ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[thegreekdog]

The lawsuit brought by 26 states led to the mandate to be ruled unconstitutional!!!!!

Epic win for the states, epic fail for the government.

This is so epic, someone should write a tale about it. Epic. Epicxcors. Epicathon.


--Andy

It really makes me wonder, though, how the DMV can MANDATE auto insurance if "requiring folks to purchase insurance" is unconstitutional.

You only need to purchase automobile insurance if you own a car.

If health insurance is mandated, you only need to purchase health insurance if you're alive.

Not a good argument. A better argument is that for auto insurance, you are only required to purchase insurance to protect others from damage you cause to them. There's not really an equivalent situation regarding health insurance.

I think they are both good arguments, but that mine is better. I would argue that you should purchase health insurance to protect others from having to pay for your healthcare.

[Woodruff]

This is so epic, someone should write a tale about it. Epic. Epicxcors. Epicathon.

It really makes me wonder, though, how the DMV can MANDATE auto insurance if "requiring folks to purchase insurance" is unconstitutional.

You only need to purchase automobile insurance if you own a car.

If health insurance is mandated, you only need to purchase health insurance if you're alive.

Not a good argument. A better argument is that for auto insurance, you are only required to purchase insurance to protect others from damage you cause to them. There's not really an equivalent situation regarding health insurance.

I think they are both good arguments, but that mine is better. I would argue that you should purchase health insurance to protect others from having to pay for your healthcare.

But that's not damage that you cause to them directly by your actions. That's merely a bi-product of the situation. Whereas with auto-insurance, it is there to protect against direct damage you cause to someone else.

[saxitoxin]

The other point is, why do only elderly, children, veterans, or the wealthy deserve to be healthy?

For that matter, why do only farmers get to have food, only mechanics get to have functioning automobiles, only projectionists get to watch movies and only plumbers get to have unclogged toilets?

now, very few employers provide healthcare

A majority, objectively, does not = "very few"

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

Under "employee sponsored" back when ss and medicare were established, employers primarily footed the entire bill for their employees as part of their "wages and benefits" packages.

Your source for that gem is what?

Under "employee sponsored" TODAY, they've lumped any insurances where the employer agreed to let some specific company sell its insurance to the employees, even when the employer is not contributing a dime toward the healthcare. VERY FEW companies even contribute, and almost NONE foot the entire bill to purchase employee insurance anymore.

- You said "few employers provide healthcare."
- "to provide" means "to make available"
- as graph indicated, at least 58% of employers "make available" health insurance to employees (probably more assuming a percentage don't actualize)

There are only two possible sources for our disconnect:
- you are choosing to assign non-standard, English-language definitions to words
- following the presentation of facts, you are choosing to reframe your argument

Either are acceptable. However, please clarify which you are doing.

[PLAYER57832]

But that's not damage that you cause to them directly by your actions. That's merely a bi-product of the situation. Whereas with auto-insurance, it is there to protect against direct damage you cause to someone else.

Talk to any healthcare professional serving a large group of people about that.
When our costs go up to pay for those without care, we ALL pay. When productivity is down because your coworkers cannot afford healthcare we ALL pay. When you live in a small town that already has a hard time getting volunteer emergency personnel and a good number of them are unfit for duty because they have not had adequate healthcare, we ALL pay.

Ignoring "indirect" costs is a fine game here in the US, but it does not meet reality.

[PLAYER57832]

Because the kids have "conditions" they have always been eligible. (before Medicaid just paid the co-pays, dental and eye. Now it pays all).

Once Senator Obama's programme takes full effect you won't even have that. It'll be cash or nothing. Better start saving.

No, we will have insurance by then. And because of the law, won't need Medicaid because my kids won't be able to be excluded.

Insurance Donors to Obama Campaign Terminate All Health Care for Children; Barack and Mitch Attend Gala Ball and Dinner, Enjoy Fine California Wines / Socialize with Celebrities

Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
Since September, the health reform law has barred insurers from withholding policies to children under 19 who have a pre-existing condition. Rather than take on the burdensome cost of writing policies for potentially-pricey medical conditions, many carriers decided to leave the market altogether.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... Page2.html

More proof that insurers are crooks.

Its complicated, but the bottom line is we need a system like just about any other nation in the world that has health care

[Woodruff]

But that's not damage that you cause to them directly by your actions. That's merely a bi-product of the situation. Whereas with auto-insurance, it is there to protect against direct damage you cause to someone else.

Talk to any healthcare professional serving a large group of people about that.
When our costs go up to pay for those without care, we ALL pay. When productivity is down because your coworkers cannot afford healthcare we ALL pay. When you live in a small town that already has a hard time getting volunteer emergency personnel and a good number of them are unfit for duty because they have not had adequate healthcare, we ALL pay.
Ignoring "indirect" costs is a fine game here in the US, but it does not meet reality.

As relates TO THE COMPARISON THAT WAS BEING MADE, it certainly is valid. You seem to want to take statements I made from within the context of a comparison and take them thoroughly out of context so that you could reply. Please don't do that.

If a poor person goes to the hospital and does have the money to pay, I AM NOT DIRECTLY DAMAGED. THAT is your "reality".

[john9blue]

a case could be made that society as a whole benefits from keeping them alive... but that's indirect damage. it shouldn't matter though.

[saxitoxin]

Because the kids have "conditions" they have always been eligible. (before Medicaid just paid the co-pays, dental and eye. Now it pays all).

Once Senator Obama's programme takes full effect you won't even have that. It'll be cash or nothing. Better start saving.

No, we will have insurance by then. And because of the law, won't need Medicaid because my kids won't be able to be excluded.

Correct - you won't be able to be excluded from the zero policies available for you to purchase. You will have absolute freedom of choice between "Nothing", "Not Available" and "Non Existent."

As previously noted ... below. (Query: Is [1] the reality that no insurance is ever coming to you so terrifying that you are just clinging to the desperate hope that somehow every indicator to the contrary - such as the unprecedented termination of child health insurance in 34 states - is wrong, or, [2] do you actually believe that these are all incidental rough patches that somehow will magically sort themselves out through some inexplicable means and Obama, fresh from lining his pockets with campaign donations from Aetna, has your best interests at heart?)

Insurance Donors to Obama Campaign Terminate All Health Care for Children; Barack and Mitch Attend Gala Ball and Dinner, Enjoy Fine California Wines / Socialize with Celebrities

Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
Since September, the health reform law has barred insurers from withholding policies to children under 19 who have a pre-existing condition. Rather than take on the burdensome cost of writing policies for potentially-pricey medical conditions, many carriers decided to leave the market altogether.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... Page2.html

[thegreekdog]

Saxi - for most Americans it's #2.

[BigBallinStalin]

But that's not damage that you cause to them directly by your actions. That's merely a bi-product of the situation. Whereas with auto-insurance, it is there to protect against direct damage you cause to someone else.

Talk to any healthcare professional serving a large group of people about that.
When our costs go up to pay for those without care, we ALL pay. When productivity is down because your coworkers cannot afford healthcare we ALL pay. When you live in a small town that already has a hard time getting volunteer emergency personnel and a good number of them are unfit for duty because they have not had adequate healthcare, we ALL pay.
Ignoring "indirect" costs is a fine game here in the US, but it does not meet reality.

As relates TO THE COMPARISON THAT WAS BEING MADE, it certainly is valid. You seem to want to take statements I made from within the context of a comparison and take them thoroughly out of context so that you could reply. Please don't do that.

If a poor person goes to the hospital and does have the money to pay, I AM NOT DIRECTLY DAMAGED. THAT is your "reality".

man, my headache is pounding from what player did there....

[HapSmo19]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

That's awesome.

[Woodruff]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
That's awesome.

So everyone would be required by law to own a firearm...except the people who are required by law not to own a firearm. This seems to me to be a potential facepalm moment for them.

[stahrgazer]

The other point is, why do only elderly, children, veterans, or the wealthy deserve to be healthy?

For that matter, why do only farmers get to have food, only mechanics get to have functioning automobiles, only projectionists get to watch movies and only plumbers get to have unclogged toilets?

now, very few employers provide healthcare

A majority, objectively, does not = "very few"

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

Under "employee sponsored" back when ss and medicare were established, employers primarily footed the entire bill for their employees as part of their "wages and benefits" packages.

Your source for that gem is what?

History. Look up the reasons behind Eisenhower's establishment of the retirement programs (SS and medicare).

Under "employee sponsored" TODAY, they've lumped any insurances where the employer agreed to let some specific company sell its insurance to the employees, even when the employer is not contributing a dime toward the healthcare. VERY FEW companies even contribute, and almost NONE foot the entire bill to purchase employee insurance anymore.

- You said "few employers provide healthcare."
- "to provide" means "to make available"
- as graph indicated, at least 58% of employers "make available" health insurance to employees (probably more assuming a percentage don't actualize)

There are only two possible sources for our disconnect:
- you are choosing to assign non-standard, English-language definitions to words
- following the presentation of facts, you are choosing to reframe your argument

Either are acceptable. However, please clarify which you are doing.

Neither.

The disconnect is apples and oranges.

When you think in terms of a "provider" - such as the wage-earner "providing for" his or her family, you don't think in terms of the family then having to purchase the provisions.

A company "providing" insurances means, give it, not just "make available" - at least, that's the old definition.

This graph you used is trying to make a new definition out of it.

Thus, the graph is comparing apples to oranges, which is what I said.

[stahrgazer]

The lawsuit brought by 26 states led to the mandate to be ruled unconstitutional!!!!!

Epic win for the states, epic fail for the government.

This is so epic, someone should write a tale about it. Epic. Epicxcors. Epicathon.


--Andy

It really makes me wonder, though, how the DMV can MANDATE auto insurance if "requiring folks to purchase insurance" is unconstitutional.

You only need to purchase automobile insurance if you own a car.

If health insurance is mandated, you only need to purchase health insurance if you're alive.

Not a good argument. A better argument is that for auto insurance, you are only required to purchase insurance to protect others from damage you cause to them. There's not really an equivalent situation regarding health insurance.

Actually, that's exactly the reason behind Obama's wish to cover all Americans: NOT covering all Americans is costing taxpayers MORE than covering them would cost.

However, terming what did pass (and is being repealed) as "Obamacare" is a misnomer. What passed is a far cry from the plan he WANTED.

Essentially, Obama wanted an extended medicaid/VA/medicare: a plan that would help people obtain healthcare, who couldn't otherwise afford heathcare. That that resulted in "single-payer" care for every non-insured American galled insurance companies, because, they argued, insuring everyone else through "the government" would drive them out of business. So instead, congress passed this "mandated purchase insurance" thing.

So.. greedy insurance companies win again; Americans lose again.

[Woodruff]

Not a good argument. A better argument is that for auto insurance, you are only required to purchase insurance to protect others from damage you cause to them. There's not really an equivalent situation regarding health insurance.

Actually, that's exactly the reason behind Obama's wish to cover all Americans: NOT covering all Americans is costing taxpayers MORE than covering them would cost.

You're making precisely the same mistake that PLAYER did. Perhaps if you consider that I am quite clearly referring to direct damage, it will help you to see your mistake. Then again, if you had read my further explanations, you would have already seen (and apparently ignored) that.

[saxitoxin]

The other point is, why do only elderly, children, veterans, or the wealthy deserve to be healthy?

For that matter, why do only farmers get to have food, only mechanics get to have functioning automobiles, only projectionists get to watch movies and only plumbers get to have unclogged toilets?

now, very few employers provide healthcare

A majority, objectively, does not = "very few"

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

Under "employee sponsored" back when ss and medicare were established, employers primarily footed the entire bill for their employees as part of their "wages and benefits" packages.

Your source for that gem is what?

History. Look up the reasons behind Eisenhower's establishment of the retirement programs (SS and medicare).

Your source is "history" ... "look it up"?

You may want to review the ALA style guide for the correct citation method. The instructors in your vo-tech air conditioning repair class must have loved getting papers from you.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. History. "Look it Up Yourself", NOYB: New York, 2010
2. Facts.
3. I Heard It Somewhere. "Can't Recall When/Where", Sometime in 2007 or 2008

Under "employee sponsored" TODAY, they've lumped any insurances where the employer agreed to let some specific company sell its insurance to the employees, even when the employer is not contributing a dime toward the healthcare. VERY FEW companies even contribute, and almost NONE foot the entire bill to purchase employee insurance anymore.

- You said "few employers provide healthcare."
- "to provide" means "to make available"
- as graph indicated, at least 58% of employers "make available" health insurance to employees (probably more assuming a percentage don't actualize)

There are only two possible sources for our disconnect:
- you are choosing to assign non-standard, English-language definitions to words
- following the presentation of facts, you are choosing to reframe your argument

Either are acceptable. However, please clarify which you are doing.

A company "providing" insurances means, give it, not just "make available" - at least, that's the old definition.

No it's not.

I think you need a good Dictionary.

Actually, at this point, even a mediocre one would do.

[saxitoxin]

So.. greedy insurance companies win again; Americans lose again.

It's hard for me to imagine why ol' twinkle toes Barry Obama and the First Mattress, Mitch, so greedily lap-up cash donations from those insurance companies then (UHC, Aetna, etc.), like a pair of rabid dogs eating shit off the pavement.

[Night Strike]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

That's awesome.

It makes perfect sense: if you have to purchase health insurance so that we don't have to pay for your care, you should also have to buy a gun to defend yourself from an attacker so we don't have to pay your injury bills or court costs to prosecute the attacker.

[Phatscotty]

I only wish democarts realize that the things they want Obama to impose on people may be okay with them now, but they should not want to allow a president to have that much power, ya know, in case Palin is president in 2012 or something. It's the argument I made with Bush when he grew his power, except then it was "You want Hillary to have that power?"

[PLAYER57832]

Because the kids have "conditions" they have always been eligible. (before Medicaid just paid the co-pays, dental and eye. Now it pays all).

Once Senator Obama's programme takes full effect you won't even have that. It'll be cash or nothing. Better start saving.

No, we will have insurance by then. And because of the law, won't need Medicaid because my kids won't be able to be excluded.

Correct - you won't be able to be excluded from the zero policies available for you to purchase. You will have absolute freedom of choice between "Nothing", "Not Available" and "Non Existent."

PRIVATE insurers, those who decide that they will cover only healthy people, take their money and provdie real care for only a select few sick folks might go away. Insurance and health care never will.

P.S. My husband's employer will provide him insurance in late spring.

As previously noted ... below. (Query: Is [1] the reality that no insurance is ever coming to you so terrifying that you are just clinging to the desperate hope that somehow every indicator to the contrary - such as the unprecedented termination of child health insurance in 34 states - is wrong, or, [2] do you actually believe that these are all incidental rough patches that somehow will magically sort themselves out through some inexplicable means and Obama, fresh from lining his pockets with campaign donations from Aetna, has your best interests at heart?)

If you choose to rephrase that as something other than trolling idiocy, I might deign to respond.

Insurance Donors to Obama Campaign Terminate All Health Care for Children; Barack and Mitch Attend Gala Ball and Dinner, Enjoy Fine California Wines / Socialize with Celebrities

Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
Since September, the health reform law has barred insurers from withholding policies to children under 19 who have a pre-existing condition. Rather than take on the burdensome cost of writing policies for potentially-pricey medical conditions, many carriers decided to leave the market altogether.

As noted before, the TRUTH is that insurers stopped offering real coverage a long time ago. People still pay into the system, but the insurers find so many loopholes to not pay many would be better off without any insurance. This reform WILL fix that, already in the case of children and in 2014 in the case of adults.

What is at question is whether these companies will continue to be allowed to take monumental profits, which necessarily come out of the healthcare they are willing provide, OR if the entire industry must change to something that once again offers coverage. This might happen with private companies, such as in Germany and so forth. OR it might happen under an almost entirely public program,(with optional coverage only offered by private insurers) such as is found in France.

At any rate, ANYTHING is an improvement over our current system which just means insurers get to reap profits from "insuring" the healthy and then dumping anyone sick onto the tax payers.

[PLAYER57832]

I only wish democarts realize that the things they want Obama to impose on people may be okay with them now, but they should not want to allow a president to have that much power, ya know, in case Palin is president in 2012 or something. It's the argument I made with Bush when he grew his power, except then it was "You want Hillary to have that power?"

Funny, how convenient you find it to ignore congress. See, Presidents DO NOT PASS BILLS, congress does. The president merely approves or vetoes them ( or lets them pass into law without technically signing them).

[PLAYER57832]

Under "employee sponsored" back when ss and medicare were established, employers primarily footed the entire bill for their employees as part of their "wages and benefits" packages.

Your source for that gem is what?

Someone as educated as yourself ought to be aware of the real history of employer-based insurance. It began with Blue Cross offering a plan for teachers in Texas. Then, under Truman, wages were frozen. Since employers could not offer higher wages, they began offering other benefits, including health insurance coverage.

Fast forward and employer-provided insurance quickly became the norm.

A link: http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Un ... ce/1068821

(though I am afraid Stargazer is correct that this is just history. Any true-telling of the history of medical insurance will include this).

Personally, I think removing the plans from employers, in fact eliminating ALL special group coverage and converting to an open policy program would benefit everyone. Since we ALL wind up paying for uncovered health care, there is no excuse for big companies to get yet another taxpayer subsidy, by allowing insurers to push off higher costs onto everyone else.

[Phatscotty]

I only wish democarts realize that the things they want Obama to impose on people may be okay with them now, but they should not want to allow a president to have that much power, ya know, in case Palin is president in 2012 or something. It's the argument I made with Bush when he grew his power, except then it was "You want Hillary to have that power?"

Funny, how convenient you find it to ignore congress. See, Presidents DO NOT PASS BILLS, congress does. The president merely approves or vetoes them ( or lets them pass into law without technically signing them).

Wrong. The president can direct a congress to do a bill, like Obama did in 2009 for Obamacare.

Otherwise, how could Obama go around promising health care reform before he was even elected? Are you saying Obama lied about all that, because he doesnt even have the power to do it?

[DangerBoy]

See, Presidents DO NOT PASS BILLS, congress does. The president merely approves or vetoes them ( or lets them pass into law without technically signing them).

Then why are we constantly lectured that Bill Clinton balanced the budget?

[GreecePwns]

See, Presidents DO NOT PASS BILLS, congress does. The president merely approves or vetoes them ( or lets them pass into law without technically signing them).

Then why are we constantly lectured that Bill Clinton balanced the budget?

Because the liberals are everywhere and they're out to get you. The budget was balanced *under the Clinton administration* would be an unbiased thing to say.