RE: recent obamacare news (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thompsonx -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 6:06:13 AM)

The rhetoric of collectivism vs individualism that you posted is long on chin music and short on fact. Would you be so kind as to enumerate the issues you are in disagreement with?
Please be specific...what collective issues do you take umbridge with? What individual freedoms are being stripped from you?




MariaB -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 8:43:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Individualism has nothing whatsoever to do with 'the strong devouring the weak'.



Individualism can certainly involve the strong devouring the weak. If collectivity includes self sacrifice, then so long as an individualist can promote a tribal collective (Hitler comes to mind) then savagery is created even if that savagery is created through a proxy individualist. The question is, who is devouring the weak? the collective savages? or the savage minded individualist?






NorthernGent -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 9:06:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

then so long as an individualist can promote a tribal collective (Hitler comes to mind)



Not sure what this means, but you'd be hard pressed to put a decent case forward for Hitler being an individualist.

Neitzsche was an individualist, and he didn't harm anyone, renounced his German citizenship even because he thought Nationalism was a load of old bollocks.

Hitler on the other hand, cynically manipulated what Neitzsche had to say and he was a hero of Hitler's, but Neitzsche couldn't stand people like him because he was anything but an individualist.

In fact, Nietzsche would have said that Hitler was a very good example of the 'slave mentality'.




MariaB -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 10:12:41 AM)

I disagree....
Hitler repeatedly talked of his 'divine providence'. He believed, just like Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, that he was the chosen vessel; in his case to carry through the Germanic task.




NorthernGent -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 10:30:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

I disagree....
Hitler repeatedly talked of his 'divine providence'. He believed, just like Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, that he was the chosen vessel; in his case to carry through the Germanic task.



Not sure what any of that has to do with Individualism, but what Hitler believed more than anything was that the individual was subordinate to the state, he believed that had to be the case in order to fulfil Germany's destiny.

As said, the last example of Individualism you should be citing is Hitler.




vincentML -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 12:07:47 PM)

quote:

Individualism has nothing whatsoever to do with 'the strong devouring the weak'


I doubt the philosopher Thomas Hobbes would agree with you.

quote:

In my view, Individualism is more to do with staying close to nature, our natural selves and as a result we wouldn't desire 'the accumulation of capital'.

I wonder if you are confusing the accumulation of capital with the accumulation of consumer goods.

quote:

Just out of interest, how did this 'inequitable accumulation of capital' come about?


May I refer you for example to the histories of the Americans: Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan?




MariaB -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 12:14:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

I disagree....
Hitler repeatedly talked of his 'divine providence'. He believed, just like Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, that he was the chosen vessel; in his case to carry through the Germanic task.



Not sure what any of that has to do with Individualism, but what Hitler believed more than anything was that the individual was subordinate to the state, he believed that had to be the case in order to fulfil Germany's destiny.

As said, the last example of Individualism you should be citing is Hitler.



Or he had to drum this belief system into his minions in order for them to fulfil 'HIS' Germanic task.




Lucylastic -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 1:52:42 PM)

Interesting piece from the NYT on the ACA , expansion of medicaid, and the GOP facing reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/state-level-brawls-over-medicaid-reflect-wider-war-in-gop.html?emc=edit_th_20151228&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=69606674&_r=0



WASHINGTON — John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, voted earlier this month to repeal major provisions of the Affordable Care Act and to end its expansion of Medicaid, arguing that the health law was “unpopular and unaffordable.”

A week later, his state’s Republican governor, Dennis Daugaard, announced that he wanted to make 55,000 additional South Dakota residents eligible for Medicaid under the law.

“I know many South Dakotans are skeptical about expanding Medicaid, and I share some of those sentiments,” Mr. Daugaard said. “It bothers me that some people who can work will become more dependent on government.”

“But,” Mr. Daugaard said, “we also have to remember those who would benefit, such as the single mother of three who simply cannot work enough hours to exceed the poverty line for her family.”

In state after state, a gulf is opening between Republican governors willing to expand Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act and Republican members of Congress convinced the law is collapsing and determined to help it fail. In recent months, insurers have increased premiums and deductibles for many policies sold online, and a dozen nonprofit insurance co-ops are shutting down, forcing consumers to seek other coverage.

But in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Ohio, Republican governors have expanded Medicaid under the health care law or defended past expansions. In South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah, Republican governors are pressing for wider Medicaid coverage. And Republican governors in a few other states, including Alabama, have indicated that they are looking anew at their options after rejecting the idea in the past.

That has created tension with Washington that some lawmakers can no longer ignore.

“I am very reluctant to take positions that counter the decisions made by the governor,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, where more than 78,000 people have gained Medicaid coverage under legislation signed in 2013 by Jan Brewer, a Republican who was then the governor. Now, Gov. Doug Ducey, also a Republican, is seeking a federal waiver to charge premiums and co-payments and create work incentives within the limits allowed by federal rules.

“The governor and Legislature in my state decided that they wanted” to expand Medicaid, Mr. McCain said.

Joan C. Alker, a senior researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said the divide was “a reflection of the larger fight in the Republican Party between more pragmatic Republicans, including governors, and the ideological wing of the party that wants to stop Obamacare at all costs.”

Tarren Bragdon, the chief executive of the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability, said that to governors of both parties, federal funds looked like “free money.” By contrast, he said, Republicans in Congress focus on costs to the federal government and believe that the expansion of Medicaid will not be sustainable or affordable in the long term.

When Democrats wrote the Affordable Care Act, they wanted to make Medicaid available to all Americans under 65 with incomes up to 138 percent of the poverty level — or $16,240 for an individual. The federal government pays the full cost for newly eligible beneficiaries from 2014 to 2016 and at least 90 percent after that.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the expansion of Medicaid was an option for states, not a requirement. Thirty states have chosen to expand eligibility, and several others are negotiating with the Obama administration. But state-level brawls over Medicaid expansion have mirrored the wider political war over the law.

Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee, a Republican, wanted to use federal Medicaid money to extend coverage to 280,000 low-income people. His proposal failed in the spring in the legislature, under attack by conservative groups like the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, which urged voters to “stop Obamacare in Tennessee.”

No member of Congress has attacked the Affordable Care Act with more zeal than Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming. But Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming, also a Republican, is urging state legislators to expand Medicaid to cover thousands of low-income people.

“When I came into office in 2011, I joined other states in a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act, and I still don’t like it,” Mr. Mead said in an interview. “But it’s the law of land. So now I’m trying to be pragmatic, recognizing that we have about 18,000 people who could obtain coverage. We have small hospitals that are struggling. Our federal tax dollars are not headed back to Wyoming, but are paying for health care in Colorado, California and other states.”

Clinching the case for Mr. Mead is the state’s fiscal plight. Revenue is down because of a steep decline in oil and natural gas prices. With the expansion of Medicaid, he said, Wyoming would receive an infusion of federal funds, easing its budget problems.

In Arkansas, a centrist Democratic governor, Mike Beebe, found a novel way to expand Medicaid in 2013, using federal money to buy private coverage for 220,000 low-income people through the insurance exchange set up under the health care law. His successor, Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, said this month that he wanted to continue the expansion while adding some conservative features, including premiums and work incentives.

“I opposed and continue to oppose the Affordable Care Act,” Mr. Hutchinson said. But, he added, “we’re a compassionate state, and we’re not going to leave 220,000 people without some recourse.”

Ray Hanley, a former director of the Medicaid program in Arkansas, summarized the prevailing sentiment this way: “We hate Obamacare and would repeal it tomorrow if we could, but we can’t. So we must do what is best for Arkansas.”

In Utah, Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, has been trying for two years to expand Medicaid in some way that would be acceptable to state legislators and federal health officials.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Finance Committee, has stayed out of the negotiations, but aides said he thought the expansion of Medicaid under the health law was a terrible idea. His Republican colleague from Utah, Senator Mike Lee, said, “Medicaid’s abysmal track record of failing our most vulnerable populations will only get worse as millions of new, able-bodied adults join the program.”

To the authors of the law, Republican intransigence in Washington is baffling. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Republicans in Congress “aren’t listening to their constituents or state leaders.” The Republican governor of his state, Brian Sandoval, expanded Medicaid and remains highly popular.

To this day, many Republicans on Capitol Hill are upset about the way the Affordable Care Act was adopted in 2010 — rammed through Congress, they say, without any Republican votes and with scant regard for their concerns.

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said he remembered discussing health care with President Obama in early 2010, but, he said, the president and congressional Democrats “didn’t take any of my advice and hardly any of the advice of my Republican colleagues about what the disastrous outcomes of Obamacare would be.” Medicaid accounts for 30 percent of Tennessee’s budget, he said, and expanding eligibility means “having less to spend on other priorities like higher education, roads and schools.”

In swing states like Ohio, the politics of Medicaid have become challenging.

More than 600,000 Ohio residents have gained coverage under Medicaid since Gov. John R. Kasich expanded eligibility. In his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. Kasich has come under criticism from conservatives but has defended his action, saying he felt a moral imperative to help the poor.

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio is running his first Senate re-election campaign, in the heat of a presidential election year. He voted with other Republicans to repeal the federal health care law but is cautious in his criticism.

“Medicaid badly needs reform,” Mr. Portman said. But, he added, “we must ensure that Ohioans who rely on it for health care don’t have a lapse of coverage.”




NorthernGent -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 2:42:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Individualism has nothing whatsoever to do with 'the strong devouring the weak'


I doubt the philosopher Thomas Hobbes would agree with you.



Thomas Hobbes was born in age where they had very serious day-to-day concerns, such as staying alive. Different age; different attitude.

Great man though he was, conceiver of the Social Contract, and forerunner to John Locke; he didn't make a great deal of sense in the context of our age.

I forget the full quote but something along the lines of: "a short, brutish life.....".

The worst you're going to get in this age on a daily basis is being conned into a 2 for 1 product offer that you don't need and you won't eat.

Hobbes' relevance to today is only really in his argument against the divine right of kings, and I suppose if anything Hobbes was the forerunner for democracy and moving away from the church's grip on nation states - an individualist of his age I suppose.




Phydeaux -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/28/2015 9:37:57 PM)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/28/ca-paper-that-backed-obamacare-warns-of-failure/

The editorial is a response to a recently-filed civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that alleges the Medi-Cal, the California version of Medicaid, is discriminating against Latinos. “Medi-Cal’s inadequate, extremely low reimbursement rates—in both the fee for service and managed care settings—and its failure to adequately monitor access to medical care, effectively deny the full benefits of the Medi-Cal program to the more than seven million Latino enrollees who rely on Medi-Cal for their healthcare,” the complaint alleges.

Ooh here's a good one:

A CMS study released in November 2009 warned: “The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage. ”


In 2013, seven out of ten doctors refused to participate in California’s Obamacare program–and some were listed as participants without their consent. The Times editorial warns: “Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature need to raise Medi-Cal compensation rates as quickly as possible” or “the state will become not a model but a laughing stock.”




mnottertail -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/29/2015 8:32:09 AM)

and the nutsuckers have howled and wrung their hands and shit their pants, and done nothing else to fix the problems.




vincentML -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/29/2015 6:16:15 PM)

quote:

Great man though he was, conceiver of the Social Contract, and forerunner to John Locke; he didn't make a great deal of sense in the context of our age.

That would be true if you assumed everyone of god's chillun lived a middle class life. However, a great proportion of earth's people live below a subsistence level in the slums of great cities where they steal or beg for work, and are economically violated. I suggest you look under the beds of the consumer society at the gutters of India, Africa, Bangladesh, Chicago, etc.

"In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.[15]" from Wiki.




KenDckey -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/30/2015 4:26:32 PM)

quote:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sissel-v-dept-of-health-human-services/

Attempting to head off the fifth and latest challenge in the Supreme Court to the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration has told the Justices that the individual protesting the mandate to buy insurance could not win even if he proved his constitutional point. His argument that the act was passed outside the limits of the Constitution would not make a difference because he is not covered by the version he opposes, according to the new government brief, filed on Monday and now available.

If the Court nevertheless took on the case of Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services, the new filing contended, the Court should reject the core challenge that he has raised just as it has every time it has come up before the Justices in past history. That argument is that a piece of federal legislation that raises some money for the U.S. government by a tax must begin its journey in the House of Representatives, under the so-called Origination Clause of Article I.




Phydeaux -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/31/2015 10:16:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

and the nutsuckers have howled and wrung their hands and shit their pants, and done nothing else to fix the problems.



Why waste effort? On its current death spiral it will fix itself.




Phydeaux -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/31/2015 10:19:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sissel-v-dept-of-health-human-services/

Attempting to head off the fifth and latest challenge in the Supreme Court to the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration has told the Justices that the individual protesting the mandate to buy insurance could not win even if he proved his constitutional point. His argument that the act was passed outside the limits of the Constitution would not make a difference because he is not covered by the version he opposes, according to the new government brief, filed on Monday and now available.

If the Court nevertheless took on the case of Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services, the new filing contended, the Court should reject the core challenge that he has raised just as it has every time it has come up before the Justices in past history. That argument is that a piece of federal legislation that raises some money for the U.S. government by a tax must begin its journey in the House of Representatives, under the so-called Origination Clause of Article I.



Yeah, this is actually an interesting case. The whole "deemed as passed" is (also) a an interesting kettle of fish. I don't think that the Supremes, having supported this clusterfuck multiple times will relegate it to trashbin's of history for these reasons. But I found the entire process by which the bill was passed repulsive.




KenDckey -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/31/2015 12:39:37 PM)

If SCOTUS takes this case and if the ccase wins, it could change the entire way we do laws in Congress. It would become a take it or leave it system. If one house wants someting added to something the other house didn't put in, they would have to approach someone in the originating house to sponsor an amendment to the legislation and they would have to call back that approved bill to vote on the amendment. (not sure I explained it well, but it has great potential to change things).




Phydeaux -> RE: recent obamacare news (12/31/2015 12:55:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

If SCOTUS takes this case and if the ccase wins, it could change the entire way we do laws in Congress. It would become a take it or leave it system. If one house wants someting added to something the other house didn't put in, they would have to approach someone in the originating house to sponsor an amendment to the legislation and they would have to call back that approved bill to vote on the amendment. (not sure I explained it well, but it has great potential to change things).


Um, I think you are a little uninformed how the system works. That's exactly what happens.

When versions of bills are passed in the house and senate are not identical, each house then selects a conference committee that negotiates and produces an identical bill. That bill is then sent back to both houses and voted on. With approval of both houses, it is sent to the president for signature.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125