tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Russ Douthat on Reforming Health Care Reform Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Some rural folks are intimidated by and or envious of their generally wealthier, healthier urban counterparts, and those emotions, once filtered through pride, typically come out as anger. and pissed because u can make twinkies in ur bread machine and they can't I don't need no steenkin' bread machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 linky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 bugger, I was hoping that was the directions for how to make twinkies in bread machine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The score is now tied 2 to 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The score is now tied 2 to 2 The NYT's deficient reporting notwithstanding, that's not how the courts work there, champ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 But I'm sure you're about to share your ACLU groupie talking points... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Wasn't the provision to require Americans to buy private insurance a sop to the insurance lobby and conservative Democrats? Edited February 1, 2011 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Absolutely. But the whole thing was thrown out--not just the purchase mandate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Nope. It wasn't. That actually wouldn't be possible - violation of separation of powers and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 The mandate was a trade for covering the currently uncovered and pre-existing conditions protection. If the mandate doesn't stand constitutional muster, and that, of course, still remains to be decided by SOTU, then we could have a situation, given the pre-existing condition protections, where people don't buy insurance until they get sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I'm continually surprised by how outraged people get about pragmatic health care decisions that are finally being discussed in the US. The requirement to buy health insurance makes complete sense -- you have to pay into the system that you will undoubtedly use in one way or another during your life. People who don't pay insurance are not exercising some personal choice or independence from the government. What they are doing is forcing the rest of us to pay for their healthcare. And guess what? I don't feel responsible for subsidizing some jackass who decided they were going to gamble on not getting sick or injured and then lost that bet. You have to pay into the system just like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 People who don't pay insurance are not exercising some personal choice or independence from the government. What they are doing is forcing the rest of us to pay for their healthcare. And guess what? I don't feel responsible for subsidizing some jackass who decided they were going to gamble on not getting sick or injured and then lost that bet. You have to pay into the system just like everyone else. Be careful or j_b will call you a Social Darwinist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 As long as I am not a flapping social darwinist, I think I am okay with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 People who don't pay insurance are not exercising some personal choice or independence from the government. What they are doing is forcing the rest of us to pay for their healthcare. And guess what? I don't feel responsible for subsidizing some jackass who decided they were going to gamble on not getting sick or injured and then lost that bet. You have to pay into the system just like everyone else. Be careful or j_b will call you a Social Darwinist. no, that takes years of Kocksucking or its equivalent, which you and your pals have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 after years of cheering on Bush and his disastrous policies, might I add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 so far, there have been 4 rulings on the mandate: 2 against and 2 for. The primary argument against is that the Commerce Clause doesn't grant the gubmint the power to punish people for NOT purchasing a commercial product. The argument for relies on teh principle that the gubmint has long required citizens to pony up for programs like social security. Interestingly, privatizing social security, one of the Right's pet projects, would make that program substantially equivalent to the mandate: forced purchase of a commercial product. In addition, the Right's argument against the mandate could be nullified through, you guessed it, a gubmint administered single payer program. It seems, therefore, that the Right is stepping on its own dick regarding their support of privatized social security and opposition to a public option in their attempts to fight the mandate. Oh well, no one ever accused the Right of long term thinking or consideration of easily predictable consequences. Still, the jury...or SOTU in this case, is still out on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 In the meantime, we spend nearly twice as much on health care as other developed nations, thanks to the insurance middlemen who take 30% of all expenditure for not delivering any care themselves, and doctors and administrators paid disproportionate amounts thanks in great part to doctors' unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 ...the Right's argument against the mandate could be nullified through, you guessed it, a gubmint administered single payer program. It seems, therefore, that the Right is stepping on its own dick regarding their support of privatized social security and opposition to a public option in their attempts to fight the mandate. Most, if not all, of the Right's misinformed whining as well as it's legitimate opposition to forcing people to buy private health insurance can be boiled down to the lack of a public option. Irony strikes again of course when one realizes that the provision to force people to buy private insurance from an essentially useless, parasitic industry was backed wholeheartedly by the bought and paid for Republicans (and Bluedicks) who now challenge it. Not a bad strategy when you're dealing with a somnambulist citizenry with the historical memory of a crack addict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) I might agree with you if privatizing SS wasn't also on their agenda. Also, insurance companies will certainly NOT benefit if SOTU rules against the mandate - they've pretty much got the sweetest damn deal in the universe under Obamacare right now. I think the numerous legal challenges to the mandate in various states are probably more viral than centrally planned. Edited February 15, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) I do agree that the Baggers are fantastically out of touch with public opinion. Given that jobs and health care top the list of public concerns, deficit reduction, SS insolvency a couple of decades from now, getting rid of Obamacare, and fighting women and gay rights seem a bit...off the mark. This is what happens when ideologues do the old fiscal conservative > social conservative bait and switch. As I said, it's Gingrich 2.0...which was soundly rejected last time during phat times. It seems to me that it has an even smaller chance of succeeding this time. Edited February 15, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 An argument I've heard rarely, but one that seems compelling to me, involves this question: If it is constitutional for the government to grant a special tax deduction to buyers of home mortgages, then why would it not be constitutional for the government to grant a tax credit to buyers of health insurance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 They won't benefit, but insurance companies only really lose if a movement for a public option emerges from striking the mandate. No popular mobilization/political will for that so no full-court press by the industry to whip up public opinion against court challenges. What's the prediction if the mandate goes down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Congress could reform Obamacare from paying a penalty for non-compliance (which is minimal and has no schemes for enforcement, btw), to an incentive like a tax credit. The problem is that this would decrease overall tax revenues unless there was a corresponding tax increase to make up the difference - a politically difficult thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) My understanding is that Obamacare already does exactly that: It includes a flat income tax provision that generally applies to everybody, but to everybody who has health insurance it gives a tax credit that negates that tax. For the taxpayer then, the choice is a simple one: Don't have insurance and don't get the tax credit. Else, have insurance and do get the credit. Edited February 15, 2011 by Crux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.