Supreme court considers fucking over the country, again.

[LMNO]

Before I start ignoring you, I'll just suggest you do a little thinking before you respond, and consider the amount of people who have employer-provided healthcare.

[Doktor Howl]

Before I start ignoring you, I'll just suggest you do a little thinking before you respond, and consider the amount of people who have employer-provided healthcare.

Meh.  He's already stated that he's just here to push buttons.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wait.  I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.  Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.

Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?

Or, you know, fuck me to death....

I don't know who you are, but I'm pretty sure you're a complete fucking idiot.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wait.  I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.  Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.

Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?

Or, you know, fuck me to death....

Have some Koolaid™, Limbaugh-Boy.

Tort payouts have not increased since 1980.  Malpractice insurance premiums, though,  have gone up 350%.  Torts have nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.  Unregulated insurance companies have everything to do with the cost of malpractice insurance.

Complete lack of data.  So sue me.  I'm inclined to believe your statistics, but I have nothing to base that upon other than your sterling character (and therefore can't believe you).  I just find it very hard to believe that in the past thirty years the lawyers haven't gotten any greedier (or at least kept up with the cost of living).  On the other hand, I have little difficulty imagining insurance companies arbitrarily raising premiums simply because they think their pockets are a little lighter than they could be.

Wow. Have you ever tried "reading a book" or "doing some research so you know what you're talking about"?

[Doktor Howl]

Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.

I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.

I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.

Yeah, I just realized that. There's nobody on the other end; just a hamster. 

[Doktor Howl]

Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.

I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.

Yeah, I just realized that. There's nobody on the other end; just a hamster. 

And his head is TOO FUCKING SMALL.   

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel, you're essentially talking to Wade.

I mean, it's not Wade, but it may as well be.

Yeah, I just realized that. There's nobody on the other end; just a hamster. 

And his head is TOO FUCKING SMALL.   

[Juana]

There's also this:
Health Insurers: We’ll Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions If Health Mandate Is Repealed

Health insurers and supporters of the Obama administration’s health-care reform law are currently in the midst of drawing up possible contingency plans in case the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

The insurance industry argues that premiums are likely to skyrocket without the individual mandate in place to aid in pushing millions of new enrollees into the marketplace, as healthy people will be less likely to buy insurance, while insurers will still be required to sell policies to all applicants. In fact, a repeal of the individual mandate would increase insurance premiums by 25 percent, according to a study released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“The insurance reforms would have to change if the mandate were struck,” said Justine Handelman, vice president of legislative and regulatory policy for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association trade group.

Health-insurance officials say that if the mandate is repealed, “their first priority would be persuading members of Congress to repeal two of the law’s major insurance changes: a requirement to cover everyone regardless of his or her medical history, and limits on how much insurers can vary premiums based on age.” Their next step would be to “set rewards for people who purchase insurance voluntarily and sanction those who don’t.”

Other possible alternatives to the individual mandate that insurers are weighing:

    - Penalize those who enroll outside of short annual windows; deny treatment for specific conditions, especially right after a policy is purchased

    - Reward certain insurance buyers, such as offering much lower premiums for younger and healthier people

    - Expand employers’ role in automatically enrolling employees for health insurance

    - Urge credit-rating firms to use health-insurance status as a factor in determining individuals’ ratings

Although the mandate has been upheld in two appeals courts, it was struck down in a third. The Supreme Court hearings are scheduled to begin March 26, and an official ruling is expected to be delivered in June.

And we are all probably boned forever.

[Golden Applesauce]

I keep hearing all this rhetoric about "Well could the government force you to buy broccoli?"

It already is!  We subsidize farms for like a bazillion dollars, and that money comes from taxpayers - taxpayers are buying broccoli via government mandate, just like they buy bridges and elementary schools and aircraft carriers.

[Cain]

Clearly part of Obama's Socialist Masterplan for the USA.

Snark off, exactly.  And health care is somewhat more reasonable in terms of rationale than farming subsidies, as well.  The arms industry is almost the definition of a government supported enterprise, too.  It's not like Goldman Sachs are looking to buy F-35's, after all.

[Reginald Ret]

I wasn't being clear.  The issue I was stabbing at was the whole "health care costs" bugbear and how it's pretty much a two-man con.  Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money.

Interesting.  Would you include in that assessement the people that point out that having poor people using the ER (because they can't afford a doctor, and the ER has to treat them) causes costs to skyrocket?  Or the people that point out that the Canadian-style system is cheaper for everyone, as a result of patients being able to see regular doctors instead of cramming up the ERs?

What part of "Anything anybody involved says is almost invariably something to make themselves more money" isn't clear?  It's less about what really causes price increases and more about ways to increase profits.

Funny how it is cheaper in other places. Are the people in those other places a superior breed of man with les greed? I highly doubt it. Some ideas are better than others. Saying that everyone is selfish so nothing will ever become cheaper makes no sense in light of the very real examples where this kind of thing works.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Wait.  I thought healthcare was so expensive because of the high cost of malpractice insurance.  Which, in turn, is the result some breathtakingly massive malpractice awards.

Wouldn't tort reform be a better place to start to get a handle on this problem?

Or, you know, fuck me to death....

I don't know who you are, but I'm pretty sure you're a complete fucking idiot.

I totally read that reply to the tune of Dead Ringer by Meatloaf. 

[Cain]

Linguistic analysis of the Supreme Court suggests the mandatory purchase is going to be shot down.

Irony alert: the language of the ACA on that particular area was designed in particular to convince Scalia, based on his own reasoning about the state and marijuana.  It didn't work, because it failed to take into account Scalia is a massive dick, and consistency is for "little people".

[LMNO]

Linguistic analysis of the Supreme Court suggests the mandatory purchase is going to be shot down.

Irony alert: the language of the ACA on that particular area was designed in particular to convince Scalia, based on his own reasoning about the state and marijuana.  It didn't work, because it failed to take into account Scalia is a massive dick, and consistency is for "little people".

Most accurate assesment of Scalia, ever.