Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:19 pm

So, the Supreme Court upheld Obama's Health Care plan after all.
http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-uphold ... 51908.html
Will wonders never cease? :geek:
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby drawscore » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:07 pm

Never underestimate the stupidity of politicians.

Drawscore

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Kyle » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:31 pm

Surprise? I would've been more surprised if they'd overturned it. Why's everyone calling it a surprise? The Supreme Court just doesn't rule against huge programs like this very often.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Chris12 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:42 pm

So? this is good news for you guys, right?

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:06 am

Chris12 wrote:So? this is good news for you guys, right?

To working class stiffs like me it is. Perhaps not so much for people for richer folks who can afford their own health care,, who think now it'll be an extra tax on them. Also fine for poorer people, because their health insurance will be subsidized (hence the attitude of the richer conservatives, who don't seem to give a damn about anyone else these days). Won't affect me much as I already have health insurance, although perhaps now the cost will come down a bit and starting in 2014 I wont' have to worry about being denied for pre-existing conditions (something that was used falsely against me to deny me my rightful coverage in the past). I think many people oppose it without really understanding it, simply because others around them oppose it.
Anyway, we'll see how it works out. If Romney becomes president it could still be all undone... though since he once proposed something similar he'd probably make at best a token effort to save face and then leave it as is when people object.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby skybird137 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:26 am

The unusual thing about having a public health care in the UK is that it probably forces the private side to be better value for money, and therefore more affordable. You get advertising for private healthcare that is aimed at the general public.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Kyle » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:38 pm

Chris12 wrote:So? this is good news for you guys, right?


It will be for the poor. The rich will largely be unaffected. They can afford their own health insurance. The middle class will bear the burden of this. That's usually how things work in the United States anyway: the rich have the resources to get around this kind of thing and the poor benefit while the middle class suffers from it.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:35 pm

Kyle wrote:
Chris12 wrote:So? this is good news for you guys, right?


It will be for the poor. The rich will largely be unaffected. They can afford their own health insurance. The middle class will bear the burden of this. That's usually how things work in the United States anyway: the rich have the resources to get around this kind of thing and the poor benefit while the middle class suffers from it.

Unless a member of the middle class gets really sick or has an accident and needs surgery and/or long term hospital care; like *I* did - then it's a much different story, believe me. One medical crisis can wipe out your life savings in almost no time if you don't have health insurance.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby drawscore » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:55 pm

Since I come from a military background, I wonder how this will affect military people enrolled in Tricare (which I think is a joke), and those under the VA healthcare system.

Drawscore

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Kyle » Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:08 pm

Jason Toddman wrote:
Kyle wrote:
Chris12 wrote:So? this is good news for you guys, right?


It will be for the poor. The rich will largely be unaffected. They can afford their own health insurance. The middle class will bear the burden of this. That's usually how things work in the United States anyway: the rich have the resources to get around this kind of thing and the poor benefit while the middle class suffers from it.

Unless a member of the middle class gets really sick or has an accident and needs surgery and/or long term hospital care; like *I* did - then it's a much different story, believe me. One medical crisis can wipe out your life savings in almost no time if you don't have health insurance.


That actually does make me amend my previous statement: those who find it hard to get health insurance will benefit, regardless of amount of wealth.

I'm not sure what to think of this. On one hand, the insurance industry is out of control and there definitely need to be changes made. I think few people would argue with that. And it's not really government-run health care (yet--I think that's only a matter of time now this was upheld, maybe as few as 10 years). But outside of a certain segment of the population who will benefit, I don't see this as a gain for most Americans, and if the federal government can make you buy health insurance, what CAN'T they make you do? This is setting a dangerous precedent in my opinion. Let's also not forget we're pretty much broke now and can't afford the crap we're trying to fund as it is. Personally, while I think this was passed with (mostly) good intentions and understand where it came from, I think we're in trouble.

And no, I don't know exactly what a better idea would've been. I'll give the people who support that this much, at least they did have an idea, whether it's good or bad.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby drawscore » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:31 pm

Largely overlooked, was the opinion that Americans could not be forced to buy anything, period, and that the mandate wasn't a mandate, but a tax - something Obama and the Democrats said it wasn't, and it's going to be an albatross hung around the Democrats' necks.

This could potentially open a huge can of worms. As it is now law that we can't be forced to buy anything, that could be used to cripple unions that have union dues automatically deducted from workers' paychecks. The argument could be made that workers are being "forced to buy membership in the unions" through the mandatory and automatic deduction of dues. And look what happened to union membership in Wisconsin when the state stopped doing it, and said that if the workers want to belong to a union, they could send in their own dues, or sign a payroll deduction form. AFSCME membership went from around 67.000, to around 26,000.

What happens, happens.

"Lord, give me the courage to change the things I can;
The serenity to accept the things I can't;
And the wisdom to bury the bodies of all the people I had to kill today, because they pissed me off."

And remember that red meat isn't bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Drawscore

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:19 am

On the subject of being forced to buy anything, don't we actually have a precedent for that? After all, if you drive a car, are you not require to buy liability insurance in case of an accident? Or is that only in some states as opposed to nationwide?
In a sense, the requirement to buy health insurance could be defended on the same grounds. If someone has a major operation and doesn't have insurance and also earns under a certain amount, the hospital - and therefore the taxpayer - eats the expense anyway!!! At least, where *I* live, anyone earning under $16,000 or so a year can get free hospitalization and medical care without limit for serious problems like cancer. No insurance required in such a case.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby drawscore » Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:26 am

The difference, is that automobile insurance is a state requirement, not a federal requirement. You are licensed to drive by the state; your vehicle's license plate is issued by the state, and it is the state that requires you to have insurance, not congress, and the ruling was that CONGRESS could not force anyone to buy anything.

Drawscore

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:02 am

Oh. Wasn't sure, as I haven't owned a car in something like 25 years. I can afford one; I just don't *need* one.
Still, if the state can require it and no one kicks a fuss, why is it so much worse when the federal government requires something along roughly the same lines?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Kyle » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:40 am

Driving is technically considered a privilege, and not something you have to do, so it's considered an optional thing. Of course, realistically if you live outside of a big city you just about have to drive, but you CAN live without doing it if you really want to and can make the necessary adjustments. Health insurance though is another matter. You can't exactly avoid having a body with health problems. Everyone has to get that. That's really the difference here. It's a thin line but it's there.

Most people aren't as afraid of their state governments requiring things as the federal government. I'm not really sure why, but it probably has something to do with the fact state governments are much more limited in their power overall than the federal government. Of course the federal government is supposed to have its own limits, but anybody can tell that's pretty much not the case anymore.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:25 am

Maybe, but all the same don't you think it's worth paying a little extra to ensure that if you have an unexpected accident or an illness (and aren't they all generally unexpected?) that you don't get financially wiped out, placed deep in debt, or have to have the taxpayers eat the debt? Or, as has happened to me, have the insurance company refuse to pay on some minor technicality or cite it as a pre-existing condition (even where none existed, as has also happened to me)? It's like social security or medicare; you gripe having to pay for it when you're young and healthy, but you'd be damned glad to have it if and when you (or older relatives you care about) suddenly need it.
It's bad enough we're the only non-third-world country not to use the metric system. Why must we also be the only rich country without a decent safety net for the medical needs of its citizens as well? It's so bad I know of people with health insurance who travel to third world countries to get medical care because it's so much cheaper there (not 21st century technology sometimes but still acceptable by late 20th century standards anyway) than here. It doesn't make sense that they should have to do this!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Kyle » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:42 am

What does the metric system have to do with anything?

I don't look forward to Social Security. It will be bankrupt long before I'm old enough to get it.

Of course it's smart to have health insurance, but should the government really be able to force us to get it? What's next?

Health care is always going to be cheaper in third-world countries no matter what we do. Everything is cheaper there. If you want health care as cheap as the Dominican Republic, you better hope the United States economy collapses completely. Your standard of living will probably suck really bad then, unless you're one of the few rich people. Health care will definitely suck. Personally I wouldn't even trust some of the rural hospitals in my own state, much less some of them in some third-world African country.

The fact health insurance companies can't cancel people for some pre-existing condition is one of the things I do like about this whole issue. That should have been changed a long time ago.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:01 pm

Kyle wrote:What does the metric system have to do with anything?

Our not using it makes us look like idiots who refuse to substitute an antiquated system for a clearly better one that other countries use.
See the comparision now?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby drawscore » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:32 pm

The question is, "Are the health care systems of Great Britain, Cuba, Canada, or any other country, better than the US health care system as it currently exists?" I have heard horror stories out of Canada and Great Britain about lengthy waits for treatment or to see specialists, but am unsure if these are isolated incidents, or the norm. I've heard dental services are even worse. There was even a story a while back about a Canadian government official from one of the Maritime Provinces, that thought so much of the Canadian health care system, that he traveled to the US for treatment.

Then, I look at government housing. From the looks of it, I'm just a bit leery of having these same people (or people of like minds) in charge of my health care.

Drawscore

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jack Roper » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:00 pm

Sarah Palin used to go to Canada for her health care.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby sarobah » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:22 pm

As a long-term lover of all-things American, I am embarrassed by the deranged reaction of “conservatives” to the health care issue. It is making the US the laughing stock of the world.
In Australia, our conservative parties make the Republicans look like the loony left. Here it was a conservative government that introduced tax penalties for the uninsured. In my own state, for years the right-wing parties were re-elected by using the threat that the Labor Party (i.e. the lefties) would do away with universal free health care.

This is good:
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/156090 ... age=entire

BTW – This will drive the American crazies even crazier. The major Australian right-wing party is the ... wait for it... LIBERAL Party!!!
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jack Roper » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:50 pm

Sarobah,

Yes, that's about it, an unhinged group fo lunatics called The Republican Party. This concerning a health care plan devised by both the conservative Heritage Foundation and..wait for it...Mitt Romney himself, who after passing an almost identical such bill in Massachusetts, declared it to be "a model for the nation." Now he's all "repeal, repeal, repeal..." What a bunch of sore losers.


Here are some aditional chestnuts:

Right-Wing Media Claim Supreme Court's Health Care Decision Is "The End Of America As We Know It"

Breitbart.com's Pollak: "The Supreme Court Has Made A Wrong Decision, For The Wrong Reasons, In Defense Of A Wrong Policy." In a June 28 post on Breitbart.com, editor-in-chief Joel Pollak claimed that if the health care law is not repealed following the Supreme Court's decision, "our health care system will be ruined, our Treasury bankrupted, and our Republic endangered." From Breitbart.com:

"More broadly, Americans' confidence in the judiciary will be damaged by this decision--as much as by Bush v. Gore. Liberals have long believed the Court is merely a political institution. For conservatives, it will be difficult not to see the Court a political institution whose rules and culture are hostile. It is now customary for Republican appointees to become more left-wing over time; the reverse almost never happens. The answer cannot be to win more elections. A bigger shift, in the legal academy perhaps, will be necessary to restore what conservatives consider the Framers' constitutional vision. And that could take generations.

The Supreme Court has made a wrong decision, for the wrong reasons, in defense of a wrong policy. If citizens do not rush to the polls to undo what has happened--and after today, I am not certain that they will--our health care system will be ruined, our Treasury bankrupted, and our Republic endangered."[Breitbart.com, 6/28/12]

Fox's Starnes: "A Dark Day For Freedom." During the June 28 edition of his "Fox News and Commentary" radio segment, Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes reacted to the Supreme Court's decision by claiming that "we are now living in occupied America" and telling "freedom-loving Americans to mobilize and reclaim our nation." Starnes headlined a post accompanying audio of the segment "A Dark Day for Freedom." From Starnes' "Fox News and Commentary" radio segment:

We are now living in occupied America. The supreme court ruled today that the federal government has the right to force you to buy health insurance. A ruling that jeopardizes religious liberty, and will force a massive new tax on the American people. Sixty percent of the nation believes that mandate is a violation of individual rights. It's time now for freedom-loving Americans to mobilize and reclaim our nation. [Fox News Radio, 6/28/12]

Breitbart.com's Shapiro: "This Is The End Of America As We Know It." In a June 28 post to his Twitter feed, Breitbart.com editor Ben Shapiro wrote that the decision to uphold the health care law "is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration." From Shapiro's Twitter feed:

[Twitter, 6/28/12]

Fox's Palin: "Obama Lies; Freedom Dies." Fox News contributor Sarah Palin reacted to the Supreme Court's decision by claiming "freedom die[d]." From Twitter:

[Twitter, 6/28/12]

See also: http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.o ... 5524a56692

and here is a video of Mitt Romney saying almost exactly what President Obama said on Thursday:

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/dia/track.j ... rRQk9OTnS5
Last edited by Jack Roper on Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Jason Toddman » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:54 pm

sarobah wrote:As a long-term lover of all-things American, I am embarrassed by the deranged reaction of “conservatives” to the health care issue. It is making the US the laughing stock of the world.

Aw, you beat me to it; I was planning on saying the same thing.
There's another thing I haven't seen mentioned yet: a correlation between availability of health care and life expectancy in the country. Despite bragging about being the best place in the world to live, the U.S. rates 38th in the world in this regard; we're even behind Israel, for God's sake!!! Many of the countries ahead of us have their own socialized medicine plans, I believe. Sarobah has confirmed Australia does, and I now many of the European countries listed here also do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy
Also look at the cost of health care by country:
http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsocio ... eographic/
Yikes!!! Look at that! The US is way ahead of everyone else. What a distinction!!!
What are the conservatives so proud of the fouled-up system we have in the U.S.?!? I just don't see it!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Surprise from the Supreme Court

Postby Chris12 » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:56 am

Yup, i believe Us is about the only western nation that has their kind of health care system. Its usually looked down upon.

[quoteBTW – This will drive the American crazies even crazier. The major Australian right-wing party is the ... wait for it... LIBERAL Party!!!][/quote]

Same here!!! :big: