|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 27 2012 02:47 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 02:17 iGrok wrote:On June 27 2012 00:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 25 2012 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:22 farvacola wrote:On June 25 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 25 2012 01:04 diplomatten wrote:
In response to the above, it would be incredible irresponsible for the court to make a decision without having read the entire law. That's their job. I have complete faith that what they keep and strike down will be well thought out. I'm sure that they'll read the whole thing (unlike Congress). Hard to say, the nebulous nature of the current supreme court dynamic makes it difficult to tell exactly what brand of due diligence is being applied at any given time. Here's an interesting bit of hyperbolia on Clarence Thomas, the justice everyone knows as the guy who yells at people for asking questions. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/justice-clarence-thomas-should-resign The lack of detail and context tells you all you that you need to know about the quality of the article and the severity of what Thomas did (if anything). According to legal analysis, it is highly unlikely that the whole law is going to be scrapped. The mandate might be scrapped though. Most of the argument against the individual mandate is based off the assumption that if the government can force you to buy healthcare then they can force you to buy broccoli. But the defense of the mandate comes from the commerce clause, that government can regulate interstate commerce. So if broccoli is interstate commerce, there is no reason why the government can't force you to buy it. There has been many failed attempts to legally define where the government's regulatory powers end, as part of the commerce clause. But read the commerce clause, it's a one liner: "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" Nowhere does it state any limitation (other than it being interstate commerce). If it's interstate commerce (which healthcare is), then the government can regulate and that's that. Funny thing about that, healthcare may be interstate commerce, but health insurance is not. Not exactly. While you can only purchase a health insurance plan sold within your state, that plan will still cover treatments/etc performed in other states. (depending on the plan, this might be reimbursed at out-of-network rates)
I'm pretty sure there is a legal precedent that health insurance is not interstate commerce. I can't remember what the case is though, so I suppose I could be wrong.
|
On June 27 2012 02:52 iGrok wrote:
I'm pretty sure there is a legal precedent that health insurance is not interstate commerce. I can't remember what the case is though, so I suppose I could be wrong.
That's totally possible. (also my post might have been harsher than it should have) I think such a ruling would be wrong, given that your insurance still covers your health expenditures across state lines, but that doesn't mean a court wouldn't make such a ruling 
|
Tomorrow!!! (I'm such a nerd).
I'll be writing up memo's explaining the impact to laypersons all day, but I'll be around to discuss it and break it down later in the night. I'll be able to discuss the political ramifications of a lot of it, in particular.
My personal interest: Will Scalia secure enough support to kill Wickard? My brain and gut say no, but I hope he does out of curiosity's sake. Wickard overruled would be a HUGE win for Republicans/states-rights, regardless of what else happens in the decision.
|
On June 27 2012 21:23 BluePanther wrote:
My personal interest: Will Scalia secure enough support to kill Wickard? My brain and gut say no, but I hope he does out of curiosity's sake. Wickard overruled would be a HUGE win for Republicans/states-rights, regardless of what else happens in the decision.
As much as I'd like to see Wickard overruled, I don't see it happening. There will be a lot of language that limits Wickard, but the outright overruling of Wickard isn't necessary to get rid of the individual mandate because the question presented is different.
|
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy.
|
On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy.
I would like to echo this. Knowing if I fall ill, I have a support network behind me. It's a great boost to quality of life and well being. Keep pushing to get what everyone else has, you deserve it.
|
On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy.
Probably because of health insurance. Healthcare here is a commodity and not a right, insurance is big business and has alot of lobbying power in congress.
Basically you have to either hope you don't get seriously sick. Having health insurance tied to your job is also dumb as fuck, pretty much making you a slave as you will be hard pressed to leave for an even better job, just because of health insurance.
I've been unemployed for awhile now and honestly I don't know what I would do if I had a serious medical emergency. I would probably try to leave the country and start a new life because I don't believe in funneling a ridiculous amount of money into something so fucking corrupt.
Honestly, I have been looking into work overseas and later becoming a citizen of a foreign country. I don't want to have my kids growing up here where they have to worry about being out on the street just because they had to go to the hospital. Fuck that.
The same thing is happening with dental care too. There is even a brand new frontline episode about it. Not like it matters though, the U.S would never implement any sane system to take care of these people seeing as how dentists have to bullshit the price of everything to pay back their ridiculous amounts of student loan debt that they get once they graduate.
|
On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy.
seems like an incredible oversimplification of the issue, dont you think? the "justification" is cost and government involvement. who should bear the cost, and should the government impose individual mandates on its citizens? reasonable minds differ as to these issues.
|
On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy.
Just to be clear, the Obamacare debate isn't about the constitutionality of government-provided, universal healthcare, and tomorrow's decision will do nothing to change the fact that true universal healthcare is constitutional. The objection to Obamacare is how it implements a solution to the healthcare industry in the US. Basically, if the federal government is allowed to implement something like Obamacare with its individual mandate, then there basically is nothing that the federal government can't do.
As for why Americans are hesitant to implement a European-style universal healthcare solution, it's really a combination of two factors: 1) most Americans have access to health care that they really like, and 2) many (if not most) Americans fundamentally object to the government taking over the healthcare industry.
|
On June 28 2012 04:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. Just to be clear, the Obamacare debate isn't about the constitutionality of government-provided, universal healthcare, and tomorrow's decision will do nothing to change the fact that true universal healthcare is constitutional. The objection to Obamacare is how it implements a solution to the healthcare industry in the US. Basically, if the federal government is allowed to implement something like Obamacare with its individual mandate, then there basically is nothing that the federal government can't do. As for why Americans are hesitant to implement a European-style universal healthcare solution, it's really a combination of two factors: 1) most Americans have access to health care that they really like, and 2) many (if not most) Americans fundamentally object to the government taking over the healthcare industry.
I would further suggest that many (if not most) Americans do not want the government ruling yet another part of their lives, whether they support the current government or not.
|
On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy.
Has nobody ever died in a socialist health care system in a way that could have been prevented or would have been prevented in the US? There are no free lunches. Socializing your health care and having the State rather than the price mechanism ration it isn't magic.
|
On June 28 2012 03:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
seems like an incredible oversimplification of the issue, dont you think? the "justification" is cost and government involvement. who should bear the cost, and should the government impose individual mandates on its citizens? reasonable minds differ as to these issues.
No, I don't think it is an oversimplification at all. It is actually exactly what it is. Everybody helps so that everybody has access to good, affordable healthcare. Not doing it and leaving a large portion of a population behind to suffer is a grave injustice. It is simply not reasonable, it is selfish and shortsighted.
Someone mentioned that people differ on the how. So how should it be done then? Either you get a government controlled healthcare through taxes, and then everybody pays it through their taxes. Or everybody pays a certain fee for a service, and costs are covered that way. What other way is there that equally spread the burden across the citizens and give everybody access to good care?
|
On June 28 2012 03:28 Enki wrote:
Probably because of health insurance. Healthcare here is a commodity and not a right, insurance is big business and has alot of lobbying power in congress.
Yeah, then it makes sense I guess...I think people don't understand that if the costs are spread across everyone, then individually you actually pay less. And having a government that control these things can actually be a very good thing. I will give a simple example. In the Netherlands we have started an experiment where the prices of dental care are no longer under control of the government. In 3 months the prices went up by 10% on average, with 60% rise in cost in some areas. Needless to say, the government is now planning to terminate the project and take back control, because not every market is suitable for capitalism/liberalism.
|
On June 28 2012 05:18 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 03:28 Enki wrote:
Probably because of health insurance. Healthcare here is a commodity and not a right, insurance is big business and has alot of lobbying power in congress. Yeah, then it makes sense I guess...I think people don't understand that if the costs are spread across everyone, then individually you actually pay less. And having a government that control these things can actually be a very good thing. I will give a simple example. In the Netherlands we have started an experiment where the prices of dental care are no longer under control of the government. In 3 months the prices went up by 10% on average, with 60% rise in cost in some areas. Needless to say, the government is now planning to terminate the project and take back control, because not every market is suitable for capitalism/liberalism.
If your government is ending the experiment, they are stupid. You need someone capable of understanding markets and the long run... Prices go up. So what happens? More people become dentists to make money and you end up with higher supply and more competition. End result? Cheaper, competitive dentistry.
The problem with this is that people are too stupid to let the process work. The exact same thing applies to rent control. If you prevent people from making money in field X, field X becomes much less attractive both by number and quality of people who go in to it.
|
On June 28 2012 05:12 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. Has nobody ever died in a socialist health care system in a way that could have been prevented or would have been prevented in the US? There are no free lunches. Socializing your health care and having the State rather than the price mechanism ration it isn't magic.
If you think a price mechanism is all that factors into the distribution of health insurance here in the US then you are sorely mistaken. All I have to say is "pre-existing condition". And where are the stats to back these claims of satiety on the part of Americans being happy with the current system of health insurance? If anything, the topic is incredibly muddled in this respect.
Some slightly dated but relevant reading on the difficult to ascertain nature of public health insurance opinion.
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC) Insurance.pdf
|
On June 28 2012 05:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:12 Romantic wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. Has nobody ever died in a socialist health care system in a way that could have been prevented or would have been prevented in the US? There are no free lunches. Socializing your health care and having the State rather than the price mechanism ration it isn't magic. If you think a price mechanism is all that factors into the distribution of health insurance here in the US then you are sorely mistaken. All I have to say is "pre-existing condition". And where are the stats to back these claims of satiety on the part of Americans being happy with the current system of health insurance? If anything, the topic is incredibly muddled in this respect. Some slightly dated but relevant reading on the difficult to ascertain nature of public health insurance opinion. http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC) Insurance.pdf
It doesn't work fully in the US because the government has already intervened to a massive degree and fucked up beyond belief. That is no argument for further government intervention.
|
On June 28 2012 05:25 Romantic wrote:
If your government is ending the experiment, they are stupid. You need someone capable of understanding markets and the long run... Prices go up. So what happens? More people become dentists to make money and you end up with higher supply and more competition. End result? Cheaper, competitive dentistry.
The problem with this is that people are too stupid to let the process work. The exact same thing applies to rent control. If you prevent people from making money in field X, field X becomes much less attractive both by number and quality of people who go in to it.
So explain to me, how cheap is healthcare, and how cheap is dentistry in the USA? Give me some prices here. Because here the government is actually actively putting pressure on companies to keep their prices low. So just give me a price, let's compare and see who is better off. Liberalism does not work in every case, I could go in-depth, but it does not take much thought to figure out in what situation there is no actual competition on a market and what this does to prices.
|
On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy.
i don't generally approve of taking money away from the poorer sectors of society to give to the richer sectors of society, which is exactly what the mandate does.
|
On June 28 2012 05:13 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 03:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
seems like an incredible oversimplification of the issue, dont you think? the "justification" is cost and government involvement. who should bear the cost, and should the government impose individual mandates on its citizens? reasonable minds differ as to these issues. No, I don't think it is an oversimplification at all. It is actually exactly what it is. Everybody helps so that everybody has access to good, affordable healthcare. Not doing it and leaving a large portion of a population behind to suffer is a grave injustice. It is simply not reasonable, it is selfish and shortsighted. Someone mentioned that people differ on the how. So how should it be done then? Either you get a government controlled healthcare through taxes, and then everybody pays it through their taxes. Or everybody pays a certain fee for a service, and costs are covered that way. What other way is there that equally spread the burden across the citizens and give everybody access to good care?
weird that you would quote and then cut out the embedded quote, but whatever.
nobody is going to argue that universal health care is a bad thing. that discussion is not going to happen. the question is how to make universal health care a possibility. thats where the argument is and your statement, which you have deleted from the quote, did not address that at all.
|
On June 28 2012 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. i don't generally approve of taking money away from the poorer sectors of society to give to the richer sectors of society, which is exactly what the mandate does.
If the system is in any way similar to the European system, then it is actually there to protect everyone, including the poor, and give them access to good healthcare, just like the middle-class and the rich have access to it. It does not change my situation whatsoever if the USA implements this, all I can say is that I am very happy about the system we have in Europe, and it is worth investing in, and I wish it for all Americans too to have access to such a system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
