Pages

  • Sharebar

Obamacare has been upheld as a tax but not as a penalty. Shitty day for the country.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

Comments (212)

  • SirBarney's picture

    Interesting to see what the opinions are...If it comes out 5-4, even more hell will break loose

    EDIT: Turns out it was 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals...interesting

  • TNA's picture

    Obama increased taxes, that is the ultimate take away. Sold this as not a tax when it was always a tax.

  • BillyRay05's picture

    Not a perfect law (although it does make sure that insurance firms have to provide coverage to everyone despite ailment, and can't eye gauge people on price), but if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different... But then again, we would have to goto JDOasis for the proper play by play...

    "Sounds to me like you guys a couple of bookies."

  • Miamimonkey's picture

    It's a great outcome, we are the leader of the world and we need all our people to have access to healthcare. Hospitals and healthcare providers are going to get a boost, less uninsured people to treat.
    We are on the right track!

  • Proposition Joe's picture

    Congrats to anyone who is long Hospital stocks

    I'm like one of them marriage counselors. Charge by the hour to tell some fool he needa bring some flowers home. Then charge another hour telling the bitch she oughta suck some cock every little once in a while. Keep a marriage strong like that. -Prop Joe

  • gordo's picture

    this is ridiculous, sad day for America

  • rls's picture

    Unbelievable, yet unsurprising. So, this is what it feels like to live under a government of unlimited authority and power...

    The truly fearful aspect of this decision is the future implication. There is no 'bright line', as they say, based on the way the SCOTUS decided to uphold the individual mandate as a taxing power. Why can Congress not require you to do or buy [insert product or service here], if any financial penalty that is imposed falls under Congress' taxing authority? I hereby move for an amendment to remove the Commerce Clause- the intention was noble (stopping state-to-state trade barriers), but the results are an unmitigated disaster. And significantly curtail the Congress' taxing powers. Ah, hell- that won't make a difference because Washington doesn't care about the Constitution.

    Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

  • TNA's picture

    It is going to be an interesting re-election cycle for Congressional Dem's. Healthcare was unpopular which lead to them losing the majority in the House, but not only has this albatross been upheld, but the fact that Congressional Dem's just increased taxes on All Americans, not just the rich, is going to really hurt them.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation. Learn More.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions. Learn More.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews. Learn More.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews. Learn More.

  • blastoise's picture

    in before thread is 30 pages

  • In reply to BillyRay05
    UFOinsider's picture

    BillyRay05:
    if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different

    I first came around on this logic as well. Conceptually, I see health care is more important. I'm not sure why it took so long for America to wake up to this. I personally prefer to have private insurance but I understand that many people can not afford it.

    The primary public objection is that this is an infringment of freedom, and in one way it is: who the hell is the government to tell us what to do? The motivation behind this doublespeak is a spectrum of concerns ranging from (1) personal greed (2) indifference towards the poor (3) ingorance of the hidden cost of uninsured on our system...it's massive BTW... (4) general assholeness/stupidity (5) fear of government abuse...I share this one... (6) fear of losing access to the better private insurance, and a variety of other reasons. Getting past the abstract theology of what is freedom and what is control, the reality is that the US is trending towards a public health disaster and we're seeing it starting to play out now: obesity, etc... It's incredibly obvious, and everyone agrees that the system is in desperate need of upgrades/overhaul, but the best we've got so far is the mayor of NYC cracking down on soda. That's just not enough. It's laughable how totally out of touch the management of the country has been on this, and for how long. I'll never get in line behind bringing Euro socialcare here, but I have no patience for letting the 'markets' fix this. They had their chance, they failed, it's time to explore other options. End of story.

    This is a first rate nation, and we've left the management of our most valuable resource...literally, ourselves...to chaos and neglect of publicly available knowledge, expertise, and funding. Instead of just trying to tear down the system (republicans) or rape it for free stuff (democrats), my suggestion is that everyone get their sorry asses in gear and start contributing towards making it the best system on earth.

    America needs a HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. The shoddy partial coverage of citizens and the piss poor mindset of disease management is costing us untold amounts of money and misery. My only message to the politicians that can't/won't see this is: get the hell out of the way of positive development.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to BillyRay05
    bigtool05's picture

    BillyRay05:
    Not a perfect law (although it does make sure that insurance firms have to provide coverage to everyone despite ailment, and can't eye gauge people on price), but if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different... But then again, we would have to goto JDOasis for the proper play by play...

    They can't make you buy auto insurance if you don't own a car

  • TheKid1's picture

    My economist professor (Went to MIT) said, Obamacare in the long run is actually good it will save people money in the long run. I forgot the name of it but there was a study done by a economist and it showed how universal healthcare can actually help people save money.

  • In reply to Addinator
    TheKid1's picture

    Addinator37:
    They can't force you to buy it but they can tax you for not having it. Jesus. Christ.

    In NY you have to buy car insurance or else pay a fine. Also didn't Mitt Romeny pass a similar law like Obamacare when he was governor?

    I like how people say "Gov't cant make do something or buy something I dont want". WTF? Our gov't doesnt allow us to do business with Cuba.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    Miamimonkey's picture

    UFOinsider:
    BillyRay05:
    if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different

    I first came around on this logic as well. Conceptually, I see health care is more important. I'm not sure why it took so long for America to wake up to this. I personally prefer to have private insurance but I understand that many people can not afford it.

    The primary public objection is that this is an infringment of freedom, and in one way it is: who the hell is the government to tell us what to do? The motivation behind this doublespeak is a spectrum of concerns ranging from (1) personal greed (2) indifference towards the poor (3) ingorance of the hidden cost of uninsured on our system...it's massive BTW... (4) general assholeness/stupidity (5) fear of government abuse...I share this one... (6) fear of losing access to the better private insurance, and a variety of other reasons. Getting past the abstract theology of what is freedom and what is control, the reality is that the US is trending towards a public health disaster and we're seeing it starting to play out now: obesity, etc... It's incredibly obvious, and everyone agrees that the system is in desperate need of upgrades/overhaul, but the best we've got so far is the mayor of NYC cracking down on soda. That's just not enough. It's laughable how totally out of touch the management of the country has been on this, and for how long. I'll never get in line behind bringing Euro socialcare here, but I have no patience for letting the 'markets' fix this. They had their chance, they failed, it's time to explore other options. End of story.

    This is a first rate nation, and we've left the management of our most valuable resource...literally, ourselves...to chaos and neglect of publicly available knowledge, expertise, and funding. Instead of just trying to tear down the system (republicans) or rape it for free stuff (democrats), my suggestion is that everyone get their sorry asses in gear and start contributing towards making it the best system on earth.

    America needs a HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. The shoddy partial coverage of citizens and the piss poor mindset of disease management is costing us untold amounts of money and misery. My only message to the politicians that can't/won't see this is: get the hell out of the way of positive development.

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

  • In reply to BillyRay05
    WalMartShopper's picture

    BillyRay05:
    but if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different...

    um, driving is a privilege...living isn't.

    If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

  • trazer985's picture

    You've actually got close to what i think is the health service of the future, which is insurance for everyone, and people below a certain level of income get state aid, with some catches attached to it (Smokers stop smoking if someone else is paying for your healthcare, fatties lose a few pounds etc.).

    However the forced pricing just leads to private profits and socialised losses, which is why they hate the banks in the first place. Few western nations left to live the western life any more

  • WalMartShopper's picture

    anyone see this as a catalyst for romney's chance as president? i'd bet 100:1 odds against romney before this, now...maybe 10:1

    If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

  • In reply to Miamimonkey
    TNA's picture

    Miamimonkey:
    UFOinsider:
    BillyRay05:
    if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different

    I first came around on this logic as well. Conceptually, I see health care is more important. I'm not sure why it took so long for America to wake up to this. I personally prefer to have private insurance but I understand that many people can not afford it.

    The primary public objection is that this is an infringment of freedom, and in one way it is: who the hell is the government to tell us what to do? The motivation behind this doublespeak is a spectrum of concerns ranging from (1) personal greed (2) indifference towards the poor (3) ingorance of the hidden cost of uninsured on our system...it's massive BTW... (4) general assholeness/stupidity (5) fear of government abuse...I share this one... (6) fear of losing access to the better private insurance, and a variety of other reasons. Getting past the abstract theology of what is freedom and what is control, the reality is that the US is trending towards a public health disaster and we're seeing it starting to play out now: obesity, etc... It's incredibly obvious, and everyone agrees that the system is in desperate need of upgrades/overhaul, but the best we've got so far is the mayor of NYC cracking down on soda. That's just not enough. It's laughable how totally out of touch the management of the country has been on this, and for how long. I'll never get in line behind bringing Euro socialcare here, but I have no patience for letting the 'markets' fix this. They had their chance, they failed, it's time to explore other options. End of story.

    This is a first rate nation, and we've left the management of our most valuable resource...literally, ourselves...to chaos and neglect of publicly available knowledge, expertise, and funding. Instead of just trying to tear down the system (republicans) or rape it for free stuff (democrats), my suggestion is that everyone get their sorry asses in gear and start contributing towards making it the best system on earth.

    America needs a HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. The shoddy partial coverage of citizens and the piss poor mindset of disease management is costing us untold amounts of money and misery. My only message to the politicians that can't/won't see this is: get the hell out of the way of positive development.

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

  • In reply to WalMartShopper
    Miamimonkey's picture

    WalMartShopper:
    anyone see this as a catalyst for romney's chance as president? i'd bet 100:1 odds against romney before this, now...maybe 10:1

    I think it will be the other way around. Romney has no chance now.

  • In reply to TheKid1
    MPBYO's picture

    TheKid1:
    Addinator37:
    They can't force you to buy it but they can tax you for not having it. Jesus. Christ.

    In NY you have to buy car insurance or else pay a fine. Also didn't Mitt Romeny pass a similar law like Obamacare when he was governor?

    I like how people say "Gov't cant make do something or buy something I dont want". WTF? Our gov't doesnt allow us to do business with Cuba.

    Here is a link to a fairly recent article from Forbes which explains what happened with Romenycare.
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cac...

  • In reply to TNA
    Miamimonkey's picture

    TNA:
    Miamimonkey:

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

    Your assumptions are incorrect, healthcare is a right not a privilege. It is a basic need of humans. We are not talking about getting an Ipad here. Think about others that didn't have the same opportunity as you.

  • In reply to Miamimonkey
    WalMartShopper's picture

    Miamimonkey:
    WalMartShopper:
    anyone see this as a catalyst for romney's chance as president? i'd bet 100:1 odds against romney before this, now...maybe 10:1

    I think it will be the other way around. Romney has no chance now.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By72eQtjglM

    If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

  • TheKing's picture

    I think my favorite part of this is the amount of well-to-do white professionals on facebook complaining about how they "need to buy health insurance." As though they either:

    --Don't already have it
    --Would choose not to have it
    --Would forego care and die instead of going to an emergency room

    We're never getting single payer and the old system is awful. I'm pleased.

    Also, what are the odds that Sean Hannity actually dies of a heart attack on air tonight? I put them at 75%.

  • In reply to Miamimonkey
    WalMartShopper's picture

    sorry, but this is utter bullshit. wouldn't you say food and shelter are higher on the need scale? well why don't you tax for everyone who's starving and homeless before you perpetuate the insurance scandal that allows EVERYONE access to critical care, especially drug overdoses and elderly with no job (which is by far the most expensive coincidentally) and make my bill for a single aspirin over $50? Seriously, go to Canada...who knew America would become land of the 'handouts'

    Miamimonkey:
    TNA:
    Miamimonkey:

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

    Your assumptions are incorrect, healthcare is a right not a privilege. It is a basic need of humans. We are not talking about getting an Ipad here. Think about others that didn't have the same opportunity as you.

    If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

  • TheKing's picture

    To add:

    We can all argue that government can now tax us so that we have to own anything. One can make a hypothetical that somehow government will tax us in order to force us all to buy Chevy Volts. But, let's be realistic here - that shit is never going to happen. And, if it did, the people who passed that law would be voted out of office immediately.

    Healthcare is something that everyone on Earth, by virtue of our slow crawl to the true death, will partake in. No one is going to avoid getting urgent medical care because of some sort of principled stance. It just doesn't work that way. Before the passage of this law, you either bought insurance responsibly, got it from your employer, or pushed the cost of your healthcare on to everyone else.

    And if you try and argue from a "principled" point of view that you'd somehow forego care, I call bullshit. There's no way you'd let your parents or child die over a principled stance.

    Life is a long and difficult struggle, why not make it a little easier for everyone. We're all in this together, folks.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    BillyRay05's picture

    UFOinsider:
    BillyRay05:
    if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different

    I first came around on this logic as well. Conceptually, I see health care is more important. I'm not sure why it took so long for America to wake up to this. I personally prefer to have private insurance but I understand that many people can not afford it.

    The primary public objection is that this is an infringment of freedom, and in one way it is: who the hell is the government to tell us what to do? The motivation behind this doublespeak is a spectrum of concerns ranging from (1) personal greed (2) indifference towards the poor (3) ingorance of the hidden cost of uninsured on our system...it's massive BTW... (4) general assholeness/stupidity (5) fear of government abuse...I share this one... (6) fear of losing access to the better private insurance, and a variety of other reasons. Getting past the abstract theology of what is freedom and what is control, the reality is that the US is trending towards a public health disaster and we're seeing it starting to play out now: obesity, etc... It's incredibly obvious, and everyone agrees that the system is in desperate need of upgrades/overhaul, but the best we've got so far is the mayor of NYC cracking down on soda. That's just not enough. It's laughable how totally out of touch the management of the country has been on this, and for how long. I'll never get in line behind bringing Euro socialcare here, but I have no patience for letting the 'markets' fix this. They had their chance, they failed, it's time to explore other options. End of story.

    This is a first rate nation, and we've left the management of our most valuable resource...literally, ourselves...to chaos and neglect of publicly available knowledge, expertise, and funding. Instead of just trying to tear down the system (republicans) or rape it for free stuff (democrats), my suggestion is that everyone get their sorry asses in gear and start contributing towards making it the best system on earth.

    America needs a HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. The shoddy partial coverage of citizens and the piss poor mindset of disease management is costing us untold amounts of money and misery. My only message to the politicians that can't/won't see this is: get the hell out of the way of positive development.

    +1

    Well said. People want to believe that our current situation is some free market that has potential to move in the right direction. Wrong. A few players make big bank without having to provide large amounts of Americans with service.

    While I hate big government, this just doesnt seem right.

    "Sounds to me like you guys a couple of bookies."

  • In reply to WalMartShopper
    Miamimonkey's picture

    WalMartShopper:
    sorry, but this is utter bullshit. wouldn't you say food and shelter are higher on the need scale? well why don't you tax for everyone who's starving and homeless before you perpetuate the insurance scandal that allows EVERYONE access to critical care, especially drug overdoses and elderly with no job (which is by far the most expensive coincidentally) and make my bill for a single aspirin over $50? Seriously, go to Canada...
    Miamimonkey:
    TNA:
    Miamimonkey:

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

    Your assumptions are incorrect, healthcare is a right not a privilege. It is a basic need of humans. We are not talking about getting an Ipad here. Think about others that didn't have the same opportunity as you.

    WalMartShoppe, your thoughts are aligned with the thoughts of Walmart management. You are too young to be so selfish, think about others, put yourself in the shoes of someone without healthcare.

  • In reply to TheKid1
    UFOinsider's picture

    TheKid1:
    Also didn't Mitt Romeny pass a similar law like Obamacare when he was governor?

    YES. Obama's plan drew several ideas/structures from it. Romney is in the odd position of opposing the exact policies he implemented as a platform. Word of the day: hypocrisy

    Get busy living

  • In reply to BillyRay05
    rls's picture

    BillyRay05:
    Not a perfect law (although it does make sure that insurance firms have to provide coverage to everyone despite ailment, and can't eye gauge people on price), but if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different... But then again, we would have to goto JDOasis for the proper play by play...

    First, the requirement for car insurance is a States power enforced by states. Why does that make a difference? It is hugely important, constitutionally speaking. States have plenary (general) powers, whereas the federal government has Enumerated Powers. If a power is not enumerated to the federal government, it does NOT have it- furthermore, it is preserved for the States and the People (10th Amendment).

    The nature of car insurance is completely different to the nature of the individual mandate. For example, if you don't have a car, you don't have to purchase car insurance. If you don't have a house, you don't have to purchase residential insurance. There is no such escape from the ACA's individual mandate- existing is potentially a taxable event. That is beyond the pail of any Powers allotted to the Federal Government in an reasonable view of the Constitution. If a person's reading/understanding of the Constitution leaves them with an view that there is very little the Federal Government can't enact- they are wrong. The U.S. Constitution is a law for a limited government and no reading of history can change that.

    So, in sum, a state could require that its citizens carry health insurance. While we could disagree in principle, from the perspective of the Constitution of the United States- it would be entirely legal. For the federal government to impose such a requirement is entirely different and entirely unconstitutional.

    Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

  • In reply to WalMartShopper
    freeloader's picture

    WalMartShopper:
    sorry, but this is utter bullshit. wouldn't you say food and shelter are higher on the need scale? well why don't you tax for everyone who's starving and homeless before you perpetuate the insurance scandal that allows EVERYONE access to critical care, especially drug overdoses and elderly with no job (which is by far the most expensive coincidentally) and make my bill for a single aspirin over $50? Seriously, go to Canada...who knew America would become land of the 'handouts'

    See Welfare. Housing Projects.

  • In reply to Miamimonkey
    WalMartShopper's picture

    nice ad hominem attack. answer the question, if healthcare is a right (which the constitution makes NO mention of, and yes, there were doctors back then), why wouldn't food and shelter be a right? I don't see you going into investment banking to provide for the poor, but if you are, start with basics before luxuries.

    You have no clue of my background, or how old I am. I'm much older than the average age here, have worked with nonprofits and civil service. The people that will benefit most are those that abuse systems more than any. I know you think my stance seems cold hearted, but it really isn't. This country was founded on get what you work for, that's it. You don't want a nice house, car, etc...then sit on your ass all day.

    This is what made the US great, then as those who built this nation up become outnumbered by have-nots, they manipulate politics to make up for their shortfalls. look at the most recent political ads, do you think anyone with a decent IQ believes any of that shit? Of course not, it's your bottom of the barrel, easily swayable rentseeker that will vote for anyone with a hand out. It pisses me off to no end to see this abuse...and if for one second you think this legislation is for "the good of the whole" then you are just as naive and gullible as the guys who give a shit about romney working at bain or clinton getting a bj.

    "Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he who would act the angel acts the brute." - Pascal

    ^you REALLY need to ponder this statement as it is the foundation of any independence.

    Miamimonkey:
    WalMartShopper:
    sorry, but this is utter bullshit. wouldn't you say food and shelter are higher on the need scale? well why don't you tax for everyone who's starving and homeless before you perpetuate the insurance scandal that allows EVERYONE access to critical care, especially drug overdoses and elderly with no job (which is by far the most expensive coincidentally) and make my bill for a single aspirin over $50? Seriously, go to Canada...
    Miamimonkey:
    TNA:
    Miamimonkey:

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

    Your assumptions are incorrect, healthcare is a right not a privilege. It is a basic need of humans. We are not talking about getting an Ipad here. Think about others that didn't have the same opportunity as you.

    WalMartShoppe, your thoughts are aligned with the thoughts of Walmart management. You are too young to be so selfish, think about others, put yourself in the shoes of someone without healthcare.

    If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

  • In reply to rls
    BillyRay05's picture

    rls:
    BillyRay05:
    Not a perfect law (although it does make sure that insurance firms have to provide coverage to everyone despite ailment, and can't eye gauge people on price), but if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different... But then again, we would have to goto JDOasis for the proper play by play...

    First, the requirement for car insurance is a States power enforced by states. Why does that make a difference? It is hugely important, constitutionally speaking. States have plenary (general) powers, whereas the federal government has Enumerated Powers. If a power is not enumerated to the federal government, it does NOT have it- furthermore, it is preserved for the States and the People (10th Amendment).

    The nature of car insurance is completely different to the nature of the individual mandate. For example, if you don't have a car, you don't have to purchase car insurance. If you don't have a house, you don't have to purchase residential insurance. There is no such escape from the ACA's individual mandate- existing is potentially a taxable event. That is beyond the pail of any Powers allotted to the Federal Government in an reasonable view of the Constitution. If a person's reading/understanding of the Constitution leaves them with an view that there is very little the Federal Government can't enact- they are wrong. The U.S. Constitution is a law for a limited government and no reading of history can change that.

    So, in sum, a state could require that its citizens carry health insurance. While we could disagree in principle, from the perspective of the Constitution of the United States- it would be entirely legal. For the federal government to impose such a requirement is entirely different and entirely unconstitutional.

    You have some Latin crap in your sig, so I am def not arguing legality/constitution with you. However, forget that only auto owners need insurance, why do they require it at all in the first place? From my understanding, its to protect the lives and cost to the greater good of society for the threat that you could do with said car. How is health any different?

    I dont have insurance and get hit with two random slugs, I head to the ER, guess who is paying? I dont have insurance but have a serious infectious ailment that I won't find without a checkup. I pass it along to countless others...

    You see the parrallels between protecting costs and livelihood of others?

    "Sounds to me like you guys a couple of bookies."

  • In reply to Miamimonkey
    rls's picture

    Miamimonkey:
    TNA:
    Miamimonkey:

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

    Your assumptions are incorrect, healthcare is a right not a privilege. It is a basic need of humans. We are not talking about getting an Ipad here. Think about others that didn't have the same opportunity as you.

    Your value system, Miami, is the the one that is faulty. A good or service produced by someone cannot be the right of another person- even you need or just really, really want it. You can never have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. Although, I do seem to remember a economic system based on that principle...

    Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    levelworm's picture

    UFOinsider:
    TheKid1:
    Also didn't Mitt Romeny pass a similar law like Obamacare when he was governor?

    YES. Obama's plan drew several ideas/structures from it. Romney is in the odd position of opposing the exact policies he implemented as a platform. Word of the day: hypocrisy

    Reminds me of the infighting of the aristocrats of the late Roman Republic. Each faction was actually asking for the same (or at least not very different) set of policies, but they immediately vote them down if proposed by the opponent faction. So far, US elites seem to respect history.

  • In reply to freeloader
    WalMartShopper's picture

    freeloader:
    WalMartShopper:
    sorry, but this is utter bullshit. wouldn't you say food and shelter are higher on the need scale? well why don't you tax for everyone who's starving and homeless before you perpetuate the insurance scandal that allows EVERYONE access to critical care, especially drug overdoses and elderly with no job (which is by far the most expensive coincidentally) and make my bill for a single aspirin over $50? Seriously, go to Canada...who knew America would become land of the 'handouts'

    See Welfare. Housing Projects.

    We all know how great that worked out, but as long as there is a child starving or homeless guy on my way to work...I think healthcare for the jerry springer crowd should wait.

    Speaking of, where the hell did ANT go?

    If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!

  • In reply to rls
    Miamimonkey's picture

    rls:
    Miamimonkey:
    TNA:
    Miamimonkey:

    Well said buddy. People need to Stop being selfish and think about the benefits for all.

    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

    Your assumptions are incorrect, healthcare is a right not a privilege. It is a basic need of humans. We are not talking about getting an Ipad here. Think about others that didn't have the same opportunity as you.

    Your value system, Miami, is the the one that is faulty. A good or service produced by someone cannot be the right of another person- even you need or just really, really want it. You can never have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. Although, I do seem to remember a economic system based on that principle...

    This is myopic view of the system we live in. The better the general public do the better the top earners do.

  • TNA's picture

    As TheKing said, as a white, educated professional, this doesn't effect me. I'll most likely try and offset any increase in taxes through additional contributions to tax deferred accounts or I will simply use the system more to offset anything pay additionally.

    This is just going to bring shitty healthcare to the masses, while bankrupting the country and increasing taxes on an overburdened middle class. Expect more rules and regulations pertaining to what people can eat, etc.

    In the end this decision doesn't surprise me, nor does it have an impact on me. Government expands because it wants power, not to help anyone.

    It is also comical the people who talk about having a heart or not being selfish. This isn't about helping anyone, it is about benefiting big pharma and locking in a voting base. Any benefit is only a secondary thought.

  • In reply to WalMartShopper
    freeloader's picture

    WalMartShopper:
    nice ad hominem attack. answer the question, if healthcare is a right (which the constitution makes NO mention of, and yes, there were doctors back then), why wouldn't food and shelter be a right? I don't see you going into investment banking to provide for the poor, but if you are, start with basics before luxuries.

    Maybe because the founders thought something so simple didn't need to be spelled out? Can you imagine if the first amendment said:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting prohibiting the free exercise of eating food; or abridging the right to live in a house."

  • In reply to TNA
    UFOinsider's picture

    TNA:
    There is no law that prevents you from helping others. How about you stop projecting your value system on others by using the government to do your dirty work.

    The same could be said of the last administration's effort at restructuring the world along theirs/yours. Do you have any idea the misery they created for so many people?

    This is a positive development and reducing it to a debate abstraction really draws away from the fact that the country would run better, much much better, with this in place. Listen, I'm all for the private insurance and capitalistic element of the HC system. The public part of the system is much better off as an adjunct, especially with regards to the conceptual element of what/how is treated. I have private insurance and take good care of my health, mostly, so I'm not too interested in having the government as a primary provider if possible. In my own life, the government has directly caused more unhappiness than any one thing/person, it's just the way it's worked out. I have no love and little trust of politicians, and have personally affiliated with groups that have had local politicians imprisioned for corruption/abuse (like, federal pound me in the ass prison). But just as bad as active abuse is neglect.

    Ignoring the problem of the untreated health issues of other parts of the population will eventually cause very serious problems for the country as a whole, not unlike ignoring terrorism or China. I'm not beholden to these views and actually don't endorse this specific bill at all, but it's a tiny step in the right direction. For better or for worse, things are changing and trying to dial back the clock will only delay the inevitable...and cause much damage in the meantime. The cost/benefit analysis of better overall general health is heavily skewed in favor of individuals and the overall civilization saving a huge amount of money by treating things effectively the first time around, and better yet, getting ahead of the costs of unchecked disease. This can be put in cash terms or just as a measure of overall general health.

    Usually, I'm on some level of agreeance with you, even if I argue devil's advocate for the sake of understanding. But on this particular set of issues I'm pretty adamant they be addressed along the lines of what actually works. I cannot understand people that would reduce this to a parlor game of ideological sparring, it's very tangible and conceptually simple: health is a massive long term priority and simply has to be addressed. The mechanism is irrelevant to me: should a company like Kaiser suddenly take over, I'd be more sympathetic to the purely capitalistic approach, but it hasn't.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to WalMartShopper
    Miamimonkey's picture

    [quote=WalMartShopper]nice ad hominem attack. answer the question, if healthcare is a right (which the constitution makes NO mention of, and yes, there were doctors back then), why wouldn't food and shelter be a right? I don't see you going into investment banking to provide for the poor, but if you are, start with basics before luxuries.

    You have no clue of my background, or how old I am. I'm much older than the average age here, have worked with nonprofits and civil service. The people that will benefit most are those that abuse systems more than any. I know you think my stance seems cold hearted, but it really isn't. This country was founded on get what you work for, that's it. You don't want a nice house, car, etc...then sit on your ass all day.

    This is what made the US great, then as those who built this nation up become outnumbered by have-nots, they manipulate politics to make up for their shortfalls. look at the most recent political ads, do you think anyone with a decent IQ believes any of that shit? Of course not, it's your bottom of the barrel, easily swayable rentseeker that will vote for anyone with a hand out. It pisses me off to no end to see this abuse...and if for one second you think this legislation is for "the good of the whole" then you are just as naive and gullible as the guys who give a shit about romney working at bain or clinton getting a bj.

    "Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he who would act the angel acts the brute." - Pascal

    ^you REALLY need to ponder this statement as it is the foundation of any independence.
    [quote=WalMartShopper]

    WalMartShopper, you are mixing a lot of issues that don't make any sense. Please refer to the issue at hand, Healthcare for all. The better the majority of the population do, the better the top earners will do, the better the system will work. We as the leader of the world need to take care of our citizens, yes we need to take care of the minority of people that dont know what to chose or are unable. Don't assume everyone can make the right decision. Everyone is not as educated as you, or as privileged as you.

  • In reply to TNA
    UFOinsider's picture

    TNA:
    This is just going to bring shitty healthcare to the masses

    In the long term, this is a step towards acknowledging the realities of this aspect along the lines of good governance. If the GOP just wastes everyone's time trying to kill every program and the Dems just used it as a vehicle to hook up their interest groups, then we as a society will get what we deserve. However, I see it as much more viable and worthwhile that it's taken seriously and comes under such heavy scrutiny that it's a value add to the general system as time passes. The issue is mindset.

    Miamimonkey:
    This is myopic view of the system we live in. The better the general public do the better the top earners do.

    Excellent, agree. The current mindset (last 20/30 years) is to lord over the withering corpse of a rotted out husk. Why not embrace the idea of governing a flourishing system, and getting due credit for enhancing its vitality? The difference between control and real leadership.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to BillyRay05
    rls's picture

    BillyRay05:
    rls:
    BillyRay05:
    Not a perfect law (although it does make sure that insurance firms have to provide coverage to everyone despite ailment, and can't eye gauge people on price), but if you make it law for me to carry auto insurance, than I am not sure why this is any different... But then again, we would have to goto JDOasis for the proper play by play...

    First, the requirement for car insurance is a States power enforced by states. Why does that make a difference? It is hugely important, constitutionally speaking. States have plenary (general) powers, whereas the federal government has Enumerated Powers. If a power is not enumerated to the federal government, it does NOT have it- furthermore, it is preserved for the States and the People (10th Amendment).

    The nature of car insurance is completely different to the nature of the individual mandate. For example, if you don't have a car, you don't have to purchase car insurance. If you don't have a house, you don't have to purchase residential insurance. There is no such escape from the ACA's individual mandate- existing is potentially a taxable event. That is beyond the pail of any Powers allotted to the Federal Government in an reasonable view of the Constitution. If a person's reading/understanding of the Constitution leaves them with an view that there is very little the Federal Government can't enact- they are wrong. The U.S. Constitution is a law for a limited government and no reading of history can change that.

    So, in sum, a state could require that its citizens carry health insurance. While we could disagree in principle, from the perspective of the Constitution of the United States- it would be entirely legal. For the federal government to impose such a requirement is entirely different and entirely unconstitutional.

    You have some Latin crap in your sig, so I am def not arguing legality/constitution with you. However, forget that only auto owners need insurance, why do they require it at all in the first place? From my understanding, its to protect the lives and cost to the greater good of society for the threat that you could do with said car. How is health any different?

    I dont have insurance and get hit with two random slugs, I head to the ER, guess who is paying? I dont have insurance but have a serious infectious ailment that I won't find without a checkup. I pass it along to countless others...

    You see the parrallels between protecting costs and livelihood of others?

    The basis of your argument is flawed. Arguing pragmatism versus legality is a non-starter. There are plenty of pragmatic things our government could do for security, for cost-savings, for simplicity that would be gross violations of our civil liberties and the laws upon which our government bases its legitimacy. For the rule of law to work, the procedure and rules have to matter. Utilitarianism will get you nowhere fast. I don't buy the pragmatic argument in this case either, but I won't talk about it unprovoked.

    If you get shot or sick, no hospital should be required to treat anyone who cannot pay for their services, no more than a Burger King should be required to give free food to hungry people who enter their premises. Now, I hope the hospital you end up in has a charity fund or has some resource they would donate. And the history of the United States suggests that there is plenty of charity available to such persons. But, barring that- they (nor I) should not be required to pay for your services.

    Now, usually when I argue against the principle of Good Samaritan laws, the reaction is vitriolic and strong- accusing me of being heartless. But consider the other side of the issue. Hospitals in Texas near the border (and all over the country) are required to treat anyone who comes into their doors. Plenty of uninsured people (Mexican and Americans) come in, get services, and don't pay. Ultimately, many hospital have to close because they are not fiscally viable. Now, the whole community doesn't have a hospital because of the mandate, insured or not. Is that a more just outcome?

    Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

Pages