subjects of other governments might feel about it.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 28

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 7:52:58 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

This is one part of the health care law I never liked and thought was unnecessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101213/ts_nm/us_usa_healthcare_virginia

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 29

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 7:57:36 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

I'm still waiting for them to explain how a corporation is a person and is entitled to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Hey guys, it is a conservative activist judge, hard at work. Legislating from the bench. But since its a conservative, appointed under a Republican, its 'ok', right?

Since what would Republicans gain from the Health Care Act being declared unconstitutional? This decision was politically motivated, pure and simple.

Liberal activist judge: a judge who actively looks for reasons and justifications to enact his ideology by reading into laws and the Constitution things that are not there. Supports "rule by law".

Conservative activist judge: what a lefty calls a judge who actively looks for exactly what is written in the law and Constitution and then rules based on those things. Supports "rule of law".

Ok. I'll take a "conservative activist judge" any day of the week, thank you.

Firm

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 30

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:06:07 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

Technically that's true but a lot of money is wasted on tests and procedures people don't need resulting in lower quality health care and countries like Canada which spend much less money on health care and prescription drugs getting better results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Why do people in the US pay more and recieve less healthcare?

We dont.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 31

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:09:00 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

I don't think it matters if some people choose not to purchase it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No surprise there. The individual mandate is so clearly unconstitutional there was no other outcome possible.

Surprisingly most of the judges that have reviewed the law so far have found it perfectly Constitutional. Only 1, found by rather aggressive judge shopping by the VA AG, has found otherwise.

It only takes 1.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 32

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:13:01 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

And my mother said you can knock on a deaf man door all you want, he won't answer it. How can you have better outcomes if Canadians live three years longer than Americans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

Why do people in the US pay more and recieve less healthcare?

We dont.

Wrong again, willbe.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/article.aspx?post=1800256

No, Im not. When risk factorsand the health/economic costs of delayed treatment are taken into account we pay somewhat more, but have better access and outcomes.

And your link doesnt address the issue, it only discusses increasing costs of employer coverage, more than half of which for next open enrollment are due to Obamacare.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 33

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:24:51 PM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

The first thing is to get your facts right. You call it government run healthcare but nothing is further from the truth in Canada. Nobody gets in between the Dr. and the patient in Canada. They are free to do or to take a course of action in healthcare that they mutually agree to. So calling it government run is inaccurate and a Fox news recommendation based on more Americans finding it unpopular when it's described as government run instead of a public option.

As far as the mandate is concerned on that I agree with you. I think the mandate was unnecessary and it was demanded by the health insurance companies. I think it's unfortunate the government caved in to the health care industry and put in a mandate. I could care less if the Supreme Court agrees with the judge in Virginia. I think the mandate is unnecessary and people will migrate to voluntarily choose this plan because as bad as it is. It will be better than what private insurance companies are offering.

I don't give a flying fuck about your flying fuck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I have concerns, and serious reservations about government run health care. Most of those are quality based, and not relevant here. Where I hit the big snag with this particular law is the individual mandate. I understand the reasoning of it, but that is thoroughly trumped by the utter lack of governmental authority to do it with (imho).

This is going to the Supreme Court. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that, and has for quite a while. What happens there... fuck. It wasn't that long ago, our Court determined that taking land for public purposes like parks, schools, roads, etc., meant you could just hand it to commercial developers. I have no idea how they will rule when this gets there. That bothers me.

This is a vast new power our government wants to claim over us, based on a sentence fragment. I think that should bother a lot of people. I think it should be talked about in in a bigger context than as a partisan pissing contest. And I really don't give a flying fuck how the subjects of other governments might feel about it.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 34

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:32:21 PM

FatDomDaddy

Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Surprisingly most of the judges that have reviewed the law so far have found it perfectly Constitutional.

Most huh?

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 35

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:47:54 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Right on cue, Brian.

Buh-bye

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Brain)

Post #: 36

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:49:54 PM

zenny

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/13/2008
Status: offline

FR:

I find it quite interesting that people seem to think a singular thing (health care) is the end all be all of longevity. As to "tests that don't need to be done" I'm of the understanding that those extra tests are done to increase certainty and also because unlike ALL other countries in the WORLD we have hospitals with more and better tech.

In regards to the OP, the outcome will be interesting but like others pointed out it is not assured.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)

Post #: 37

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:49:59 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

If the mandate is what everyone is objecting too, then why dont the states come up with their own laws, which they can also opt out of any mandates?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)

Post #: 38

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 8:55:59 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

FR

How could anything "they" do be good for us ? Facts are fact, if they don't see some kind of gain they don't do it.

T

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 39

RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law - 12/13/2010 9:06:31 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

I find it quite interesting that people seem to think a singular thing (health care) is the end all be all of longevity. As to "tests that don't need to be done" I'm of the understanding that those extra tests are done to increase certainty and also because unlike ALL other countries in the WORLD we have hospitals with more and better tech.

Our mortality/morbidity rates do not support your last statement.

Many of those extra tests are to prevent or to support the Dr in a lawsuit. Nothing more.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to zenny)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094