ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

this woman will live and be cured if she get's Obamacare?

I think pretending that Obamacare is a CURE is worse than letting someone who is dying....die

I think you just want her to suffer

[Juan_Bottom]

Speaking out of character, and instead as someone who's poor mother has cancer and hasn't been able to get insurance - you wouldn't know suffering if it lived in the same house as you and fell out of bed every day with a scary, loud, thump.

[Night Strike]

Speaking out of character, and instead as someone who's poor mother has cancer and hasn't been able to get insurance - you wouldn't know suffering if it lived in the same house as you and fell out of bed every day with a scary, loud, thump.

How will Obamacare end suffering? In fact, in many cases, it will increase suffering as people have to wait months to get treatments.

[Phatscotty]

Speaking out of character, and instead as someone who's poor mother has cancer and hasn't been able to get insurance - you wouldn't know suffering if it lived in the same house as you and fell out of bed every day with a scary, loud, thump.

Sorry to hear about your mother. I also lost someone to cancer recently, and have a few other family members suffering from cancer, and I'm sure every single person in the world knows someone who has cancer. I really wish there was a cure, but there isn't. Thanks for your comment about what I know and don't know about suffering.

What are the ways that Obamacare is going to change your mom's cancer? What has your family been doing about her cancer while your family was unable to afford an unaffordable insurance plan?

[Phatscotty]

http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm

Reddit explains Obamacare.

I posted pretty much exactly that earlier in this thread. I'm pretty sure nobody read it, though.

OBAMA!!!! SOCIALISM!!!!

You can yell and mock and overreach all you want. What you are trying to prove is silly in face of the reality of the situation.

ObamaCare =

#1 a shitload more of government bureaucracy, red tape
#2 major expanded powers for the IRS
#3 trillions of dollars more in borrowing and spending

Now, go ahead and list "what we get".

[WILLIAMS5232]

i also know several people who have lived, and died through cancer.

you're trying to make people thnk that obamacare is only about saving people living on deathbeds, that's not what this is about.

as we can see in your picture, it's easy to see who really needs heathcare. cancer victims being one.
there are many other causes for people to be deathly ill. not just cancer.

but this bill allows everyone in the country the ability to jump in line to get "treated".
without all the freeloaders that have now been created, there would be plenty of money in the system to help those in dire need. ( people with a terminal illness )

now a runny nose is a cause to go to the emergency room. or a sore throat, or a bobo from wrecking a bicycle?
come on, you can't tell me this is a good thing. are you ready for this?

isn't it bad enough now.

these people should toughen up and gargle with saltwater, or buy some neosporin
don't try to act so compassionate, i know deep down you don't care about me.

[jj3044]

I've probably only read about the last 20 pages or so of this thread (I don't frequent the off-topics much), so I apologize if this has already been said.

The law does much more than create more "freeloaders". It also tries to change the healthcare delivery system, which today is VERY ineffective. Here's how:

-Make preventive well-visits free (fully insurance paid) annually, allowing for much earlier identification of diseases and conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and yes, cancer, which in early stages typically do not have many symptoms. By the time symptoms are noticed, usually damage has already been done. By identifying and treating these conditions earlier, the condition costs much less, and will over all reduce the burden of treatment in the system today.

-Encourage a performance-based fee structure from insurers to providers. I currently live in Rhode Island, and "Patient centered medical homes" are the new buzz word... meaning that most of the resources needed to treat a patient are located within the practice (dietician, physical therapist, nurse case manager) to facilitate better care. When the patient meets better-than-average outcome measures, the practice gets paid more. Also, electronic health records are being installed so that if a patient goes to a different doctor, they can pull up the patient's information, see that they had a CT scan last month that was negative, and NOT order an unnecessary, duplicate test.

-Encourage employers/insurers to utilize value-based benefit designs. Basically these designs encourage proper use of the healthcare system by rewarding plan participants for being proactive in their health such as having an annual physical, taking a health risk assessment, or speaking to a health coach.

I have much more to say on the matter, but I want people to read the post... so I won't continue.

Also just a disclaimer, I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican. I take different sides depending on the issue, and do not blindly follow either camp. This law isn't perfect, but goes a long way in changing a very inefficient, unsustainable system that WILL bankrupt this country if not changed.

[Phatscotty]

But just look at what this does (and we have done) to the Liberty of The People as a whole.

Many people have rationalized their own insatiable greed in coveting other peoples property. And it is exactly this kind of greed that is truly the most deserving of the negative connotation that is usually implied with the word greed.

[jj3044]

While I would agree with your position on many topics, health care isn't one of them. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you are essentially saying that basic healthcare isn't a basic human right.

I ask you to put something into perspective here, to look at this from another point of view. Let's pretend you work in a low wage job making $15,000 a year, and can barely afford groceries and your rent payment. You have been feeling terrible the past couple of months (and work productivity has suffered because of it). You pony up the ~$250 or more to go to a walk in clinic and after a few tests (which cost even more), they determine that you have stage-2 breast cancer. This condition has well over a 95% recovery rate if treated early. But, you do not have insurance, can not GET insurance because of your now pre-existing condition, and can not afford treatments. This is the system before the new legislation. If you are lucky, you might be able to get "free" care through a hospital (costing the system, aka you and me anyway), but in most cases, your condition deteriorates, and you die of an otherwise preventable condition way before you could have.

Enter the legislation. Now, you CAN get insurance, get better, and have a long, healthy life where you are a productive member of society.

Granted there are others that will never be productive members of society and hang on to the government programs like welfare way longer than they should... these people get "free" care in hospitals too under the old system... but that is an entirely different topic (that I WOULD probably agree with your opinion on based on your posts thus far).

[BigBallinStalin]

Refusal to Pay

The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the limited power the law gives it.

Haha, anyone notice the contradiction here?

They won't seize anything, but they'll sue you, then seize anything.

[Symmetry]

So just take a look at all the countries that do well, and thrive with universal healthcare. It's not like it's some impossibility.

[Night Strike]

While I would agree with your position on many topics, health care isn't one of them. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you are essentially saying that basic healthcare isn't a basic human right.

Even if it is, the US Constitution does not allow for the federal government to provide it. Since it's not outlined in the Constitution, then it would be a right or power reserved to the states and to the people.

[Symmetry]

While I would agree with your position on many topics, health care isn't one of them. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you are essentially saying that basic healthcare isn't a basic human right.

Even if it is, the US Constitution does not allow for the federal government to provide it. Since it's not outlined in the Constitution, then it would be a right or power reserved to the states and to the people.

But that's not why you disagree with it, is it NS?

In a hypothetical situation, say the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, you'd still object, right?

[Juan_Bottom]

How will Obamacare end suffering? In fact, in many cases, it will increase suffering as people have to wait months to get treatments.

Nobody said anything about ending suffering permanently. Suffering is just a fact of life.

Second, nobody said anyone would have to wait months to get treatments, though a lot of people probably have to wait months to get treatments now anyway.

Finally, even if someone has to wait, say, 5 months to get important treatments, that's still better than your beloved current anti-Christian system of "Just let them die." Because under your proposed hypothetical system, they are still getting the treatments that are being denied to them under the current system that you already support.

What are the ways that Obamacare is going to change your mom's cancer? What has your family been doing about her cancer while your family was unable to afford an unaffordable insurance plan?

She's unemployed, so I was certain that she would be eligible to get Medicaid or some government - covered - insurance or treatment. Unfortunately, because she has her own house, she's declared to have too many assets for assistance. Now she's 30,000K in the hole for treatment, and 30,000K in the hole for her house. I want her to sell her house, but the value of it in this market is actually less than what she owes on it. So if she could sell it she'd still end up owing more. Anyway, she fell waaaaaaaay behind on her mortgage after she lost her job and got sick, and she had to take a new deal from her bank that says she can't sell or abandon her house without their permission. I'm helping her out with her mortgage, but Jesus Christ I only make $10.71 an hour, which is actually one of the last decent jobs left in the county.
But still, $10.71 still puts me under the poverty line myself, and my employer is slowly going under anyway. At this point, since she's been told to die at home where she's comfortable, all I know to do is keep her stoned on Marijuana.

I should remind you that what she has is a treatable, but extremely-extremely rare hereditary skin disease that also creates cancer. It's treatable, but really nobody knows wtf is going on.



*There are 3 other houses for sale on this street, and they've been on sale for over a year each. I'm sure that the bank is watching them.

[isaiah40]

Since the government said that those who don't have insurance will be "taxed", this bill was found to be constitutional by Roberts. Unfortunately, since the constitution says that ALL revenue bills have to originate in the house - a tax being a revenue - ObamaCare is now unconstitutional because the bill that Obama signed into law originated in the Senate.

[AndyDufresne]

Since the government said that those who don't have insurance will be "taxed", this bill was found to be constitutional by Roberts. Unfortunately, since the constitution says that ALL revenue bills have to originate in the house - a tax being a revenue - ObamaCare is now unconstitutional because the bill that Obama signed into law originated in the Senate.

I am filing a brief with the Supreme Court right now...




--Andy

[Juan_Bottom]

i also know several people who have lived, and died through cancer.

you're trying to make people thnk that obamacare is only about saving people living on deathbeds, that's not what this is about.

as we can see in your picture, it's easy to see who really needs heathcare. cancer victims being one.
there are many other causes for people to be deathly ill. not just cancer.

Yeah, people who are dying of treatable illnesses receiving help instead of being told to just go and die is just an added bonus of the bill.

but this bill allows everyone in the country the ability to jump in line to get "treated".
without all the freeloaders that have now been created, there would be plenty of money in the system to help those in dire need. ( people with a terminal illness )

now a runny nose is a cause to go to the emergency room. or a sore throat, or a bobo from wrecking a bicycle?
come on, you can't tell me this is a good thing. are you ready for this?

This already exists. Their insurance already pays for it. Your insurance already pays for it. And finally the government makes up the shortfalls. The only thing to change is that now the risk is spread out and that's because those freeloaders will also be forced to have insurance.
Well, that and we get to save people's lives who can be saved.

these people should toughen up and gargle with saltwater, or buy some neosporin
don't try to act so compassionate, i know deep down you don't care about me.

I do actually. And I live my life by the golden rule. I want to help you to be able to get treatments because I know that someday I may need them too, and I hope that you will want to help me to have access too. Liberals live to make America a better place, while Conservatives apparently live for money and God.

Even if it is, the US Constitution does not allow for the federal government to provide it. Since it's not outlined in the Constitution, then it would be a right or power reserved to the states and to the people.

Conservative Americans lost this argument when they lost their slaves. I dunno why Conservatives are always trying to re-hash it. We need a strong federal government to control rouge the states. Like the states that formed the Confederacy and started killing true Americans. What you want, is for people who think like you to start voting more, so that big strong government will do what you want it to do.

But that's not why you disagree with it, is it NS?

In a hypothetical situation, say the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, you'd still object, right?

[Juan_Bottom]

But just look at what this does (and we have done) to the Liberty of The People as a whole.

Many people have rationalized their own insatiable greed in coveting other peoples property. And it is exactly this kind of greed that is truly the most deserving of the negative connotation that is usually implied with the word greed.

Well there's certainly nothing greedy about telling the sick that they can't have treatments because it's your money or whatever your argument boils down to.
JESUS.

I certainly don't see anything hypocritical about it either.

#3 trillions of dollars more in borrowing and spending

Yeah, now Republicans believe that this bill will more than double our national debt somehow. They also believe that we can't afford it after they 8Xed the national debt.
They're prolly right that we couldn't afford that price tag without slashing some stuff.

Since the government said that those who don't have insurance will be "taxed", this bill was found to be constitutional by Roberts. Unfortunately, since the constitution says that ALL revenue bills have to originate in the house - a tax being a revenue - ObamaCare is now unconstitutional because the bill that Obama signed into law originated in the Senate.

You should be a lawyer for the Repubs. There are thousands of people employed on Capital Hill, and yet somehow you're the only one who thought of this. You'll be elected the next president for sure. Have you tried ousting Romney yet? The Repubs need you!

[isaiah40]

I didn't think of it, our founding fathers thought of it way back when.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution clearly states:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Then again since the government doesn't follow the constitution, well, we're screwed.

[Juan_Bottom]

I am thinking that you are thinking that that means that only a Senator can write a tax bill. And that's not a true-fact.

But maybe you are thinking that the Senate has to vote on a tax bill first.

Or maybe you are thinking that no one on the Supreme court is comparing laws to the Constitution, so they missed this somehow. Cause certain dissenting judges didn't mention this in their statements at all. . . .

[isaiah40]

No, since Judge Roberts said it was constitutional as it is a tax. BUT, since this law originated in the Senate, and not the House as required by the Constitution, then this law is unconstitutional. The case was about whether it originated in the senate or house, it was about the individual mandate being constitutional. It is since it is a tax, but it isn't because it originated in the senate.

[Symmetry]

No, since Judge Roberts said it was constitutional as it is a tax. BUT, since this law originated in the Senate, and not the House as required by the Constitution, then this law is unconstitutional. The case was about whether it originated in the senate or house, it was about the individual mandate being constitutional. It is since it is a tax, but it isn't because it originated in the senate.

My understanding, and apparently that of the Supreme Court, was that the Individual Mandate was not a tax. Were you thinking of the penalties for not following the law?

[Juan_Bottom]

That's not what he's talking about exactly. He saying that the Constitution says that all taxes have to be introduced in the House of Representatives. This tax was introduced in the Senate, therefore it's in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court declared that the individual mandate is a tax, therefore making it unconstitutional because the tax was introduced to the wrong members of congress.

This argument popped up at the same time that the R from ALABAMA tried claiming that he just discovered that the bill would cost $17 trillion dollars somehow, so I already knew what he was talking about and was just messing with him. Sometimes people check their facts when you do that, and then they can correct themselves. It's not like he thought this up anyway.
But both of those conservative arguments are like Urban Legends. Not only did at least one of Justices comment on Article 1 (I forget who, though yeah I read this sh*t for some reason) but also a quick google can tell you why it's wrong.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/s ... the-house/

[Symmetry]

Thanks for that Juan, and apologies isaiah. Sheer lazy reading on my part.

[saxitoxin]

Here, then:

In 1952 and 1953, the U.S. experienced an outbreak of 58,000 and 35,000 polio cases, respectively, up from a typical number of some 20,000 a year. Amid this U.S. polio epidemic, millions of dollars were invested in finding and marketing a polio vaccine by commercial interests, including Lederle Laboratories in New York under the direction of H. R. Cox. Also working at Lederle was Polish-born virologist and immunologist Hilary Koprowski, who claims to have created the first successful polio vaccine, in 1950. His vaccine, however, being a live attenuated virus taken orally, was still in the research stage and would not be ready for use until five years after Jonas Salk's polio vaccine (a dead injectable vaccine) had reached the market. Koprowski's attenuated vaccine was prepared by successive passages through the brains of Swiss albino mice. By the seventh passage, the vaccine strains could no longer infect nervous tissue or cause paralysis. After one to three further passages on rats, the vaccine was deemed safe for human use.[13][14] On February 27, 1950, Koprowski's live, attenuated vaccine was tested for the first time on an 8-year-old boy living at Letchworth Village, an institution for the physically and mentally disabled located in New York. After the child suffered no side effects, Koprowski enlarged his experiment to include 19 other children.[13][15]

Uhhh ... did you read this? You do realize this confirms exactly what I said, right? That Lederle Labs discovered the polio vaccine? You know that, right?

Read again. It says he makes that claim, but Salk put the vaccine out first.

It kind of doesn't matter because Jonas Salk was researching for March of Dimes ... also not government funded. I still maintain that Lederle Labs - on the basis of putting a vaccine to market first - cured polio, but even if you go with Salk, your claim "the guv'mint" cured polio is still delusional.

I know that this is your M.O. - when you're caught making up counter-claims to very, very, very basic - widely known - historical facts you just start throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall to see what sticks but it's not a strategy that's ever worked for you before. Why do you choose to continue pursuing it?