Justice Scalia: Let Them Die

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

She plays the general rule of Democrat Politics. Always maintain your ability to deny, say just enough to fool the masses, then vote as you are instructed.

Says the guy while following the general rule of Republican politics - always use the term "Democrat" when "Democratic" would be the proper term. Like a 9 year old would.

[Missy Mariposa]

Also, I'm not aware of any state forcing you to pay for someone else's insurance, yet that's exactly what Obamacare does.

So you've never heard of Social Security I take it? Or Medicaid? Last time I did my taxes I paid a good portion into both of those programs.

Even so - I'm not talking about you paying for anyone else's healthcare (which you do every time you see a doctor/use a hospital, as people who don't pay for their care drive up the costs for the rest of us as I already mentioned).

If we're all required to buy our own healthcare what's the problem? Like I said, we already have to do it for our cars. I just don't understand why requiring someone to carry body insurance so others don't have to pay when they're hurt is such an issue, but car insurance (so others don't have to pay when you wreck) is just a-okay.

[Raa1965]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The best way I know to bring cost down is to eliminate as many "middle men" as possible. Make all insurance illegal, all of it, and implement big time tort reform. Huge numbers of people are employed by insurance companies, doctor's offices (ambulance services), government agencies and lawyer offices just to create, handle and re-handle the CYA paperwork. Repeal laws that prevent special pricing and price wars amongst healthcare providers. In my opinion, that would drive 2/3 of the cost out of the system. Is a medical office going to charge what they charge today when the one down the street charges half? I doubt it.

Actually your very close...I could not find the article to rfernce it...but the approximate average is 34% of cost is administrative in nature...

[Raa1965]

Originally Posted by Doove

Actually, that was the Republican argument behind the mandate - until it became associated with Barack Obama.

Ironic isnt it!!!!

[Raa1965]

Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

So you've never heard of Social Security I take it? Or Medicaid? Last time I did my taxes I paid a good portion into both of those programs.

Even so - I'm not talking about you paying for anyone else's healthcare (which you do every time you see a doctor/use a hospital, as people who don't pay for their care drive up the costs for the rest of us as I already mentioned).

If we're all required to buy our own healthcare what's the problem? Like I said, we already have to do it for our cars. I just don't understand why requiring someone to carry body insurance so others don't have to pay when they're hurt is such an issue, but car insurance (so others don't have to pay when you wreck) is just a-okay.

My dear...your forgetting the Republican logic...health care administration is a big money maker...insurance companies dont make alot of profit on car insurance...so the staus quo is good for the bottom line!!!!

[Jackie S]

No dove, Democratic stands for a a system of government where each individule has the oportunity to vote for the candidate he chooses too.

Democrat is a Political Party made up of a bunch of malcontents who think the Country owes them something, lead by poverty pimps and panderers.

[CuteOldGuy]

We can have a mandate when we amend the Constitution. That is all it would take.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The best way I know to bring cost down is to eliminate as many "middle men" as possible. Make all insurance illegal, all of it, and implement big time tort reform. Huge numbers of people are employed by insurance companies, doctor's offices (ambulance services), government agencies and lawyer offices just to create, handle and re-handle the CYA paperwork. Repeal laws that prevent special pricing and price wars amongst healthcare providers. In my opinion, that would drive 2/3 of the cost out of the system. Is a medical office going to charge what they charge today when the one down the street charges half? I doubt it.

I agree with almost all of this. Insurance for catastrophic health care expenses is still a good idea. Tie that to an HSA as well as your other ideas and you would lower the cost of healthcare.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

What's the problem with at least making sure you can't bail on a hospital bill - if nothing else? Aren't republicans all for not having to pay other people's bills? Isn't that the entire argument behind not wanting national healthcare?

Right, Missy! Of course it has NEVER been about anything but defeating Barack Obama in order to continue to line the pockets of their corporate campaign donors.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The tenth amendment; state governments and the federal government are not interchangeable, as the current administration is likely to find out soon. Also, I'm not aware of any state forcing you to pay for someone else's insurance, yet that's exactly what Obamacare does.

In theory and in practice your state-required liability insurance does not really cover you per se. It covers the damages you might do to someone else or his property. Try getting your car fixed by your insurance company when the accident is your fault and you carry only the mandated liability coverage.

Originally Posted by Doove

Actually, that was the Republican argument behind the mandate - until it became associated with Barack Obama.

YES, Doove! All of the Teapublicans have proclaimed that making Obama a one-term President is more important than anything else including jobs, the economy, defense or anything else.

Originally Posted by Raa1965

Ironic isnt it!!!!

I agree, Raa1965! Not only ironic but selfishly STUPID!

The DemocratIC arguments are so much more on point in this thread than the pinheads who are trying to say that the Federal Government does not have the authority to mandate that people buy insurance.

Federally-mandated birth control coverage is attached to the Congressional Group Insurance.

The SCOTUS is a fucking JOKE. Decorum and tradition are casualties of the LIVS (Low Information Voters) here and throughout the country.

[JD Barleycorn]

This shouldn't be necessary but some people have their own problems. Health insurance versus car insurance.

Number one, not everyone drives and we don't force non-drivers to pay for auto insurance do we? We don't.

Number two, when buying auto insurance we can chose our deductible and we can chose our riders. We can chose a high liability payoff or not. We can chose not to have comprehensive if we drive a beater. Obama care allows none of that. We all pay and we all get the same thing...until we run out of money and then only some people get healthcare. Just like any other communist ran country the connected get care and the people get the dregs.

Number three; we can chose which insurance company we want to cover us. Progressive? They support Obama so you don't want them. No choice in the matter with Obama care.

As for plagarizing Little Stevie, I know I'm right. He is a plant (a violet I would say). It is not just his writings that are appearing in democratic sites but now what he posts is coming out of the mouths of democrats. So little phony Stevie go away and us big kids play in our sandbox.

[nevergaveitathought]

when you have fealty to an idea, that america is a nation of laws as opposed to the rule by right of kings or dictators, when you wish not the capriciousness of any man who may rise to lord it over the masses, when you have an understanding and regard for the separation of powers which is basic to our system, and you are amongst the very few remaining sworn to protect the constitution and upon whom the people rely (whether they understand or not), you tend to rise to the occasion. when you care not for law and the reliance it affords, when to you the constitution is some dusty document and we now are in charge and we are smart and caring, well be careful for the tiger you ride will turn to eat you.

when something is so fundamentally indefensible when aligned against the constitution as is the individual mandate, railing ignorantly about the SCOTUS as stevie does or wondering why we cant do this or that when "well we buy car insurance" or any other number of incomparable comparables, is frustrating. when there is no limiting feature that even the liberal justices remark as to what it may be, for they themselves recognize the flaw but heaven forbid, may wish to repress their own knowledge for the greater "good", there should be but one outcome.

this law could have been made defensible but it was politically driven. approaching the funding in a constitutional manner would have made the liberal base angry, or gone against some campaign promise, maybe required the use of tax credits, and required true compromise with republicans. but ultimately if a bill could have been crafted, it could have had the support of the majority of americans, but it went too far.

there is no exact telling how this decision will come down, the supremes vote today and assign the writing of the opinions, which vote they could change. but the gnashing of teeth you hear about the solicitor general's fumbling and stumbling and weak arguments advanced is based in one fact, a weak case, a weak case among trained lawyers, in a forum where one is unable to spew spin designed for the masses.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Number one, not everyone drives and we don't force non-drivers to pay for auto insurance do we? We don't.

No, we don't. But then, people who don't drive not only would not have reason to file a claim, but they couldn't file a claim even if they did buy car insurance and wanted to file a claim. Not true of health insurance.

Number two, when buying auto insurance we can chose our deductible and we can chose our riders. We can chose a high liability payoff or not. We can chose not to have comprehensive if we drive a beater. Obama care allows none of that.

Actually, i think it does.

We all pay and we all get the same thing...until we run out of money and then only some people get healthcare. Just like any other communist ran country the connected get care and the people get the dregs.

Dude, do you have any clue as to how the health insurance market works?

Number three; we can chose which insurance company we want to cover us. Progressive? They support Obama so you don't want them. No choice in the matter with Obama care.

So i'll no longer need to deal with all that open-enrollment bs paperwork every year asking me which insurance provider i want to go with? Another reason to love Obamacare!

Really? You're a professor?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Doove

Really? You're a professor?

Perhaps he is a Professor of Bullshitology!

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

So you've never heard of Social Security I take it? Or Medicaid? Last time I did my taxes I paid a good portion into both of those programs.

Even so - I'm not talking about you paying for anyone else's healthcare (which you do every time you see a doctor/use a hospital, as people who don't pay for their care drive up the costs for the rest of us as I already mentioned).

If we're all required to buy our own healthcare what's the problem? Like I said, we already have to do it for our cars. I just don't understand why requiring someone to carry body insurance so others don't have to pay when they're hurt is such an issue, but car insurance (so others don't have to pay when you wreck) is just a-okay.

Perfect, justify an unsustainable, unconstitutional government program by pointing out that we already have one. Good point, SS needs to be phased out as quickly as possible, it was never anything but a vote buying scam by FDR.

[Don't Be Daft!]

As someone in the "know" I'll share me two pence worth of knowledge on this hotly debated subject. My colleagues--other physicians...well wait let me preface my statement by saying "some" of my colleagues simply aren't in medicine for the correct reasons. But, then again I'm a bloody idealist. Probably why being a barrister wasn't for me. But, I digress...

Too many physicians that I personally know feel as if they will be far worse off financially. Utter poppycock! In the end they might well make more money than in the current healthcare situation. As a hospitalist the universal healthcare initiative wouldn't effect me as much as a private practice doc. And, it won't in reality hurt my private practice mates in the long run. The fear that some physicians won't be able to buy their third Mercedes in a year or continue their over-priced country club membership has many physicians firmly against any change to the current insurance situation. I guess its a wee bit hard for me to comprehend such worries because I never got into medcine to be wealthy. Yes, its a bloody nice side product! But, not why one should practice medicine--IMO.