|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying?
I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
social safety net is good tho. figure out a way to set the level appropriately and it is a great program.
|
On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary.
the fuck...
|
On February 06 2015 03:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary. the fuck...
Yeah I can't touch that. I'm just floored.
|
On February 06 2015 03:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary. the fuck...
I'm saying that there could be serious problems with the ACA (any entitlement program really) that are basically impossible to fix because anybody who tries would be immediately voted out.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sure seems like an opportune time to discuss cost saving then, possibly through some sort of public option?
|
Breaking: Shooter reported at University of South Carolina.
|
The third time wasn’t the charm.
Senate Democrats again on Thursday rejected a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security over their opposition to riders that would block President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The failed 52-47 vote was the third time this week that Democrats have refused to even debate the House GOP’s proposal.
McConnell changed his vote to no, which allows him to bring the stalled proposal up for a fourth vote at his whim.
Party leaders Thursday morning recycled their rhetoric from earlier in the week as McConnell again blasted Democrats for not even debating the bill and Minority Leader Harry Reid linked recent terrorist attacks overseas with the possibility of a Feb. 27 funding lapse for DHS. The stalemate quickly descended into an extended floor spat between Reid and McConnell — the first such direct confrontation of this Congress.
“There is bipartisan support to move forward on a free-standing bill that sends Homeland Security directly to the president,” Reid said during a tense back-and-forth. “We want to do that. That’s what should be done.”
A bemused McConnell responded by reminding the Nevada Democrat who runs the Senate now: “As my good friend the Democratic leader reminded me for eight years, the majority leader always gets the last word.”
“I’m sure we’ll resolve this sometime in the next few weeks,” McConnell (R-Ky.) said as the exchange ended.
With a week-long recess scheduled for the holiday week of Feb. 16, Congress has only a handful of legislative days to figure out how to avoid blowing its first major deadline of the year. But three weeks ahead of that deadline, which was created by the December “Cromnibus” funding bill, no proposal exists that can pass both chambers of Congress.
House conservatives have insisted on including riders blocking Obama’s efforts to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. McConnell has repeatedly brought that measure to the floor to the unanimous opposition of Democrats.
The exercise is intended to demonstrate to House Republicans that nothing can pass the Senate without Democratic support. But the series of failed votes is beginning to frustrate rank-and-file Republicans and ratchet up tensions between GOP House members and senators.
Source
|
On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary.
You fell for the political trap. Kids aren't the real problem and they're not what people complain about with "death panels". The real problem is the elderly - if you get a 70 year old woman who finds out she has cancer and she wants aggressive and expensive treatments, should that be covered by publicly subsidized insurance? As an alternative, she spends everything she has in end-of-life treatments but inevitably dies and her family doesn't get any inheritance, which is a key difference between rich and poor, or even worse, is itself bankrupted. That's the more interesting and more realistic issue where this is going, for both private and public choice models.
|
I hope nobody actually thinks that being old is a reason to deny somebody medical care.
|
i think he is referring to the inevitability of death with his example, not age.
|
On February 06 2015 08:03 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary. You fell for the political trap. Kids aren't the real problem and they're not what people complain about with "death panels". The real problem is the elderly - if you get a 70 year old woman who finds out she has cancer and she wants aggressive and expensive treatments, should that be covered by publicly subsidized insurance? As an alternative, she spends everything she has in end-of-life treatments but inevitably dies and her family doesn't get any inheritance, which is a key difference between rich and poor, or even worse, is itself bankrupted. That's the more interesting and more realistic issue where this is going, for both private and public choice models.
Republicans have no plan for either. Yet have been decrying the only fix on the table for years.
|
On February 06 2015 08:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 08:03 coverpunch wrote:On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary. You fell for the political trap. Kids aren't the real problem and they're not what people complain about with "death panels". The real problem is the elderly - if you get a 70 year old woman who finds out she has cancer and she wants aggressive and expensive treatments, should that be covered by publicly subsidized insurance? As an alternative, she spends everything she has in end-of-life treatments but inevitably dies and her family doesn't get any inheritance, which is a key difference between rich and poor, or even worse, is itself bankrupted. That's the more interesting and more realistic issue where this is going, for both private and public choice models. Republicans have no plan for either. Yet have been decrying the only fix on the table for years.
Its possible that no fix is better than the other options. Would you prefer a sharp stick in your left eye, or your right? Personally I'd prefer neither.
|
‘Oh, She’s Going Down’: Rand Paul Comes Out Swinging Against Loretta Lynch’s Nomination
Sen. Rand Paul will oppose—very publicly—the nomination of U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States.
The Kentucky Republican is unveiling his opposition to Lynch on Greta Van Susteren’s On The Record program on Fox News.
Earlier Wednesday, in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, Breitbart News watched as the senator’s legal and press team briefed him final time before the interview. Sergio Gor, Paul’s communications director, his press secretary Eleanor May and attorney Brian Darling were all present.
Paul asked the team about Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) question during Lynch’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing about whether she’d oppose using a drone to kill an American citizen on American soil.
When Paul heard about her non-answer—she wouldn’t commit that the federal government does not have such authority—he was incredulous. Furthermore, Paul was appalled that Lynch came out in favor of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and the use of asset forfeiture—where the federal government seizes people’s property sometimes with flimsy reasoning, something even the Obama administration has offered slight opposition to—and then told his office staff he’s going to oppose her and aim to derail her nomination chances. “Oh, she’s going down,” Paul said to the room. Breitbart
|
On February 06 2015 09:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 08:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 08:03 coverpunch wrote:On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary. You fell for the political trap. Kids aren't the real problem and they're not what people complain about with "death panels". The real problem is the elderly - if you get a 70 year old woman who finds out she has cancer and she wants aggressive and expensive treatments, should that be covered by publicly subsidized insurance? As an alternative, she spends everything she has in end-of-life treatments but inevitably dies and her family doesn't get any inheritance, which is a key difference between rich and poor, or even worse, is itself bankrupted. That's the more interesting and more realistic issue where this is going, for both private and public choice models. Republicans have no plan for either. Yet have been decrying the only fix on the table for years. Its possible that no fix is better than the other options. Would you prefer a sharp stick in your left eye, or your right? Personally I'd prefer neither.
No you prefer people dying in the street by the looks of it.
|
The Pope is a coming to Congress this September.
Pope Francis will address a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress on Sept. 24, becoming the first pontiff to do so.
House Speaker John Boehner made the announcement at a news conference, then issued a statement expressing gratitude that the pope had accepted his invitation to appear before a joint meeting of the House and Senate.
The pope is scheduled to make his first papal visit to the United States this fall, with other stops in New York and Philadelphia as well as Washington, D.C.
His scheduled visit will take place on the heels of the summer release of his encyclical on ecology, a letter that will address climate change and its impact on the poor.
The encyclical, whose contents are yet unknown, has already garnered heavy criticism among conservatives in the U.S. who believe Francis is allying himself with a radical environmentalist agenda.
Source
|
Most other countries manage to have working healthcare systems that have universal care at a much cheaper pricepoint than the absurdly overpriced and selective american system, so that is not some absolutely arcane thing that is practically impossible to achieve.
|
On February 06 2015 09:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 08:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 08:03 coverpunch wrote:On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary. You fell for the political trap. Kids aren't the real problem and they're not what people complain about with "death panels". The real problem is the elderly - if you get a 70 year old woman who finds out she has cancer and she wants aggressive and expensive treatments, should that be covered by publicly subsidized insurance? As an alternative, she spends everything she has in end-of-life treatments but inevitably dies and her family doesn't get any inheritance, which is a key difference between rich and poor, or even worse, is itself bankrupted. That's the more interesting and more realistic issue where this is going, for both private and public choice models. Republicans have no plan for either. Yet have been decrying the only fix on the table for years. Its possible that no fix is better than the other options. Would you prefer a sharp stick in your left eye, or your right? Personally I'd prefer neither.
Anything is possible... Doesn't really mean anything to people or who were going to be left to die (or their families left destitute) before getting saved by distributing the cost of healthcare a bit differently.
Healthcare costs are growing slower than they were and more of people's premiums are actually going to healthcare
You would think after years of complaining Republicans would of at least had a plan specifically for children (and adults for that matter) who had insurance but bumped up against caps and parents bankrupted themselves paying to keep their child alive while they couldn't get new insurance because their child had a pre-existing condition.
Because right now had the Republicans actually got what they wanted on their countless votes those kids and families would just be shit out of luck.
|
On February 06 2015 09:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2015 09:03 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 08:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 08:03 coverpunch wrote:On February 06 2015 03:35 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:25 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2015 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2015 03:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:In the first Affordable Care Act case three years ago, the Supreme Court had to decide whether Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause or some other source of authority, to require individuals to buy health insurance. It was a question that went directly to the structure of American government and the allocation of power within the federal system.
The court very nearly got the answer wrong with an exceedingly narrow reading of Congress’s commerce power. As everyone remembers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., himself a member of the anti-Commerce Clause five, saved the day by declaring that the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was actually a tax, properly imposed under Congress’s tax power.
I thought the court was seriously misguided in denying Congress the power under the Commerce Clause to intervene in a sector of the economy that accounts for more than 17 percent of the gross national product. But even I have to concede that the debate over structure has deep roots in the country’s history and a legitimate claim on the Supreme Court’s attention. People will be debating it as long as the flag waves.
But the new Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, to be argued four weeks from now, is different, a case of statutory, not constitutional, interpretation. The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of a partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.
At the invitation of a group of people determined to render the Affordable Care Act unworkable (the nominal plaintiffs are four Virginia residents who can’t afford health insurance but who want to be declared ineligible for the federal tax subsidies that would make insurance affordable for them), the justices have agreed to decide whether the statute as written in fact refutes one of the several titles that Congress gave it: “Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, more than seven million people who bought their insurance in the 34 states where the federal government set up the marketplaces, known as exchanges, will lose their tax subsidies. The market for affordable individual health insurance will collapse in the face of shrinking numbers of insured people and skyrocketing premiums, the very “death spiral” that the Affordable Care Act was designed to prevent. Source It's just astounding to me that for years Republicans have been trying to scrap the ACA but they still don't have a plan for all the people they would be screwing out of coverage, capless plans, pre-exsisting conditions, etc... Maybe they shouldn't have been given coverage in the first place though. Consider social security for a moment. Because so many people are now dependent on it, its practically political suicide to consider altering it in any meaningful way. It's conceivable that there could be serious problems with the institution that are now unfixable, because any politician who tried would be voted out immediately. This is the danger with entitlements. Damn... Ok maybe some shouldn't have, but are you really telling me kids with cancer or other conditions should of just been left to bankrupt their parents before dying? I'd prefer if they weren't, but there might not be a choice. It is possible that there are major problems with the ACA that are now basically impossible to fix because so many people would be affected. They're practically addicts. I don't mean that in a bad way, I can't blame them for not wanting their benefits to change, but the fact is that might be necessary. You fell for the political trap. Kids aren't the real problem and they're not what people complain about with "death panels". The real problem is the elderly - if you get a 70 year old woman who finds out she has cancer and she wants aggressive and expensive treatments, should that be covered by publicly subsidized insurance? As an alternative, she spends everything she has in end-of-life treatments but inevitably dies and her family doesn't get any inheritance, which is a key difference between rich and poor, or even worse, is itself bankrupted. That's the more interesting and more realistic issue where this is going, for both private and public choice models. Republicans have no plan for either. Yet have been decrying the only fix on the table for years. Its possible that no fix is better than the other options. Would you prefer a sharp stick in your left eye, or your right? Personally I'd prefer neither. No you prefer people dying in the street by the looks of it.
Because so many people died on the streets in the US these past 10 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
