Pages

6/28/12

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

Comments (212)

In reply to levelworm
Best Response
6/28/12
levelworm:
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.

Most young people in finance pretend to be apart of this elite, even myself. We watched "Greed is good" is we took it for law. Until they realize that the real elite could give 2 shats about them and that they have no real interest in seeing anyone but themselves at the top. Seeing all these entitled kids whining about something that will be so minor on their paycheck is laughable- As if they dont carry insurance already.

People have the right to a healthy life in the worlds strongest nation. At minimum. This bill, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

I would hope more people would be willing to help others. You could have easily been born into a different situation and your life could have been a lot more difficult than deciding on a MO vs BO role.

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

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

6/28/12

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

6/28/12

5-4, Roberts switched sides.

6/28/12
6/28/12

Very surprised by Roberts switching sides

6/28/12

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

6/28/12

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."

6/28/12

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!

6/28/12
6/28/12
6/28/12

Time to look up the citizenship papers for Singapore

6/28/12

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

6/28/12

this is ridiculous, sad day for America

6/28/12

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.

6/28/12
In reply to BillyRay05
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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

6/28/12

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 BillyRay05
6/28/12
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!

In reply to Addinator
6/28/12
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.

6/28/12

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

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
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.

6/28/12

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

6/28/12

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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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 Amphipathic
6/28/12
Amphipathic:

Time to look up the citizenship papers for Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

Life, liberty and the pursuit of Starwood Points

6/28/12

HCA is up ~7% today. Rest of the market is down. haha

In reply to TheKid1
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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!

6/28/12

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
6/28/12

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!

6/28/12

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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12

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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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 rls
6/28/12
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.

6/28/12

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 freeloader
6/28/12
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 WalMartShopper
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12

[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
6/28/12
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
6/28/12
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

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

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.

Go beyond your own skin, and look at how many people this law will benefit. Healthcare costs need and will be addressed, but this is an important milestone for the progress of the country and of capitalism.

6/28/12

yall dont jump 2 conclusions cause Kanye has not commented on it yet, hope he tweet or youtube something 2day and straighten this out 4 us

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

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 exactly how I feel and have absolutely no other feelings on the issue.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to freeloader
6/28/12

And it took 230+ years to enact because???

freeloader:
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."

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

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
UFOinsider:
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.

Oh I agree, but in the end I don't really care. I mean lets face it, this was done not to help anyone, but to guarantee a voting block and increase the expanse and power of the government. Please tell me what government program hasn't had cost overruns and is nearly bankrupt. I am sure the drum beats for social security were it will help people and have a heart. Now it is basically insolvent and a third rail in politics.

Everyones goal on this site should simply be to maximize wealth and minimize taxation. None of this shit matters. We have less than 30% of this country with a college degree, no way of stopping illegal immigration and a declining labor participation rate. Half the country pays zero into the Federal government and we have record deficits with all time low borrowing costs.

Healthcare will be more expensive than it is planned, just like the mandate that was sold as not a tax is and was really a tax. Government will get bigger, borrow and print more and the uneducated voting base will grow, precisely at a time in our economy as we shift more into a service/technology based economy.

I frankly cannot wait for the heathcare to take effect because I plan on milking it for all its worth.

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
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.

I hope you put in some money on that Intrade bet. When I checked early this morning (9ish) the odd of striking down mandate was still above 70%. And yes I would like to take up your offer for that drink,or drinks seeing how big your profit margin was--in hindsight I should have insisted on some sort of profit sharing agreement, haha.

Too late for second-guessing Too late to go back to sleep.

6/28/12

Goodbye America.

In reply to BillyRay05
6/28/12
BillyRay05:
levelworm:
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.

Most young people in finance pretend to be apart of this elite, even myself. We watched "Greed is good" is we took it for law. Until they realize that the real elite could give 2 shats about them and that they have no real interest in seeing anyone but themselves at the top. Seeing all these entitled kids whining about something that will be so minor on their paycheck is laughable- As if they dont carry insurance already.

People have the right to a healthy life in the worlds strongest nation. At minimum. This bill, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

I would hope more people would be willing to help others. You could have easily been born into a different situation and your life could have been a lot more difficult than deciding on a MO vs BO role.

Billy Ray just dropped the hammer.

Obama to the haters: "U Mad Bruh?"

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

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.

Go beyond your own skin, and look at how many people this law will benefit. Healthcare costs need and will be addressed, but this is an important milestone for the progress of the country and of capitalism.

And I agree with you, but you are not looking at reality IMO. Government programs always go over budget. What is going to happen when costs for this are more than expected? What happens when we run out of money?

Living in the real world vs. an optimal world is a tough thing to do. Yeah, we can talk about increasing taxes on the rich, but the rich will simply move, shift money overseas or do other things. The reality is that the rich run things, as they always have and always will. So in the end you will tax the middle to upper middle class because they can't run. So you will be fucking the people you are intending to help (because remember, the poor always did have free health insurance).

So in the end something to help the middle class fucks them. And the government gets bigger and more powerful, which was the ultimate goal.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

6/28/12

Sometime I am simply amazed at how stupid some people at WSO are.
You guys that are saying Obama has "unlimited power", you're idiots.
If you want to see what unlimited power is, move to North Korea. Hell it's unlimited power too, so what's the difference?

In reply to brandon st randy
6/28/12
brandon st randy:

I hope you put in some money on that Intrade bet. When I checked early this morning (9ish) the odd of striking down mandate was still above 70%. And yes I would like to take up your offer for that drink,or drinks seeing how big your profit margin was--in hindsight I should have insisted on some sort of profit sharing agreement, haha.

I got killed at work and totally forgot! I could have crushed that. Damn bro, we have to take advantage of that site going forward, their preferences are clouding their judgement...it's like free money.

Get busy living

In reply to brandon st randy
6/28/12
brandon st randy:

I hope you put in some money on that Intrade bet. When I checked early this morning (9ish) the odd of striking down mandate was still above 70%. And yes I would like to take up your offer for that drink,or drinks seeing how big your profit margin was--in hindsight I should have insisted on some sort of profit sharing agreement, haha.

I got killed at work and totally forgot! I could have crushed that. Damn bro, we have to take advantage of that site going forward, their preferences are clouding their judgement...it's like free money.

Get busy living

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

Oh I agree, but in the end I don't really care. I mean lets face it, this was done not to help anyone, but to guarantee a voting block and increase the expanse and power of the government. Please tell me what government program hasn't had cost overruns and is nearly bankrupt. I am sure the drum beats for social security were it will help people and have a heart. Now it is basically insolvent and a third rail in politics.

Everyones goal on this site should simply be to maximize wealth and minimize taxation. None of this shit matters. We have less than 30% of this country with a college degree, no way of stopping illegal immigration and a declining labor participation rate. Half the country pays zero into the Federal government and we have record deficits with all time low borrowing costs.

Healthcare will be more expensive than it is planned, just like the mandate that was sold as not a tax is and was really a tax. Government will get bigger, borrow and print more and the uneducated voting base will grow, precisely at a time in our economy as we shift more into a service/technology based economy.

I frankly cannot wait for the heathcare to take effect because I plan on milking it for all its worth.

Your view of the capability of our country and its people is appalling. Think about the collective good and move beyond Fox News rhetoric.

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
TNA:

this was done not to help anyone, but to guarantee a voting block and increase the expanse and power of the government

...this is a large part of the equation. However, it serves as an accessible vehicle for those who really want to push through a genuine agenda as well. The old way was so totally gridlocked that nothing could be done, this offers a new platform.

Sorry to chew up so much banwidth on this topic, but it's a big deal to me, I can't bite my tongue

Get busy living

In reply to TheKing
6/28/12
TheKing:
BillyRay05:
levelworm:
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.

Most young people in finance pretend to be apart of this elite, even myself. We watched "Greed is good" is we took it for law. Until they realize that the real elite could give 2 shats about them and that they have no real interest in seeing anyone but themselves at the top. Seeing all these entitled kids whining about something that will be so minor on their paycheck is laughable- As if they dont carry insurance already.

People have the right to a healthy life in the worlds strongest nation. At minimum. This bill, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

I would hope more people would be willing to help others. You could have easily been born into a different situation and your life could have been a lot more difficult than deciding on a MO vs BO role.

Billy Ray just dropped the hammer.

Obama to the haters: "U Mad Bruh?"

I don't know man. The issue that was contentious was the mandate, not the healthcare. The government has the power to tax, but Obama didn't want this to be a tax. Had he called the mandate a tax, which it always was, a tax from the get go this would not have made it to the SCOTUS.

IMO, National Healthcare wasn't an issue of debate, but forcing people to purchase something was. Now that this has been labeled a tax things go on.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:

collective good ... rhetoric

uh oh

Get busy living

In reply to petergibbons
6/28/12
petergibbons:
Amphipathic:

Time to look up the citizenship papers for Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

Whoa I figured in a place like that it was free market my mistake!

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
UFOinsider:
Miamimonkey:

collective good ... rhetoric

uh oh

LOL..having fun picking up words

In reply to TNA
6/28/12

[quote=TNA Everyones goal on this site should simply be to maximize wealth and minimize taxation. None of this shit matters. We have less than 30% of this country with a college degree, no way of stopping illegal immigration and a declining labor participation rate. Half the country pays zero into the Federal government and we have record deficits with all time low borrowing costs. [/quote]

Thats the problem, its not that simple. Whose wealth are we maximizing? Who is rec'ving the tax breaks? If you worked at a bank, then you know who really fair this concept is. Thats the reason why high cost/low ability VP's are still trolling around the office after a handful of associates and analyst get the axe. To them, its maximizing 'our wealth'.

Thats the problem with the current system- the few firms rec'v so many liberties and maximize wealth while hurting the rest of the country.

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

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

IMO, National Healthcare wasn't an issue of debate

...YES, it was, is, and will continue to be. The 'tax' thing is just a means of opposing it indirectly. Ultimately, arguments over the mechanism are irrelevant in the face of the concept. My way of seeing is that we're literally waiting for an obsolete mindset / value system to die off, and if it can be put down by force, then so be it. Is health an issue or not? I say yes it is, it's a huge deal. Those who say no have obviously been pushed aside. That's how it is.

Get busy living

6/28/12

This law provides no incentives for people to live healthy lives. That is what any kind of healthcare reform should be about. But, with an electorate that believes pizza is a vegetable, could you expect anything more?

My WSO Blog

"Unbelievably Believable" -- RG3

6/28/12

I think the real important question will be what stocks get a boost from this besides the usual suspects.

My line of thinking is that we will start seeing taxes on unhealthy food now. I am 100% in support of punitive taxes on sugar, fat, etc. This is probably the only way to really reign in healthcare costs.

Maybe short stable brands with overweight portfolios of unhealthy food?

In reply to BillyRay05
6/28/12
TNA:

Everyones goal on this site should simply be to maximize wealth and minimize taxation. None of this shit matters. We have less than 30% of this country with a college degree, no way of stopping illegal immigration and a declining labor participation rate. Half the country pays zero into the Federal government and we have record deficits with all time low borrowing costs.

.[/quote]
1. agree with first point, mostly
2. education is a problem, agree
3. grant amnesty, one time deal, eject violators of deal, tax their income, boom done
4. labor participation an issue, not my issue of expertise, I defer to your judgement
5. tax rate statistic being spun too many ways, revisit later
6. deficit is...should be...issue #1. End story

Get busy living

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

And I agree with you, but you are not looking at reality IMO. Government programs always go over budget. What is going to happen when costs for this are more than expected? What happens when we run out of money?

Living in the real world vs. an optimal world is a tough thing to do. Yeah, we can talk about increasing taxes on the rich, but the rich will simply move, shift money overseas or do other things. The reality is that the rich run things, as they always have and always will. So in the end you will tax the middle to upper middle class because they can't run. So you will be fucking the people you are intending to help (because remember, the poor always did have free health insurance).

So in the end something to help the middle class fucks them. And the government gets bigger and more powerful, which was the ultimate goal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the mandate forces people to buy private insurance from government-run exchanges? You know, Geico for health insurance? And private insurance prices would ultimately go down by lowering the risk pool? (the way insurance is actually supposed to work)

6/28/12

TNA -

National healthcare was never a debate because even uttering "single payer" would lead to an assault of "communist!" and other such rhetoric.

I also disagree with your myopic view that this was just to get votes:

1.) There are WAY easier ways to secure votes
2.) I truly believe that there are people in politics, including Obama, who want to tackle our problems pragmatically. Not everything needs to be viewed so cynically. I believe that this is the best outcome our system would allow.

In reply to miermier
6/28/12
miermier:

Sometime I am simply amazed at how stupid some people at WSO are.
You guys that are saying Obama has "unlimited power", you're idiots.
If you want to see what unlimited power is, move to North Korea. Hell it's unlimited power too, so what's the difference?

The difference is that we have the brains not vote a Kim into office. If we did, he could do whatever he wanted.

In reply to freeloader
6/28/12
freeloader:
TNA:

And I agree with you, but you are not looking at reality IMO. Government programs always go over budget. What is going to happen when costs for this are more than expected? What happens when we run out of money?

Living in the real world vs. an optimal world is a tough thing to do. Yeah, we can talk about increasing taxes on the rich, but the rich will simply move, shift money overseas or do other things. The reality is that the rich run things, as they always have and always will. So in the end you will tax the middle to upper middle class because they can't run. So you will be fucking the people you are intending to help (because remember, the poor always did have free health insurance).

So in the end something to help the middle class fucks them. And the government gets bigger and more powerful, which was the ultimate goal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the mandate forces people to buy private insurance from government-run exchanges? You know, Geico for health insurance? And private insurance prices would ultimately go down by lowering the risk pool? (the way insurance is actually supposed to work)

State-run exchanges, but yes that is correct. Further, the exhanges will allow small businesses and individuals to use group buying power (similarly to how massive corporations save on insurance costs). There's a fuck-ton of shit in the bill, but the crux of it comes down to:

--Increase the number of people with insurance
--Make it easier to buy insurance competitively
--Make the difficult journey of life a little bit easier for everyone in America

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
UFOinsider:
TNA:

IMO, National Healthcare wasn't an issue of debate

...YES, it was, is, and will continue to be. The 'tax' thing is just a means of opposing it indirectly. Ultimately, arguments over the mechanism are irrelevant in the face of the concept. My way of seeing is that we're literally waiting for an obsolete mindset / value system to die off, and if it can be put down by force, then so be it. Is health an issue or not? I say yes it is, it's a huge deal. Those who say no have obviously been pushed aside. That's how it is.

1) Healthcare might have been debated, but the mandate was the real issue of constitutionality. The mandate was and is a tax and therefore within the power of the government.

2) So it is ok to "put down by force" a mindset that isn't agree upon?

3) Yeah, healthcare for all is awesome. So is everyone going to college for free. So is food for all. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?

Listen, this thing passed and it is law. It would have happened eventually anyway. The amount of people who cannot compete in this economy is growing and they can vote for whatever. So this will pass. And it will cost a ton and we will incur more debt and print more money and China will buy it.

Until one day they wont. And then what? What is the debt service cost going to be when rates increase? Where we going to get the money when we cannot just borrow infinitely? If you took 100% of the paper wealth of the top 100 richest Americans it wouldn't bridge the budget gap for 1 year.

This simply fucks the middle class in the long run, exactly the group it was supposed to help.

In reply to TheKing
6/28/12
TheKing:

TNA -

National healthcare was never a debate because even uttering "single payer" would lead to an assault of "communist!" and other such rhetoric.

I also disagree with your myopic view that this was just to get votes:

1.) There are WAY easier ways to secure votes
2.) I truly believe that there are people in politics, including Obama, who want to tackle our problems pragmatically. Not everything needs to be viewed so cynically. I believe that this is the best outcome our system would allow.

Clinton pushed healthcare, Bush did and Obama had the momentum. This is a power grab. No one cares about the downtrodden, get real. Obama went to friggin' Harvard man, he can't even bowl. You think he gives a shit about lower income people?

Obama ran on hope and change and promptly perpetuated Bush's policies. He is a politician. This is about power expanse and votes.

And how is this solving anything? What large government social program is solvent and what makes you think this will be any different.

6/28/12

I'd seriously argue that many of the people against the bill know literally nothing about it. There are definitely some learned folks on WSO who can make coherent arguments against it. But, generally speaking, most people have no fucking clue when it comes to the bill and are against it either for fabricated reasons (i.e. death panels, socialism) or abstract reasons that don't hold up under any scrutiny.

6/28/12

I personally wish Obama would have pushed for a national healthcare system, ala Europe. It would have bankrupted this country far faster than anything else. Now we are stuck with this slow death shit.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
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.

Feel free to use whatever platitude you wish to soothe your mind. There is nothing myopic about protecting the rights of the individual- not to be abused or looted. You would do by government something that would be robbery in person. Refusing to allow the individual to be subsumed by the state has been the struggle of humanity since civilization began- clearly, you are not on board.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

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.

That's the short-term view. From a long-term perspective, if the ruling had been reversed, it would be a huge loss for the GOP. The healthcare problem is going to get bigger and bigger either way. If Obamacare had been overturned, the Dems would have been able to say for a long time that they tried to fix the problem but the GOP blocked it. The GOP would then own the healthcare catastrophe in this country for years to come.

In reply to BillyRay05
6/28/12
BillyRay05:

Thats the problem with the current system- the few firms rec'v so many liberties and maximize wealth while hurting the rest of the country.

The current system provides a disincentive for top earners to earn more (through taxes).
It also provides a disincentive for bottom earners to earn more (through a large welfare system, which approaches $1 trillion in anti-poverty spending, but the amount in poverty continues to rise).

That is the problem with the current system.

My WSO Blog

"Unbelievably Believable" -- RG3

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:
TheKing:

TNA -

National healthcare was never a debate because even uttering "single payer" would lead to an assault of "communist!" and other such rhetoric.

I also disagree with your myopic view that this was just to get votes:

1.) There are WAY easier ways to secure votes
2.) I truly believe that there are people in politics, including Obama, who want to tackle our problems pragmatically. Not everything needs to be viewed so cynically. I believe that this is the best outcome our system would allow.

Clinton pushed healthcare, Bush did and Obama had the momentum. This is a power grab. No one cares about the downtrodden, get real. Obama went to friggin' Harvard man, he can't even bowl. You think he gives a shit about lower income people?

Obama ran on hope and change and promptly perpetuated Bush's policies. He is a politician. This is about power expanse and votes.

And how is this solving anything? What large government social program is solvent and what makes you think this will be any different.

Obama continued some Bush policies, but has taken a different tack on them. i.e.) war on terror - almost entirely based on drone strikes. We're out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan soon.

Otherwise, he's implemented financial reform (I'd much prefer Glass Steagall, but something is better than nothing) when the entirety of the right wants further de-regulation of banks.

He implemented a market-based health reform bill that is, in my view, the best thing we could possibly get given that half the Congress wouldn't vote for anything that was put forth and Democrats come in a wide variety of flavors (no homo) despite being part of one party. (i.e. a Democrat from West Virgina is different from a Democrat from Silicon Valley / NYC).

Lastly, you are painting the situation with your view of what gov't should be. As you have made entirely clear, you believe gov't should be responsible for national defense and that's about it. You're extremely anti-tax and trust the gov't to do virtually nothing right. Obviously you're never going to like this or any other healthcare bill that would ever come along.

In reply to 808
6/28/12
808:
TNA:

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.

That's the short-term view. From a long-term perspective, if the ruling had been reversed, it would be a huge loss for the GOP. The healthcare problem is going to get bigger and bigger either way. If Obamacare had been overturned, the Dems would have been able to say for a long time that they tried to fix the problem but the GOP blocked it. The GOP would then own the healthcare catastrophe in this country for years to come.

Possibly. I mean anyway you slice it we would have or will have some form of national healthcare. In the short term this benefits the Republicans because Democrats raised taxes, which will be the rallying cry.

Either way you slice it though there is going to be a catastrophe. You simply cannot keep spending without increasing revenue (aka taxes).

Personally, I would do the same thing if I was President. The people want more government, give it to them. I love Ron Paul, but I never understood the desire to force liberty on people. They get the government they want.

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

2) So it is ok to "put down by force" a mindset that isn't agree upon?

3) Yeah, healthcare for all is awesome. So is everyone going to college for free. So is food for all. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?

I got carrier away by the 'force' thing, but I do see the debate as effectively neutered...it's a done deal.

As for the heavy rhetoric against it, again, it's a mindset thing. My personal take is that it's a highly important big picture issue and the details don't matter as much to me: a good health insurance company / doctor is going to get support from me just as much as a gov't program that will open the doors to good ideas (not that I matter all that much). Yeah I'm aware of all the bullshit that's going to come out of this, but in the larger sense there's a real opportunity.

Get busy living

In reply to 21 Lives
6/28/12
21 Lives:
BillyRay05:

Thats the problem with the current system- the few firms rec'v so many liberties and maximize wealth while hurting the rest of the country.

The current system provides a disincentive for top earners to earn more (through taxes).
It also provides a disincentive for bottom earners to earn more (through a large welfare system, which approaches $1 trillion in anti-poverty spending, but the amount in poverty continues to rise).

That is the problem with the current system.

1.) Are you seriously arguing that people stop trying to maximize their income because of taxes? Can you name one example in which this actually happened? "Hmm, I could make $15M this year, but I'd rather make $2M so my tax bill is lower." What?

2.) People aren't out of work and poor because they want to be, it's because the global economy fucking blew up after the debt-fueled sugar high ended in 2008.

To paraphrase George Carlin:

"What you're saying is, is that Rich people won't work hard unless we give them more. And poor people won't work hard unless we give them less."

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
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.

UFO, to quote Scalia, do you think that the gov't should tax citizens who don't eat broccoli or healthy food. How far are you willing to take this?

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

Listen, this thing passed and it is law. It would have happened eventually anyway. The amount of people who cannot compete in this economy is growing and they can vote for whatever. So this will pass. And it will cost a ton and we will incur more debt and print more money and China will buy it.

Until one day they wont. And then what? What is the debt service cost going to be when rates increase? Where we going to get the money when we cannot just borrow infinitely? If you took 100% of the paper wealth of the top 100 richest Americans it wouldn't bridge the budget gap for 1 year.

This simply fucks the middle class in the long run, exactly the group it was supposed to help.

So does the constitutionality of the bill really matter? The country is fucked no matter what.
- The debt service cost is going to go up regardless of what happens to healthcare.
- Wages have stayed stagnant despite growth in corporate profits
- Corporations are managed for shareholder value yet the stock market barely moved from where it was 10 years ago
- Education is the only way to advance the middle class but since state governments don't want to pay for it the federal government issues non-dischargeable loans with taxpayer money to fund degrees that won't really advance the middle class
- Young businesses are said to be a driver of job growth yet small business financing is nearly impossible to get from banks and small business healthcare plans cost so damn much

The middle class (if there are still left in that category) are already fucked.

In reply to TheKing
6/28/12
TheKing:

I'd seriously argue that many of the people against the bill know literally nothing about it. There are definitely some learned folks on WSO who can make coherent arguments against it. But, generally speaking, most people have no fucking clue when it comes to the bill and are against it either for fabricated reasons (i.e. death panels, socialism) or abstract reasons that don't hold up under any scrutiny.

How much you want to bet even less know on the other side?

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

In reply to Amphipathic
6/28/12
Amphipathic:

UFO, to quote Scalia, do you think that the gov't should tax citizens who don't eat broccoli or healthy food. How far are you willing to take this?

I'm sorry. This argument is so stupid, it boggles the mind.

1.) Even if some harebrained lunatic wanted to start a gov't broccoli eating plan, it would never be voted into law. And if it were, the people who voted for it would be thrown from office immediately.

2.) You will NEVER need broccoli. You will, without question, need healthcare. You will die. That is a fact. You will never need broccoli, you may simply want it. You can go your whole life without participating in the broccoli consumption market, you cannot do the same iwth healthcare.

3.) Scalia, during oral arguments, seemed to reveal that he: a) hadn't read the bill; and b) thought the cornhusker kickback was in it (even though it was not.)

In reply to TheKing
6/28/12
TheKing:
21 Lives:
BillyRay05:

Thats the problem with the current system- the few firms rec'v so many liberties and maximize wealth while hurting the rest of the country.

The current system provides a disincentive for top earners to earn more (through taxes).
It also provides a disincentive for bottom earners to earn more (through a large welfare system, which approaches $1 trillion in anti-poverty spending, but the amount in poverty continues to rise).

That is the problem with the current system.

1.) Are you seriously arguing that people stop trying to maximize their income because of taxes? Can you name one example in which this actually happened? "Hmm, I could make $15M this year, but I'd rather make $2M so my tax bill is lower." What?

2.) People aren't out of work and poor because they want to be, it's because the global economy fucking blew up after the debt-fueled sugar high ended in 2008.

To paraphrase George Carlin:

"What you're saying is, is that Rich people won't work hard unless we give them more. And poor people won't work hard unless we give them less."

Silver 'nana for the quote alone.

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

6/28/12

"A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave." -- Mahatma Gandhi

In reply to Amphipathic
6/28/12
Amphipathic:

UFO, to quote Scalia, do you think that the gov't should tax citizens who don't eat broccoli or healthy food. How far are you willing to take this?

To quote common sense, taking an absurd rhetorical position hasn't stopped this bill and will be effectively ignored. Either put forward and fight for (1) concrete proposals or (2) straighforward ideas, or simply be made irrelevant. Scalia is very good at controlling the conversation with complicated permutations of the same old ideas, but ultimately he needs to make a coherent argument as a judge. When does it stop....how about actually talk about that instead of clogging up the conversation with rhetoric.

Get busy living

In reply to freeloader
6/28/12
freeloader:
TNA:

Listen, this thing passed and it is law. It would have happened eventually anyway. The amount of people who cannot compete in this economy is growing and they can vote for whatever. So this will pass. And it will cost a ton and we will incur more debt and print more money and China will buy it.

Until one day they wont. And then what? What is the debt service cost going to be when rates increase? Where we going to get the money when we cannot just borrow infinitely? If you took 100% of the paper wealth of the top 100 richest Americans it wouldn't bridge the budget gap for 1 year.

This simply fucks the middle class in the long run, exactly the group it was supposed to help.

So does the constitutionality of the bill really matter? The country is fucked no matter what.
- The debt service cost is going to go up regardless of what happens to healthcare.
- Wages have stayed stagnant despite growth in corporate profits
- Corporations are managed for shareholder value yet the stock market barely moved from where it was 10 years ago
- Education is the only way to advance the middle class but since state governments don't want to pay for it the federal government issues non-dischargeable loans with taxpayer money to fund degrees that won't really advance the middle class
- Young businesses are said to be a driver of job growth yet small business financing is nearly impossible to get from banks and small business healthcare plans cost so damn much

The middle class (if there are still left in that category) are already fucked.

Ya, I agree with you 100%.

6/28/12
In reply to Abdel
6/28/12
Abdel:

Goodbye America.

Says the Canadian

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to wadtk
6/28/12
wadtk:
miermier:

Sometime I am simply amazed at how stupid some people at WSO are.
You guys that are saying Obama has "unlimited power", you're idiots.
If you want to see what unlimited power is, move to North Korea. Hell it's unlimited power too, so what's the difference?

The difference is that we have the brains not vote a Kim into office. If we did, he could do whatever he wanted.

What you just said makes no sense. First of all Kim was never elected (obviously). Second, if you do compare Obama to Kim, (which I am guessing is your intention), your second sentence would also be wrong. He was elected by the people, so he via your logic, he can do whatever he wants.

In reply to TheKing
6/28/12
TheKing:
21 Lives:
BillyRay05:

Thats the problem with the current system- the few firms rec'v so many liberties and maximize wealth while hurting the rest of the country.

The current system provides a disincentive for top earners to earn more (through taxes).
It also provides a disincentive for bottom earners to earn more (through a large welfare system, which approaches $1 trillion in anti-poverty spending, but the amount in poverty continues to rise).

That is the problem with the current system.

1.) Are you seriously arguing that people stop trying to maximize their income because of taxes? Can you name one example in which this actually happened? "Hmm, I could make $15M this year, but I'd rather make $2M so my tax bill is lower." What?

2.) People aren't out of work and poor because they want to be, it's because the global economy fucking blew up after the debt-fueled sugar high ended in 2008.

To paraphrase George Carlin:

"What you're saying is, is that Rich people won't work hard unless we give them more. And poor people won't work hard unless we give them less."

I think you missed the point. Your first example is a bit extreme to even address. As to your second example, what about the millions of people who were "out of work and poor" before the global crisis (and when did I say that the crisis didn't negatively impact millions of people)?

My point was that incentives should be designed to promote growth and wealth (no matter if you are rich or poor).

Why would someone work significantly more/harder to receive X dollars in income but would lose the Y dollars in government aid they are receiving, where Y > X?

Many people in poverty (and in the lower middle class) face effective tax brackets of 40%+ because when they earn more money, they lose significant amounts of government benefits. How does this benefit anyone?

Focusing on poverty (not middle class struggles).
Government anti-poverty spending amounts to ~$17,000/year per person in poverty. That is $6000 a year more than the federal poverty line. That should mean, no one is in poverty.In reality, we have a poverty rate of nearly 20%. Something isn't working.

My WSO Blog

"Unbelievably Believable" -- RG3

In reply to TheKing
6/28/12
TheKing:
21 Lives:
BillyRay05:

Thats the problem with the current system- the few firms rec'v so many liberties and maximize wealth while hurting the rest of the country.

The current system provides a disincentive for top earners to earn more (through taxes).
It also provides a disincentive for bottom earners to earn more (through a large welfare system, which approaches $1 trillion in anti-poverty spending, but the amount in poverty continues to rise).

That is the problem with the current system.

1.) Are you seriously arguing that people stop trying to maximize their income because of taxes? Can you name one example in which this actually happened? "Hmm, I could make $15M this year, but I'd rather make $2M so my tax bill is lower." What?

2.) People aren't out of work and poor because they want to be, it's because the global economy fucking blew up after the debt-fueled sugar high ended in 2008.

To paraphrase George Carlin:

"What you're saying is, is that Rich people won't work hard unless we give them more. And poor people won't work hard unless we give them less."

We're not worthy...

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

In reply to miermier
6/28/12
miermier:
wadtk:
miermier:

Sometime I am simply amazed at how stupid some people at WSO are.
You guys that are saying Obama has "unlimited power", you're idiots.
If you want to see what unlimited power is, move to North Korea. Hell it's unlimited power too, so what's the difference?

The difference is that we have the brains not vote a Kim into office. If we did, he could do whatever he wanted.

What you just said makes no sense. First of all Kim was never elected (obviously). Second, if you do compare Obama to Kim, (which I am guessing is your intention), your second sentence would also be wrong. He was elected by the people, so he via your logic, he can do whatever he wants.

Obama can do whatever he wants. You're missing the point.

In reply to 21 Lives
6/28/12
21 Lives:
TheKing:
21 Lives:
BillyRay05:

Thats the problem with the current system- the few firms rec'v so many liberties and maximize wealth while hurting the rest of the country.

The current system provides a disincentive for top earners to earn more (through taxes).
It also provides a disincentive for bottom earners to earn more (through a large welfare system, which approaches $1 trillion in anti-poverty spending, but the amount in poverty continues to rise).

That is the problem with the current system.

1.) Are you seriously arguing that people stop trying to maximize their income because of taxes? Can you name one example in which this actually happened? "Hmm, I could make $15M this year, but I'd rather make $2M so my tax bill is lower." What?

2.) People aren't out of work and poor because they want to be, it's because the global economy fucking blew up after the debt-fueled sugar high ended in 2008.

To paraphrase George Carlin:

"What you're saying is, is that Rich people won't work hard unless we give them more. And poor people won't work hard unless we give them less."

I think you missed the point. Your first example is a bit extreme to even address. As to your second example, what about the millions of people who were "out of work and poor" before the global crisis (and when did I say that the crisis didn't negatively impact millions of people)?

My point was that incentives should be designed to promote growth and wealth (no matter if you are rich or poor).

Why would someone work significantly more/harder to receive X dollars in income but would lose the Y dollars in government aid they are receiving, where Y > X?

Many people in poverty (and in the lower middle class) face effective tax brackets of 40%+ because when they earn more money, they lose significant amounts of government benefits. How does this benefit anyone?

Focusing on poverty (not middle class struggles).
Government anti-poverty spending amounts to ~$17,000/year per person in poverty. That is $6000 a year more than the federal poverty line. That should mean, no one is in poverty.In reality, we have a poverty rate of nearly 20%. Something isn't working.

See I agree with this as well. It makes no sense for benefits to be more generous than say - entry level jobs, there MUST be an incentive to work. Finding the balance, that's the trick. Where exactly is said balance?

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

In reply to wadtk
6/28/12
wadtk:
miermier:
wadtk:
miermier:

Sometime I am simply amazed at how stupid some people at WSO are.
You guys that are saying Obama has "unlimited power", you're idiots.
If you want to see what unlimited power is, move to North Korea. Hell it's unlimited power too, so what's the difference?

The difference is that we have the brains not vote a Kim into office. If we did, he could do whatever he wanted.

What you just said makes no sense. First of all Kim was never elected (obviously). Second, if you do compare Obama to Kim, (which I am guessing is your intention), your second sentence would also be wrong. He was elected by the people, so he via your logic, he can do whatever he wants.

Obama can do whatever he wants. You're missing the point.

No you're the one who is missing the point. He can't do anything he wants. In fact he can do very little of what he wants. The Republicans in congress try to fillibuster every single piece of legislation he tries to introduce. They even tried to fillibuster random deputy transport secretaries (aka nobodies) when he started his term.

Just the fact that the Supreme Court had to rule about the law shows that Obama is not an omnipotent dictator. If you dont understand that, then you're the one missing the point.

6/28/12

Literally no point in arguing with people who believe that the main cause of poverty is people not trying as opposed to a massively cratered global economy. Just no point.

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
UFOinsider:
Amphipathic:

UFO, to quote Scalia, do you think that the gov't should tax citizens who don't eat broccoli or healthy food. How far are you willing to take this?

To quote common sense, taking an absurd rhetorical position hasn't stopped this bill and will be effectively ignored. Either put forward and fight for (1) concrete proposals or (2) straighforward ideas, or simply be made irrelevant. Scalia is very good at controlling the conversation with complicated permutations of the same old ideas, but ultimately he needs to make a coherent argument as a judge. When does it stop....how about actually talk about that instead of clogging up the conversation with rhetoric.

This is not rhetoric, it's a simple question (which you did not answer) revolving around the fundamental relationship between the government and its citizens. I think that the role of gov't is to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected. You, apparently, think that the gov't should also act as more a parent, deciding what is best for its citizens, whether or not they like it. So if you feel that way, how far does it go?? What I eat, if I choose to go tanning or smoke? Where does the reach of gov't end?

As an aside, I really don't care much about health care bill itself, what bothers me is the implications.

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:
UFOinsider:
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.

Oh I agree, but in the end I don't really care. I mean lets face it, this was done not to help anyone, but to guarantee a voting block and increase the expanse and power of the government. Please tell me what government program hasn't had cost overruns and is nearly bankrupt. I am sure the drum beats for social security were it will help people and have a heart. Now it is basically insolvent and a third rail in politics.

Everyones goal on this site should simply be to maximize wealth and minimize taxation. None of this shit matters. We have less than 30% of this country with a college degree, no way of stopping illegal immigration and a declining labor participation rate. Half the country pays zero into the Federal government and we have record deficits with all time low borrowing costs.

Healthcare will be more expensive than it is planned, just like the mandate that was sold as not a tax is and was really a tax. Government will get bigger, borrow and print more and the uneducated voting base will grow, precisely at a time in our economy as we shift more into a service/technology based economy.

I frankly cannot wait for the heathcare to take effect because I plan on milking it for all its worth.

Summed it up nicely

6/28/12

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today's decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
6/28/12
Nobama88:

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today's decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

See, I love Ron Paul, but the majority of people want this. If someone is willing to throw away liberty for short term gain I say let them. Liberty is a wonderful, but intangible benefit. People like things they can touch, feel and consume immediately.

Liberty has been on the retreat for a long time now and will only continue to decline. The only true liberty is provided by wealth. Those with money can do as they please.

I'll keep supporting and following RP, but if people want to be slaves, let them. Focus on increasing your wealth and you will always be free. Let everyone else enjoy their shackles.

In reply to TheKing
6/28/12
TheKing:

Literally no point in arguing with people who believe that the main cause of poverty is people not trying as opposed to a massively cratered global economy. Just no point.

Dude I understand your frustration, but put yourself in the shoes of most monkey's ITT:

your well-off parents provide your healthcare, and you have an irrational disdain of minorities and paying taxes for anything that doesn't directly benefit you. Now how do you feel about the ruling?

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

6/28/12

You know what is upsetting me today? The fact that I can't get the last 1/8th of my Muscle Milk drink out. That and the fact that single serve organic milks cost $2 bucks. WTF.

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
6/28/12
Nobama88:

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today's decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

Congressman Ron Paul thinks that free market healthcare works, this is out of touch with the reality of 50 million Americans that don't have access to healthcare. Free market healthcare failed at the policy of inclusion and left many taxpayers without access to doctors for preventive care. Congressman Ron Paul should focus on reducing the costs of healthcare, not on reducing the number of people with access to preventive care.

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
6/28/12
Nobama88:

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today's decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

I'm sorry, I call bullshit on Ron Paul's opinion. We the people want this. That is our liberty. A minority don't want it and constantly complain about it, why should they force their own version of liberty on us?

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

6/28/12

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

In reply to Anomanderis
6/28/12
Anomanderis:
Nobama88:

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today's decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

I'm sorry, I call bullshit on Ron Paul's opinion. We the people want this. That is our liberty. A minority don't want it and constantly complain about it, why should they force their own version of liberty on us?

Polls indicated that a majority of Americans did not support the overall law, although specific elements were very popular across the political spectrum, with the notable exception of the mandate to purchase insurance. Democrats favored the law, while Republicans and Independents did not. For example, a Reuters-Ipsos poll during June 2012 indicated the following:

56% of Americans overall were against the law, with 44% supporting it. By party affiliation, 75% of Democrats, 27% Independents, and 14% of Republicans favored the law overall.

6/28/12

TNA -

Exactly. When people are polled on the specific of the law, it's very popular. Even the mandate has reasonable popularity in that case (it's even almost at 50% with republicans, I believe.) When people are asked about the law as a whole, they say they don't like it.

Moral of the story - people, in general, have a lot of trouble putting two and two together.

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

You think very low of your own kind. We are exceptional people with the most entrepreneurial and creative platform in the world that will propel us into the future. This law is attempting to bring preventive healthcare to the masses, the costs savings in the long run of a healthcare covered country are going to be large.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

You think very low of your own kind. We are exceptional people with the most entrepreneurial and creative platform in the world that will propel us into the future. This law is attempting to bring preventive healthcare to the masses, the costs savings in the long run of a healthcare covered country are going to be large.

You know, I've never believed that american exceptionalism ish. It just doesn't hold water. History is littered with the bones of nations that considered themselves exceptional.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

You think very low of your own kind. We are exceptional people with the most entrepreneurial and creative platform in the world that will propel us into the future. This law is attempting to bring preventive healthcare to the masses, the costs savings in the long run of a healthcare covered country are going to be large.

I think low of my own kind? We have <~30% with a college degree. Do you really think the majority of Americans fully understand this bill and its potential consequences beyond I get free (or subsidized) health care?

This law doesn't bring preventative anything. Yes, some people might be able to go to the hospital now before things get serious, but the largest killers and costs of healthcare are illnesses created from long term inactivity, smoking or unhealthy eating.

If you want to reduce healthcare costs you could simply ban smoking, tax the shit out of unhealthy foods and provide a tax deduction for people who maintain an appropriate BMI/low cholesterol/etc.

I have a 100% realistic view of Americans and humans in general.

In reply to Anomanderis
6/28/12
Anomanderis:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

You think very low of your own kind. We are exceptional people with the most entrepreneurial and creative platform in the world that will propel us into the future. This law is attempting to bring preventive healthcare to the masses, the costs savings in the long run of a healthcare covered country are going to be large.

You know, I've never believed that american exceptionalism ish. It just doesn't hold water. History is littered with the bones of nations that considered themselves exceptional.

Take a tour around the world, and let's talk when you come back.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:

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.

This is exactly what's wrong with society today. Who the fuck deemed healthcare a right? You do not DESERVE jack shit in this world. Got shanked? Too bad. Wrong place, wrong time. Doesn't mean you get to run into a hospital, scream "Somebody please help" and expect someone to bend over to cater to you when the doctor's working on someone on life support. You only get helped because someone WANTS and is ABLE to, and for that you should be grateful. A basic need does not mean a right.

You think you had a right to live on this planet? Hell no, that's a privilege you should thank to the mother who got knocked up and popped you out.

6/28/12

America is exceptional. People who fight and die to become American are exceptional. People who ARE Americans are less than exceptional.

Go take a kid from dirt poor India or China and give him all the benefits of America and he will be a rocket ship to the moon. Take an American who grew up with all these benefits and he will rob a 7/11.

The idea of America is something special, the tards that inhabit this country are not.

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

I think low of my own kind? We have <~30% with a college degree. Do you really think the majority of Americans fully understand this bill and its potential consequences beyond I get free (or subsidized) health care?

This law doesn't bring preventative anything. Yes, some people might be able to go to the hospital now before things get serious, but the largest killers and costs of healthcare are illnesses created from long term inactivity, smoking or unhealthy eating.

If you want to reduce healthcare costs you could simply ban smoking, tax the shit out of unhealthy foods and provide a tax deduction for people who maintain an appropriate BMI/low cholesterol/etc.

I have a 100% realistic view of Americans and humans in general.

Call your congressman and start working on those bans.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
Anomanderis:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

You think very low of your own kind. We are exceptional people with the most entrepreneurial and creative platform in the world that will propel us into the future. This law is attempting to bring preventive healthcare to the masses, the costs savings in the long run of a healthcare covered country are going to be large.

You know, I've never believed that american exceptionalism ish. It just doesn't hold water. History is littered with the bones of nations that considered themselves exceptional.

Take a tour around the world, and let's talk when you come back.

See, you're talking to the wrong person. I have. Let's talk when you're ready.

The concept of American exceptionalism implies something special in americans, I've lived in the US for a while now, and that simply isn't true.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

In reply to BanditPandit
6/28/12
BanditPandit:
Miamimonkey:

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.

This is exactly what's wrong with society today. Who the fuck deemed healthcare a right? You do not DESERVE jack shit in this world. Got shanked? Too bad. Wrong place, wrong time. Doesn't mean you get to run into a hospital, scream "Somebody please help" and expect someone to bend over to cater to you when the doctor's working on someone on life support. You only get helped because someone WANTS and is ABLE to, and for that you should be grateful. A basic need does not mean a right.

You think you had a right to live on this planet? Hell no, that's a privilege you should thank to the mother who got knocked up and popped you out.

Read the constitution of the USA.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

I think low of my own kind? We have <~30% with a college degree. Do you really think the majority of Americans fully understand this bill and its potential consequences beyond I get free (or subsidized) health care?

This law doesn't bring preventative anything. Yes, some people might be able to go to the hospital now before things get serious, but the largest killers and costs of healthcare are illnesses created from long term inactivity, smoking or unhealthy eating.

If you want to reduce healthcare costs you could simply ban smoking, tax the shit out of unhealthy foods and provide a tax deduction for people who maintain an appropriate BMI/low cholesterol/etc.

I have a 100% realistic view of Americans and humans in general.

Call your congressman and start working on those bans.

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

In reply to Anomanderis
6/28/12
Anomanderis:
Miamimonkey:
Anomanderis:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

You think very low of your own kind. We are exceptional people with the most entrepreneurial and creative platform in the world that will propel us into the future. This law is attempting to bring preventive healthcare to the masses, the costs savings in the long run of a healthcare covered country are going to be large.

You know, I've never believed that american exceptionalism ish. It just doesn't hold water. History is littered with the bones of nations that considered themselves exceptional.

Take a tour around the world, and let's talk when you come back.

See, you're talking to the wrong person. I have. Let's talk when you're ready.

The concept of American exceptionalism implies something special in americans, I've lived in the US for a while now, and that simply isn't true.

The American capitalist system is exceptional.

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

America is exceptional. People who fight and die to become American are exceptional. People who ARE Americans are less than exceptional.

Go take a kid from dirt poor India or China and give him all the benefits of America and he will be a rocket ship to the moon. Take an American who grew up with all these benefits and he will rob a 7/11.

The idea of America is something special, the tards that inhabit this country are not.

I accept. This part makes perfect sense.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

That thought is very primitive, if you have good ideas, put them forward. You are not the center of the planet. Help those who can not help themselves.

6/28/12

Didn't read the entire thread but I'm glad the law was kept in place. I have seen the benefits of this law first hand and we really do need some form of basic healthcare in this country.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
Anomanderis:
Miamimonkey:
Anomanderis:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

The majority of Americans only give a shit about reality TV and fast food. Liberty as a concept for all is dead.

You think very low of your own kind. We are exceptional people with the most entrepreneurial and creative platform in the world that will propel us into the future. This law is attempting to bring preventive healthcare to the masses, the costs savings in the long run of a healthcare covered country are going to be large.

You know, I've never believed that american exceptionalism ish. It just doesn't hold water. History is littered with the bones of nations that considered themselves exceptional.

Take a tour around the world, and let's talk when you come back.

See, you're talking to the wrong person. I have. Let's talk when you're ready.

The concept of American exceptionalism implies something special in americans, I've lived in the US for a while now, and that simply isn't true.

The American capitalist system is exceptional.

As it used to be perhaps. As it currently is, I beg to differ.

Don't get me wrong, I have no regrets being here, it was a dream come true when it happened. The US provides amazing (though dwindling, thanks to "activist capitalism") for anyone with an aggressive work ethic and decent ideas to thrive.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

That thought is very primitive, if you have good ideas, put them forward. You are not the center of the planet. Help those who can not help themselves.

Dude, I am 100% not the center, hence why I leave people alone. I'll help an old woman cross the road. I'll open the door for a guy in a wheel chair. I am not telling an able bodied American what to eat or how much to run for.

How about you volunteer 20 hours a week and send me 10% of your check for my charity. How about I get a law passed forcing you to do so.

Would you like that? No, I didn't think so.

6/28/12
In reply to happypantsmcgee
6/28/12
happypantsmcgee:
Abdel:

Goodbye America.

Says the Canadian

That's how obvious it is lol my friend in Beirut is laughing about the ruling.

On a side note, the goldman sachs elevator tweet:

#1: Any moron who is celebrating the Supreme Court decision has clearly never lived in the UK.

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

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

That thought is very primitive, if you have good ideas, put them forward. You are not the center of the planet. Help those who can not help themselves.

Dude, I am 100% not the center, hence why I leave people alone. I'll help an old woman cross the road. I'll open the door for a guy in a wheel chair. I am not telling an able bodied American what to eat or how much to run for.

How about you volunteer 20 hours a week and send me 10% of your check for my charity. How about I get a law passed forcing you to do so.

Would you like that? No, I didn't think so.

Don't lose your cool, or you will lose the ability to think. That argument above is ridiculous and it doesn't stick, not even in your basement.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

That thought is very primitive, if you have good ideas, put them forward. You are not the center of the planet. Help those who can not help themselves.

Dude, I am 100% not the center, hence why I leave people alone. I'll help an old woman cross the road. I'll open the door for a guy in a wheel chair. I am not telling an able bodied American what to eat or how much to run for.

How about you volunteer 20 hours a week and send me 10% of your check for my charity. How about I get a law passed forcing you to do so.

Would you like that? No, I didn't think so.

Don't lose your cool, or you will lose the ability to think. That argument above is ridiculous and it doesn't stick, not even in your basement.

Ok lol. Go spend your time trying to help grown adults with what they eat and how they live their lives. Ill focus on my life and living it.

We cannot impose Democracy and freedom on countries in the ME, yet we think we can impose personal habits on our own people. Humans don't like being controlled.

In reply to WalMartShopper
6/28/12
WalMartShopper:
happypantsmcgee:
Abdel:

Goodbye America.

Says the Canadian

That's how obvious it is lol my friend in Beirut is laughing about the ruling.

On a side note, the goldman sachs elevator tweet:

#1: Any moron who is celebrating the Supreme Court decision has clearly never lived in the UK.

Goldman and Walmart have one thing in common, they maximize retained earnings at whatever cost.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

That thought is very primitive, if you have good ideas, put them forward. You are not the center of the planet. Help those who can not help themselves.

I see no need to help the obese of this society who decide that they want McDonalds over a salad and watch TV over exercise. They can help themselves but they choose not to, and then bitch and complain because they lack the willpower to make changes to their lifestyle.

To the obese who have diseases that influence it, I'll sympathize a bit.

In reply to TNA
6/28/12
TNA:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

That thought is very primitive, if you have good ideas, put them forward. You are not the center of the planet. Help those who can not help themselves.

Dude, I am 100% not the center, hence why I leave people alone. I'll help an old woman cross the road. I'll open the door for a guy in a wheel chair. I am not telling an able bodied American what to eat or how much to run for.

How about you volunteer 20 hours a week and send me 10% of your check for my charity. How about I get a law passed forcing you to do so.

Would you like that? No, I didn't think so.

Don't lose your cool, or you will lose the ability to think. That argument above is ridiculous and it doesn't stick, not even in your basement.

Ok lol. Go spend your time trying to help grown adults with what they eat and how they live their lives. Ill focus on my life and living it.

We cannot impose Democracy and freedom on countries in the ME, yet we think we can impose personal habits on our own people. Humans don't like being controlled.

If you know something about humans, then you will agree with me that completely free markets don't work because greed and ambition rule everything. We need a minimum of ground rules and safeguards, and that is why this law is so important. We pay taxes so those ground rules and safeguards remain funded for us to develop and evolve as a society.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12

do you have a single clue how economics works? how about we raise the minimum wage to $50hr, would that make you happy???

Miamimonkey:
Nobama88:

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"I strongly disagree with today's decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don't. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of "Obamacare" without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."

Congressman Ron Paul thinks that free market healthcare works, this is out of touch with the reality of 50 million Americans that don't have access to healthcare. Free market healthcare failed at the policy of inclusion and left many taxpayers without access to doctors for preventive care. Congressman Ron Paul should focus on reducing the costs of healthcare, not on reducing the number of people with access to preventive care.

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

In reply to WalMartShopper
6/28/12
WalMartShopper:

do you have a single clue how economics works? how about we raise the minimum wage to $50hr, would that make you happy???

Another monkey losing his cool and throwing irrational thoughts in public.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12

within the realm of the law...that's the point of a company. funny how walmart is this terrible evil corp that guts the world yet i'd venture to guess most of your healthcare beneficiaries gladly shop there...see any analogy with the government here????

Miamimonkey:
WalMartShopper:
happypantsmcgee:
Abdel:

Goodbye America.

Says the Canadian

That's how obvious it is lol my friend in Beirut is laughing about the ruling.

On a side note, the goldman sachs elevator tweet:

#1: Any moron who is celebrating the Supreme Court decision has clearly never lived in the UK.

Goldman and Walmart have one thing in common, they maximize retained earnings at whatever cost.

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

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
TNA:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:
Miamimonkey:
TNA:

Why would I do that? I eat healthy, exercise and an fine. I do not care if someone else chooses to live an unhealthy life and conversely, I do not care if it shortens their life.

Live and let live.

That thought is very primitive, if you have good ideas, put them forward. You are not the center of the planet. Help those who can not help themselves.

Dude, I am 100% not the center, hence why I leave people alone. I'll help an old woman cross the road. I'll open the door for a guy in a wheel chair. I am not telling an able bodied American what to eat or how much to run for.

How about you volunteer 20 hours a week and send me 10% of your check for my charity. How about I get a law passed forcing you to do so.

Would you like that? No, I didn't think so.

Don't lose your cool, or you will lose the ability to think. That argument above is ridiculous and it doesn't stick, not even in your basement.

Ok lol. Go spend your time trying to help grown adults with what they eat and how they live their lives. Ill focus on my life and living it.

We cannot impose Democracy and freedom on countries in the ME, yet we think we can impose personal habits on our own people. Humans don't like being controlled.

If you know something about humans, then you will agree with me that completely free markets don't work because greed and ambition rule everything. We need a minimum of ground rules and safeguards, and that is why this law is so important. We pay taxes so those ground rules and safeguards remain funded for us to develop and evolve as a society.

I was not advocating unmitigated capitalism. Of course we need taxes and rules. But there is a point where taxes and rules go beyond beneficial and become detrimental. Diminishing marginal utility.

In reply to Miamimonkey
6/28/12
Miamimonkey:
WalMartShopper:

do you have a single clue how economics works? how about we raise the minimum wage to $50hr, would that make you happy???

Another monkey losing his cool and throwing irrational thoughts in public.

not losing cool, just you have no clue about reducing med costs etc. by forcing people to buy it. you can't just want a nice end and forget about the means. there is a reason these people could not afford it, and there is a reason why our med tech is so advanced, and there is a reason these people need this med treatment. i, for one, do not do my grocery shopping at a gas station with my ebt card as i sit and watch jerry springer all day.

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

In reply to WalMartShopper
6/28/12
WalMartShopper:
happypantsmcgee:
Abdel:

Goodbye America.

Says the Canadian

That's how obvious it is lol my friend in Beirut is laughing about the ruling.

On a side note, the goldman sachs elevator tweet:

#1: Any moron who is celebrating the Supreme Court decision has clearly never lived in the UK.

I did. I paid less for healthcare via taxes there than I do here. And here I have healthcare through my employer. In other words, US healthcare + employer subsidy still costs more than I paid the NHS in the UK.

Something ain't right.

But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.

And Rhaegar died.

In reply to Amphipathic
6/28/12
Amphipathic:

This is not rhetoric, .

yes, it is

Amphipathic:

the fundamental relationship between the government and its citizens.

So, let's talk about that, hold the broccoli

Amphipathic:

I think that the role of gov't is to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected.

Agree. The liberal viewpoint is rooted in using government power to guard those rights: police are hired for that reason, just to point out the philisophical absurdity of GOP support for them. I personally see either approach as serving the end of protecting rights and I think America somehow lost sight of that. If creating a gov't program expands rights for many at the expense of one thing, it's debated, I may support it. If cutting a program or giving an industry some lattitude enhances rights, then make the proposal and take it from there. But the public debate is so far removed from any actual policy making, I fail to see the point at all in most cases.

Amphipathic:

You, apparently, think that the gov't should also act as more a parent, deciding what is best for its citizens, whether or not they like it.

You said that...not me. This line of reasoning was introduced sometime last decade and I don't understand or care about it. The bottom line is that public policy is much more comprehensive than at the time of the founding of the nation, the world is more complex, and there's much more to manage than in times past. Yeah I think that gov't interferance...interferance in general...has to be minimized, but life is a whole lot more complicated and there's so much more going on that it's just not feasible to leave it all to chance.

Amphipathic:

So if you feel that way, how far does it go?? What I eat, if I choose to go tanning or smoke? Where does the reach of gov't end?

Historically, where enough people and the constitution combined decide it will. My beef with the GOP is the kneejerk reaction to ANY law ....dot dot dot that they don't agree with.... so it makes any type of complicated reasoning/discussion impossible. Everything is a war. The dems are totally beyond the point of reason as well, but I'll go argue with them on redditt or something.

Amphipathic:

As an aside, I really don't care much about health care bill itself, what bothers me is the implications.

On my end, I see the current system as being so totally gridlocked by entrenched interests, that this is an entry point for new ideas/people. The old system simply was inadequate and rigid, so a break was inevitable. Had private insurers taken any type of real interest in health, then I might be more amennable to their viewpoint, but honestly, we're getting out asses kicked and something had to give.

Get busy living

In reply to UFOinsider
6/28/12
UFOinsider:
Amphipathic:

This is not rhetoric, .

yes, it is

Amphipathic:

the fundamental relationship between the government and its citizens.

So, let's talk about that, hold the broccoli

Amphipathic:

I think that the role of gov't is to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected.

Agree. The liberal viewpoint is rooted in using government power to guard those rights: police are hired for that reason, just to point out the philisophical absurdity of GOP support for them. I personally see either approach as serving the end of protecting rights and I think America somehow lost sight of that. If creating a gov't program expands rights for many at the expense of one thing, it's debated, I may support it. If cutting a program or giving an industry some lattitude enhances rights, then make the proposal and take it from there. But the public debate is so far removed from any actual policy making, I fail to see the point at all in most cases.

Amphipathic:

You, apparently, think that the gov't should also act as more a parent, deciding what is best for its citizens, whether or not they like it.

You said that...not me. This line of reasoning was introduced sometime last decade and I don't understand or care about it. The bottom line is that public policy is much more comprehensive than at the time of the founding of the nation, the world is more complex, and there's much more to manage than in times past. Yeah I think that gov't interferance...interferance in general...has to be minimized, but life is a whole lot more complicated and there's so much more going on that it's just not feasible to leave it all to chance.

Amphipathic:

So if you feel that way, how far does it go?? What I eat, if I choose to go tanning or smoke? Where does the reach of gov't end?

Historically, where enough people and the constitution combined decide it will. My beef with the GOP is the kneejerk reaction to ANY law ....dot dot dot that they don't agree with.... so it makes any type of complicated reasoning/discussion impossible. Everything is a war. The dems are totally beyond the point of reason as well, but I'll go argue with them on redditt or something.

Amphipathic:

As an aside, I really don't care much about health care bill itself, what bothers me is the implications.

On my end, I see the current system as being so totally gridlocked by entrenched interests, that this is an entry point for new ideas/people. The old system simply was inadequate and rigid, so a break was inevitable. Had private insurers taken any type of real interest in health, then I might be more amennable to their viewpoint, but honestly, we're getting out asses kicked and something had to give.

You make good points, but while the 'the world is more complex' rationale makes sense when talking about things like free speech on facebook or patenting genes or aircraft regs or environmental laws, it seems to be thoroughly misapplied in many cases, such as here. Folks have had to manage their finances carefully, figure out how pay for healthcare, and set aside money for contingencies, etc. for hundreds of years. If the world has indeed become more complex, it is because we have a gov't that overreaches its proper duties and interferes in the markets, giving rise to a free rider problem which needs to be solved with an individual mandate. So more gov't begets more gov't. The gov't gets bigger, the system more complicated, thereby making 'the world more complex' and justifying even more intervention in private lives. Sorry if this sounds like an reductio ad absurdum argument, but from what I see laws seem to operate in a self-amplifying, feed-forward loops.

6/28/12

Anyone have any data on the number of drug companies creating new beneficial drugs and the amount of ground breaking research that is done in each country?

I have a feeling the USA creates the groundbreaking drugs, devices, and medical research due to its 'capitalist' system, all while the universal healthcare countries piggy back off that work.

I expect that this is the case. If so, what will happen to future research and drug discoveries long term?

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
6/28/12