APP - obama health care law before scotus

[apple0154]

obviously, once you've destroyed the private system you can never rebuild it.....that's why this election is so important.....we need to void it before it goes into effect.......

Another Repub lie. There are many investors trying to open private clinics in Canada, for example. The goal is to have physicians operate privately, charging whatever they wish, then when business slows down scoop up patients from the government plan and receive income from there. Let's say an individual requires a "popular" procedure. The private clinics would take the customers willing to pay top dollar and when the demand fell the medical practitioners would take people on the government plan.

If it was impossible to rebuild a private system there wouldn't be any need for laws against attempting to do exactly that. Rest assured, when it comes to robbing the dying there is no shortage of investors ready and willing to do so.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

OK. Let's work on that comprehension problem, again. We'll start here.

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

The courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions. Intentions: the end or object intended; purpose.

The courts have determined the preamble states the purpose of the Constitution. If one is going to follow the Constitution, interpret it, they have to know the purpose of it and the preamble tells us the purpose.

Next we go to:

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

The courts have determined the preamble does, indeed, tell us what the Founding Fathers wanted to achieve. They wanted to promote the general welfare so I ask, "Do you consider the needless suffering and premature death of citizens contribute to the general welfare of the citizens and/or the country?"

We're not talking about phenomenal cosmic powers unless you believe Norway and New Zealand and Japan and Germany and Belgium and the United Kingdom and Kuwait and Sweden and Bahrain and Brunei and Canada and the Netherlands and Austria and the United Arab Emirates and Finland and Slovenia and Denmark and Luxembourg and France and Australia and Ireland and Italy and Portugal and Cyprus and Greece and Spain and South Korea and Iceland and Hong Kong and Singapore and Switzerland and Israel ALL have phenomenal cosmic powers.

Talking about "pretty damned tired of your bullshit" it's clearly stated and the courts agree the preamble tells us what the Founding Fathers wanted to achieve and only a mentally deranged individual would consider promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty involve doing nothing while people needlessly suffer and die.

you are wrong, misquoting entire concepts. you're delusional as well.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Sure, just like welfare where people are arbitrarily cut off. It's easy to change the qualifications required when means tests are used. There needs to be a guarantee. What can and should be done is the benefits taxed back from those whose income passes a certain level. That way everyone receives the compensation and it's later determined how much of it they get to keep.

right....we need to guarantee that Bill Gates and Ross Perot get their $12k a year.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Another Repub lie. There are many investors trying to open private clinics in Canada, for example. The goal is to have physicians operate privately, charging whatever they wish, then when business slows down scoop up patients from the government plan and receive income from there. Let's say an individual requires a "popular" procedure. The private clinics would take the customers willing to pay top dollar and when the demand fell the medical practitioners would take people on the government plan.

If it was impossible to rebuild a private system there wouldn't be any need for laws against attempting to do exactly that. Rest assured, when it comes to robbing the dying there is no shortage of investors ready and willing to do so.

so what you're saying is that under the Canadian system those that want better health care than that provided by the government they seek private care?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

If it was impossible to rebuild a private system there wouldn't be any need for laws against attempting to do exactly that.

I thought your argument was that government run health care was so good that nobody ever went back to private care.....now you're saying it's because the law prohibits it......interesting....

 

[Damocles]

pretty good idea, actually......needs testing would solve SS's problems handily......

So, we force people to buy into a crappy insurance investment for their entire lives and then simply reject anybody we deem "not needful" to obtaining even the crappiest of return on their forced investment? (And before people try to say that insurance of this type isn't an investment, please check into Annuities and other insurance products used for retirement investment.)

 

[Damocles]

so what you're saying is that under the Canadian system those that want better health care than that provided by the government they seek private care?

It is illegal to provide private care under the Canadian system. That the government looks away in many cases doesn't change that their system is broken and those providing that kind of care are breaking the law. It is indicative of the broken system that the Private Care industry is making a comeback, a grey market comeback of private health care in Canada is an indication that private care is a necessity in any working system.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060501_125881_125881

Go Canada... Canadians are crying out for better care, Apple just ignores the reality to pretend that everybody loves their long waiting periods.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So, we force people to buy into a crappy insurance investment for their entire lives and then simply reject anybody we deem "not needful" to obtaining even the crappiest of return on their forced investment? (And before people try to say that insurance of this type isn't an investment, please check into Annuities and other insurance products used for retirement investment.)

yes....for the same reason that, if your house never burns down, the insurance on your house is a crappy investment.......

 

[Damocles]

yes....for the same reason that, if your house never burns down, the insurance on your house is a crappy investment.......

Misapplied and misunderstood. Please check into Annuity insurance (I gave those examples for a reason, so you could educate yourself and not continue this silly line of nonsense), this type of insurance is not the same type you are speaking of, it is an investment vehicle and not the same thing you are misapplying it to mean.

Either change what it is into welfare or disaster insurance rather than an investment vehicle that you are forced to "invest" in.

If such is the case, why would the government be allowed constitutionally to force you to purchase this type of "insurance" but not health insurance (aka Obamacare)?

 

[Phantasmal]

So, we force people to buy into a crappy insurance investment for their entire lives and then simply reject anybody we deem "not needful" to obtaining even the crappiest of return on their forced investment? (And before people try to say that insurance of this type isn't an investment, please check into Annuities and other insurance products used for retirement investment.)

Annuities are a rip off, even Forbes will tell you so.

 

[apple0154]

so what you're saying is that under the Canadian system those that want better health care than that provided by the government they seek private care?

There are a few people who think they're special. You know, those who talk about their hard earned money and what they deserve. Sort of like the reprobate who cuts off traffic believing his appointment is more important that anyone else's. Or the scum who cuts in line at the show. The "nouveau riche" whose class is in their ass.

Yep, Canada has it's share.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

pretty good idea, actually......needs testing would solve SS's problems handily......

Except we don't have a problem with SS. Particularly if we keep politicians from raiding the SS surplus.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I hope it doesn't happen to anyone.....but it puzzles me why some on the left think that the way to make sure those who didn't have insurance were protected was to fuck up the insurance that some people DID have....the goal was to add protection, not destroy it......

of course you have to remember that this is insurance brought to you by people who thought, in college, that the way to save the country was to burn it down......

So please explain to me. How does the PPACA screw up insurance some people do get? By making sure that it's accesable to those who otherwise would be left to suffer and die?

 

[apple0154]

I thought your argument was that government run health care was so good that nobody ever went back to private care.....now you're saying it's because the law prohibits it......interesting....

That reading comprehension problem insists on raising it's ugly head, I see. I said the majority of the citizens in EVERY country with government health care fight to keep it. No exception.

 

[Damocles]

Annuities are a rip off, even Forbes will tell you so.

Yeah, and the social security insurance that we are forced to invest in is even more so...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

1) that's irrelevant. the constitution was not written to make the government our nannies or parents.
2) that's irrelevant. the federal government has no constitutional power to manage anyones healthcare but their own.
3) that's irrelevant. I have parents and when they need it, i'll take care of their needs. that's how it should be for everyone else to, but selfish fuckers like you don't want to care for your own elderly family members, you want the government to do it.

Like hell it's irrellevent. What you are essentially saying is "Fuck you I got mine you get yours" and then just washing your hands of the problem. Nice! Nice approach. To bad it just doesn't work.

The problem with the market based system for health care management is that it simply doesn't work for far to many people to the tune of nearly 70 million people who either have no coverage, or have inedequate coverage or are denied coverage cause they had the plain misfortune to get sick at some point on their life. A system that is unable to determine what works and what does not. A system that is unable to either contain or control costs. A systems that causes far to many people and families to go bankrupt. A system that causes far to many people to avoid seeking primary health services cause they can't afford it.

What you are doing is not only abdicating a responsibility but you are then using a mindless ideological argument to tell us that it is wrong for us to collectively pool our resources to provide basic and life saving health care to all, when they need it, without suffering financial ruin and using the agency of government to accomplish this aim because the market system is incapable of doing so either efficiently or cost affectively.

I mean are you serious that we are not to attempt to solve this huge problem, that other nations have solved, because some jail house lawyer like you doesn't believe that it passes their ideological purity test?

Yea, well good luck with that.

 

[Damocles]

Except we don't have a problem with SS. Particularly if we keep politicians from raiding the SS surplus.

Way too late for that. The "surplus" is in treasuries, the politicians during Clinton's term (and Newt) transferred all actual funds into treasuries and spent them in the general funds in order to falsely say that there was a budgeted surplus. That all of it was created with debt didn't seem to phase anybody, or even reach most people's comprehension level.

 

[apple0154]

So, we force people to buy into a crappy insurance investment for their entire lives and then simply reject anybody we deem "not needful" to obtaining even the crappiest of return on their forced investment? (And before people try to say that insurance of this type isn't an investment, please check into Annuities and other insurance products used for retirement investment.)

It is both an investment and an insurance. The reason being some folks would not contribute if they didn't receive a return regardless of whether they needed the money. But that's like everything else the Repubs suggest. Private medical, private retirement funds.....all would be funded by the benevolent, wealthy folks, so they say. Of course, they had centuries to get it right but....well, things would be different now, so they say.

 

[apple0154]

It is illegal to provide private care under the Canadian system. That the government looks away in many cases doesn't change that their system is broken and those providing that kind of care are breaking the law. It is indicative of the broken system that the Private Care industry is making a comeback, a grey market comeback of private health care in Canada is an indication that private care is a necessity in any working system.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060501_125881_125881

Go Canada... Canadians are crying out for better care, Apple just ignores the reality to pretend that everybody loves their long waiting periods.

Let's put it this way. People would rather wait for an available doctor than wait to win the lottery so they could obtain medical care.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That reading comprehension problem insists on raising it's ugly head, I see. I said the majority of the citizens in EVERY country with government health care fight to keep it. No exception.

Government health care is a misnomer. That's just what the right wing politicians like to call it. Many industrialized nations use the market quite well. They just do it on a non-profit basis. France would be a good example of that. What all these nations believe in are these three principles for managing the problem of health care accesability and cost. Universal coverage, single payer system and cost controls. To implement these reforms Government must play a role but that doesn't mean there is no place a market based system to contribute. On the other hand this stupid assed notion that ANY government role in managing our health care is "Socialism" is beyond stupid!