In MA in been mandatory for years thanks to Romney now he wants it out ? lol
let art pay my medical bills
In MA in been mandatory for years thanks to Romney now he wants it out ? lol
(_(\/)_) I K E
The thing that annoys me the most about Obama-care is that no one seems to understand it. When the legislation was passed a couple years ago, I called my HR department to ask how this would affect my Health Insurance that I get from my employer. They didn't know. So I called the Insurance company itself, and they didn't know either. So who else can I call that has a solid grip on this new plan? I still haven't found any conclusive answers, but I do know that my premiums have gone up steadily ever since.
I haven't used it in the 4 years I've been on this job, but I don't want to be totally uninsured, either. If I could drop my Employer's plan and go on some sort of public health care, I would. But that's not an option.
Today on NPR, they were discussing the plan, and saying that lower-income individuals would qualify for some sort of subsidy ... but I have no idea how to apply for that. Nobody seems to know anything, but everyone seems to agree that the new plan isn't working too well.
As I see it, the problem with re-vamping US Health Care is that they are trying to fix everything all at once. If it were up to me, I would want to modify one small thing at a time. Start with free care for diabetics. That should be pretty easy to set up. Once that business model is in place, expand it prescription medicine. Then to vision and dental care. Then move up to treating more complicated illnesses like cancer and cardio-thorasics. Within 20 years, every illness and medical problem would have an affordable solution for the patient, and a cost-effective method for the provider.
I don't understand how other countries can provide free medical care but the United States cannot. Granted, many countries have long waiting lists to get in for surgery and other complex procedures, but at least they have the methods that will let a patient get treatment without going bankrupt in the process.
I Came. I Shaved. I Conquered.
I love the smell of Proraso in the morning!
Lots of fuel, lots of political bulls running around their fields today, snorting & pawing & messing themselves over the decision. CNN in partucular looks pretty stoopid. I will wait until I can have time to read the decision, then for some time to pass (enough time for my evil health insurer to print up the price increases blaming "Obamacare", & mail them, likely via a socialist mail delivery service),
The term "Obamacare" seems disrespectful, or coined to curry voters .. hmm, and I agree with the decision to stake this goat out there, surprising it lasted this long.
Once upon a time, in a place called America, there was a government with three equal branches. That America no longer exists.
One branch now rules American life.
It is the Supreme Court, and it consists of nine people elected by nobody. They rule for life. Their power is absolute.
To overrule them requires an amendment to the Constitution, a process so politically difficult, it is nigh on impossible. (The most recent amendment, the 27th, which deals with congressional salaries, took 203 years to ratify.)
Technically, the justices can be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, but none ever has been.
There is no aspect of American life — from civil rights to sports, to guns, to religion, to sex — over which the justices have not exerted control.
There are no qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court.
Though the Constitution lists qualifications to become a president, a senator or a representative, none are listed for the high court. The justices need not be of a certain age or have been born in the United States or even be a citizen.
They do not have to be lawyers, though all have been. (Some, however, never went to law school.)
You could be a justice of the Supreme Court. I could. Justin Bieber, age 18 and a Canadian citizen, also could be, though Senate approval would not be likely.
The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)
The Supreme Court would, over its history, come up with some terrible decisions countenancing slavery, locking up Japanese-American citizens in camps, supporting “separate but equal” segregation and approving the forced sterilization of the mentally ill.
But these were anomalies. Overall, the court would help create a vibrant and free society where citizens could live under the rule of law, where nobody was above the law and where equal rights were promised to all.
For much of modern times, the court has been seen as being above politics. This was very important as a balance to its vast power. Even though justices were appointed by political presidents and approved by political senators, their own politics was to be suppressed.
We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.
And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The decision was nakedly political. “The case didn’t just scar the Court’s record,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker, “it damaged the Court’s honor.”
Its honor has never fully recovered. Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bush’s behalf in Florida in 2000.
The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court “gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law” which amounted to “a boon for Republicans.”
On Thursday, a 5-4 majority of the justices upheld the major provisions of Obama’s health care plan, which was passed into law by Congress. Two branches of government had spoken, but their speech was but a whisper compared to the shout of our high court.
The immediate political analysis offered by many was that this is a huge political boost for President Obama. But President Obama had nothing to do with it. He was a spectator, huddled around his TV set watching the decision like the rest of America.
The major legislative initiative of his presidency survives, but it survives because of a power that was totally out of his hands. Liberals will call the ruling non-political, conservatives will call it very political.
The court remains as it has been: It can be as political or non-political as it wants.
Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, wrote in his dissent in Bush v. Gore in 2000: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
That is a lot to lose.
Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.
Last edited by Pgg365247; 06-28-2012 at 04:52 PM.
"The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."- Thucydides
Is the Veg free now?
"He must be a king. He hasn't got Williams all over 'im!" - cb91710
I spend my knights at the Veg Table.
I've been observing some of my attorney acquaintances and some legal pundits today bring up something that goes far beyond Obama Care. That is the notion that, apparently, the ruling has set a precedent that essentially gives congress unlimited taxing powers in a way that they will be able to use "taxation" as a way to coerce people into doing just about anything. One of my attorney friends (who works for the department of treasury) said that this ruling essentially weaponizes taxation. "We want you to purchase insurance and if you don't we will penalize you" is unconstitutional, but "you don't have to purchase insurance, but if you don't we'll 'tax' you" is constitutional using justice Robert's rationale.
Even if, somehow, the AHCA gets repealed, the precedent will stand, and where will it end? Using Robert's rational, in theory, for example, congress could pass a law that says, "We won't force home owners to provide room and board for homeless people, but if you don't, we'll 'tax' you." This is eluding to the slippery-slope that past precedence regarding the commerce clause has created. I've heard it posited that Roberts was trying to curb that slippery slope, but at what cost?
Some may never live, but the crazy never die. -HST BOTOC Power!
Last edited by jochums; 06-28-2012 at 05:29 PM.
Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers!
25 percent of my income is going to health insurance right now. I don't know how this plan would effect that ratio, but I have an open mind about it. I guess we'll see.
No, too much Veg will turn you into a newt.
Let's leave Politics at the door ... and out of B&B !!!!!!
Member of the B&B 2011 Rudy Vey LE Brush Buy (#3)Member of the B&B 2012 Rudy Vey LE Brush Buy (#3)
Member of the B&B LE 2011 Edison Glenmont Pen Buy (#1)
Member of the B&B LE 2012 Edison Herald Grande Pen Buy (#1)
Member of the B&B ? buy
There is nothing like a Jinhou.
There is no tort reform in the ACA and there is certainly no cap on medical malpractice claims. They did allocate $50 million to form a panel and do some studies to figure out what to do, though. . .
Here's how it works in Australia, and I'm not saying it is the best system in the world, but it is what we have.
There is a government run health service which will fix you if you are poor. You might not get the premium service, and waiting lists might be long, and you wont get to choose your doctor probably, but you won't be left to suffer just because you have a low income.
If you can afford it, you get private health insurance. This gives you benefits and theoretically better services, and you get a bit of a tax break to help pay for the fees.
Nobody forces you to get private health, we choose to because we want better services. But speaking as someone who grew up dirt poor, with a single mother on welfare etc. if it wasn't for that government health service I might not have survived some of the injuries and illnesses I had as a child.
It seems like the Australian system is more like the way the US system is trying to go. I don't understand why anyone would fight against it.
There has been consistent increases in insurance premiums since I can remember. This is going back to Clinton. It is not unusual for my clients to experience 20% increases each year. Contrary to what one of the posters stated, most provisions of this mandate have not been implemented. They will go into effect 2014. Therefore, Obama is not responsible for the increases. If you want to blame someone, you can include the pharma companies, the medical device makers and insurance administrative costs. Advances in care cost money. Folks are living longer than did years ago and require more care.