Your Surpreme Court is a Death Panel: discuss.
(10 points)
In about 2.5 hours, we'll find out how much of a dick Scalia really is.
No matter how the Supreme Court rules today, Ann Romney's tap-dancing hobby horse will still get better health care than the majority of Americans and Ann will be able to write it off.
IT'S A SPORT!
\
(http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ann-romney.jpg)
I support repeal. Fuck Obama for his healthcare "solution" being to force me to buy insurance from a corrupt industry. Single payer or GTFO.
I'm sure the Republican controlled Congress will make that their top priority to pass, should the ACA be shot down.
I was trying to come up with a witty retort, but I see that Cain is on point, once again.
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2012, 02:49:03 PM
I'm sure the Republican controlled Congress will make that their top priority to pass, should the ACA be shot down.
oh I agree. I'm just sick of the Democrats failing to play hardball like the republicans do.
Quote from: v3x on June 28, 2012, 02:57:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2012, 02:49:03 PM
I'm sure the Republican controlled Congress will make that their top priority to pass, should the ACA be shot down.
oh I agree. I'm just sick of the Democrats failing to play hardball like the republicans do.
Republicans are good at convincing people that most people agree with them, which, of course, causes them to agree with them.
Most Americans approve of almost all of healthcare reform bits individually.
Yet somehow as a whole.....
Wow, John Roberts was the deciding vote to uphold. Who would have thunk it?
the fact that democrats win any elections at all is evidence that they could beat the GOP into obsolescence, if they would just grow a spine. but most of them really are "centrist," so i am probably rooting for a party america doesnt actually have.
so, yeah i guess i should just quit whining and get on the bandwagon.
Wow. Looks like ACA was upheld.
However, not surprisingly...
(https://p.twimg.com/Awe7VteCAAEkD6j.jpg:large)
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on June 28, 2012, 03:25:41 PM
Wow, John Roberts was the deciding vote to uphold. Who would have thunk it?
Their strategy is to ignite the Tea Party and give them even more of a reason to defeat Obama in November.
I doubt it. The tea party become more irrelevant each day. You cant sustain that amount of crazy especially when the next thing(tm) comes along- which in this case was occupy.
There are some very, very badly-needed insurance company reforms built into the bill, which created a lot of opposition from insurance providers. "You can't MAKE us divert money from profits into paying for actual health care!"
Exactly. Its like what a lot of teabaggers amusingly say- "follow the money."
of course "follow the money" and "thats socialism" makes as much sense as square wheels.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 03:57:16 PM
However, not surprisingly...
(https://p.twimg.com/Awe7VteCAAEkD6j.jpg:large)
Uh, no Fox, what Roberts essentially said was "right church, wrong pew". Dumbasses!
I just read on FB the comment, "It's like the foxes guarding the henhouse". Which really makes no sense to me.
Honestly, I can't figure it out. If the foxes are SCOTUS, then what are the chickens? Sick people? The insured? And if the metaphor means "don't give a job to someone who will exploit their position," then how has SCOTUS exploited them for their own gain?
By "tea party" I mean tge Republicans in general, since that is all they are. Yrs thats an ignorant partisan hack thing to say but time is short and I need to leave for work.
Quote from: Iron Twiddleton on June 28, 2012, 04:14:45 PM
Exactly. Its like what a lot of teabaggers amusingly say- "follow the money."
of course "follow the money" and "thats socialism" makes as much sense as square wheels.
"Follow the money" is a remarkably good tool when you're trying to research the motivation behind institutionalized social problems; following the money is how I learned that prison corporations push mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and provide security for zero-tolerance high schools.
It works, it just doesn't usually shine a favorable light on the free market.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 04:21:47 PM
I just read on FB the comment, "It's like the foxes guarding the henhouse". Which really makes no sense to me.
Honestly, I can't figure it out. If the foxes are SCOTUS, then what are the chickens? Sick people? The insured? And if the metaphor means "don't give a job to someone who will exploit their position," then how has SCOTUS exploited them for their own gain?
Who has time for logic? THERE'S A WAR ON!
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/320367_10150996342439907_2122586334_n.jpg)
Nigel- i agree. Its just when a bagger uses it its laughable
Good, now I can continue to tell my insurance company to shut up and take my money, but with the added benefit that I get health care in the deal now. Awesome. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 04:29:06 PM
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/320367_10150996342439907_2122586334_n.jpg)
LOVE
this!
One interesting note: The penalties for not obeying the individual mandate have been defined by the court as a "tax". We now have punitive taxation.
Ho ho ho! That'll NEVER come back to haunt us.
A little surprised, but I always felt this could go either way.
On the one hand, the Roberts court has been somewhat Republican inclined on its rulings...on the other hand, while insurance companies were not in favour of certain conditions, the essential handout of extra cash sure did make them think twice about challenging the ACA too strongly.
Amusement factor: a certain High Profile Liberal Blogger said "if you believe the Roberts Court operates as the judicial arm of the Republican Party, the ruling may settle one enduring controversy: Is the ACA a sloppy wet kiss to the insurance industry, as the firebaggers claim, or is it a step on the road to universal access?
A Court that serves the party of the 1% can be expected to rule in the best interests of its patrons."
Which now means "firebaggers" have been proven right. Since Firebaggers are the worst thing ever, even worse than Teabaggers, this should be fun.
What the hell is a firebagger?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 08:01:22 PM
One interesting note: The penalties for not obeying the individual mandate have been defined by the court as a "tax". We now have punitive taxation.
Ho ho ho! That'll NEVER come back to haunt us.
There is a theory that Roberts went along with this so he could gut the commerce clause. If it's a tax, the commerce clause doesn't apply.
A firebagger is someone on the left who doesn't think Obama Reaganomics Superjesus Predator Drone Malcom X Hussein Obama is an infalliable god-emperor sent here by the universal creator to bestow his wisdom upon humanity, and may actually be criticised for some of his actions.
So any liberal who criticizes a nominally liberal president is a firebagger?
Gotta say a bag full of fire is pretty metal. It would have to be to contain the fire anyway.
I accept this label.
Pretty much, yes. It's a pissy little named aimed at FireDogLake, where a lot of Obama critical liberals are at.
(never mind actual leftists. They've gone beyond the pale and cannot even be considered firebaggers. Instead, they are "purity trolls").
Purity trolls? Jesus left-libs need to get their shit together....
So,
Does this mean I am required to have health insurance now? I currently do not have any, though I assume I will upon entering grad school in a few months.
If I understand correctly, this is now like the Canadian system, except with insurance companies as an intermediary. Or I don't know.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:19:12 PM
So,
Does this mean I am required to have health insurance now? I currently do not have any, though I assume I will upon entering grad school in a few months.
If I understand correctly, this is now like the Canadian system, except with insurance companies as an intermediary. Or I don't know.
Nope. It's the administration slipping the insurance companies some tongue.
You will (in 2014, I believe) be required to purchase health insurance, whether or not you can actually afford it. IIRC, there is no price control written into the legislation.
If you're correct, we are so fucked. So very fucked.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 09:26:00 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:19:12 PM
So,
Does this mean I am required to have health insurance now? I currently do not have any, though I assume I will upon entering grad school in a few months.
If I understand correctly, this is now like the Canadian system, except with insurance companies as an intermediary. Or I don't know.
Nope. It's the administration slipping the insurance companies some tongue.
You will (in 2014, I believe) be required to purchase health insurance, whether or not you can actually afford it. IIRC, there is no price control written into the legislation.
My first thought is: Republicans are upset about this, why?
ETA: I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
The gop opposes this because they can paint it as socialism and boogeyman their candidate in.
And people fell for it. Like i noted most of the legislation is agreeable to most of the people taken as separate items.
Also romneys going to repeal it even though he ratified something similar here.
And i remember at the time on another forum out of staters thought this was universal healthcare. Every baystater said it was nowhere near that including myself.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 28, 2012, 09:30:14 PM
If you're correct, we are so fucked. So very fucked.
Mode income in the United States: $19,800/yr
Average health care premiums: $300/month, $3600 per year.
Remainder of income: $16,200 or $1,350/month.
Payroll taxes, SSI, etc: $2400/year.
Total living allowance for rent, food, utilities, etc: $1150/month.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 09:52:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 28, 2012, 09:30:14 PM
If you're correct, we are so fucked. So very fucked.
Mode income in the United States: $19,800/yr
Average health care premiums: $300/month, $3600 per year.
Remainder of income: $16,200 or $1,350/month.
Payroll taxes, SSI, etc: $2400/year.
Total living allowance for rent, food, utilities, etc: $1150/month.
This is why the little people can't be allowed to do math.
MATH IS THE ENEMY.
Fortunately, to paraphrase Mr. Colbert: Numbers can't hurt you if you don't count them.
Incidentally, those health insurance premiums are assuming that the employer picks up the "standard".
Meaning that for self-employed people, it's more like $1500/month.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 09:52:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on June 28, 2012, 09:30:14 PM
If you're correct, we are so fucked. So very fucked.
Mode income in the United States: $19,800/yr
Average health care premiums: $300/month, $3600 per year.
Remainder of income: $16,200 or $1,350/month.
Payroll taxes, SSI, etc: $2400/year.
Total living allowance for rent, food, utilities, etc: $1150/month.
On the other hand, insurance companies that will take a lower premium for the same support will make out very well, thus forcing them to compete.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
If you can't pay, they "tax" you, and you get health care. From what I understand.
The skinny: You pay anyway.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
Medicaid still exists, and apparently you can petition for an economic hardship exemption. I'm gonna check to see what it says regarding students.
In massachusetts if youre uninsured you dont get your tax refund. I imagine it will work similarly nationwide.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
Medicaid still exists, and apparently you can petition for an economic hardship exemption. I'm gonna check to see what it says regarding students.
Yessir, you can take time off from your minimum wage job(s) to go wrangle with exemption forms.
Yay!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
If you can't pay, they "tax" you, and you get health care. From what I understand.
The skinny: You pay anyway.
Okay. How is that different than Canada?
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
If you can't pay, they "tax" you, and you get health care. From what I understand.
The skinny: You pay anyway.
Okay. How is that different than Canada?
If you're broke in Canada, they don't fine ("tax") you for it.
There's also a cap on percentage of income based off the poverty level.
As an aside, the attorney general of the United States has just been charged with criminal contempt of congress.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 10:10:27 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
If you can't pay, they "tax" you, and you get health care. From what I understand.
The skinny: You pay anyway.
Okay. How is that different than Canada?
If you're broke in Canada, they don't fine ("tax") you for it.
So, I guess this needs to be revised, over time, so it eventually is in line with the Canadian model. It may take decades, but I have a feeling it can be done.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:15:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 10:10:27 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 28, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
I've heard from other people that if you can't pay, you can still get health insurance. Is this true?
If you can't pay, they "tax" you, and you get health care. From what I understand.
The skinny: You pay anyway.
Okay. How is that different than Canada?
If you're broke in Canada, they don't fine ("tax") you for it.
So, I guess this needs to be revised, over time, so it eventually is in line with the Canadian model. It may take decades, but I have a feeling it can be done.
Um, just as soon as you and I have the lobbying power of the insurance companies, everything will fall right into line.
Kai, you may be able to get in on a group plan through your university, which should be cheaper than getting it on your own.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 10:32:19 PM
Kai, you may be able to get in on a group plan through your university, which should be cheaper than getting it on your own.
That was my plan. Generally, graduate students get pretty good deals and good coverage. From what I've seen of this university so far, it should be no problem.
Nothing about the ACA is going to change healthcare. It was written by insurance companies, so we know that its main purpose is to increase the number of people they are able to fuck. If more people, as a minor side effect, get to consume more pharmaceuticals as a result of that, then that's a necessary evil.
That is why the law was written.
But the law was enacted in order to create a gigantic legal diving board from which Washington can now spring into ever deeper pits of horse shit. They now have the power to tax you punitively as Roger mentioned, which means, at least from a legal perspective, they can now tell you to do anything they want, and if you "choose not to," they can simply tax you into debtors' prisons. OH GOOD.
You also can't be denied for pre existing, nor can you be dropped when you get sick. Plus, ins cos have to use a percentage of profits towards preventative care.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 11:21:36 PM
You also can't be denied for pre existing, nor can you be dropped when you get sick. Plus, ins cos have to use a percentage of profits towards preventative care.
You just wait until they start using the loopholes.
And while you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, if you are considered to have an illness in progress, you can be moved to the "high risk" queue and have to purchase much more expensive insurance.
Also, you can stay on your parents' plan until you're 26, which is a fucking godsend.
Ok, yeah, I know.
But honestly? I know PD holds the title of most jaded, cynical pessimists on the block, but part of Discordia is not settling for absolutes when it comes to judging things. There ARE positives to this, even if considered slight. I'm thinking of the garage mechanic who gets cancer, et al.
You fuckers need to stop finding things in this law that you like. It's really spoiling my cynical mood right now.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 11:21:36 PM
You also can't be denied for pre existing, nor can you be dropped when you get sick. Plus, ins cos have to use a percentage of profits towards preventative care.
We Holy Men™ refer to that as a "reach-around".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 11:21:36 PM
You also can't be denied for pre existing, nor can you be dropped when you get sick. Plus, ins cos have to use a percentage of profits towards preventative care.
And now we just need to get patients to SEEK preventative care.
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2012, 01:32:26 PM
No matter how the Supreme Court rules today, Ann Romney's tap-dancing hobby horse will still get better health care than the majority of Americans and Ann will be able to write it off.
Her minions have been posting on facebook that the horse was THERAPETIC because she has some DISEASE and we're A BUNCH OF MEAN OLD POOPY HEADS for making fun of A WOMAN WITH A DISEASE.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 11:28:34 PM
Ok, yeah, I know.
But honestly? I know PD holds the title of most jaded, cynical pessimists on the block, but part of Discordia is not settling for absolutes when it comes to judging things. There ARE positives to this, even if considered slight. I'm thinking of the garage mechanic who gets cancer, et al.
Well, I think most of those things are off set by the fact that subsidized healthcare means we will probably never get single payer healthcare.
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on June 29, 2012, 02:16:43 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2012, 11:28:34 PM
Ok, yeah, I know.
But honestly? I know PD holds the title of most jaded, cynical pessimists on the block, but part of Discordia is not settling for absolutes when it comes to judging things. There ARE positives to this, even if considered slight. I'm thinking of the garage mechanic who gets cancer, et al.
Well, I think most of those things are off set by the fact that subsidized healthcare means we will probably never get single payer healthcare.
I disagree.
My cynical eye sees the screeching and struggle as an indication that our society is changing.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on June 28, 2012, 08:01:22 PM
One interesting note: The penalties for not obeying the individual mandate have been defined by the court as a "tax". We now have punitive taxation.
Ho ho ho! That'll NEVER come back to haunt us.
Nothing new. Stretches back at least to the New Deal. Prolly further.