PDA

View Full Version : Health Care Passed...



brando4n82
03-21-2010, 06:59 PM
Great Job Pelosi. You've successfully managed to drive this country even further into the depths of hell. Pat on the back. You really accomplished something. Change for the worst.


Discuss.

HunterGather
03-21-2010, 07:18 PM
Is it really for the worst?

OnlyNonStranger
03-21-2010, 07:20 PM
I think he meant for the worse.

HunterGather
03-21-2010, 07:21 PM
Acutally, I didn't even notice the spelling error.
I genuinely wanna know if it's for the worst (now worse)

brando4n82
03-21-2010, 07:26 PM
I'm not gonna act like I know everything the bill consists of, but I feel fairly confident that most American people for the bill, have no idea what it even consists of, and thats frightening.

Somewhat Damaged
03-21-2010, 07:26 PM
Yeah, goddamn those motherfuckers for wanting to eliminate the health insurance companies' ability to deny coverage to people based on pre-existing conditions. Obamunist niggers.

stuporfly
03-21-2010, 07:30 PM
I'm not gonna act like I know everything the bill consists of, but I feel fairly confident that most American people for the bill, have no idea what it even consists of, and thats frightening.

The entire bill has less commas than this sentence.

The people against the bill don't know what's in it either. America's a frightening place.

brando4n82
03-21-2010, 07:31 PM
Search button sucks..Couldnt find the fat healthcare thread that just popped up..soo I'm gonna move over theree..

lizng
03-21-2010, 07:34 PM
The entire bill has less commas than this sentence.

The people against the bill don't know what's in it either. America's a frightening place.

But they are filled with enough hate to spit on a congressman. No to healthcare, but yes to unfunded wars! 'merica, fuck yeah!

malcolmjamalawesome
03-21-2010, 09:01 PM
I'm not gonna act like I know everything the bill consists of, but I feel fairly confident that most American people for the bill, have no idea what it even consists of, and thats frightening.

I have a pretty good hunch you probably know close to nothing the bill consists of, yet you still felt compelled to start a pretty strongly worded (and duplicative) thread about it, you dolt.

Most American people don't know what the Constitution says, either.

TomAz
03-21-2010, 09:10 PM
Most Americans don't know shit.

just like the rest of the world.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-21-2010, 09:13 PM
Most Americans don't know shit.

just like everyone who posts in Rumors/Gossip/Wishlist

Fixed.

gaypalmsprings
03-21-2010, 09:15 PM
Is it really for the worst?

The wurst.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m308/selmasaurus/wurst.jpg

NiceArthur32
03-21-2010, 09:15 PM
this healthcare bill is gonna take our jobs!

PlayaDelWes
03-21-2010, 09:22 PM
this healthcare bill is gonna take our jobs!

Not if you are part of one of these Boondoggles

The Cornhusker Kickback
The Louisiana Purchase
The Bismark Bankjob
Gator-Aid
The Pittsburgh Steal
The Mississippi Malfeasance
The Tennessee Three Card Monte
The Fargo Flimflam
The Texas Trade Off
The Georgia Grift
The Conestoga Con Job
The Golden Gate - gate
The Palm Springs Greased Palm
The San Francisco Switcheroo
The Utah Unbuckling
The Grand Coulee Damned

nbvcide
03-21-2010, 09:40 PM
I'm not gonna act like I know everything the bill consists of, but I feel fairly confident that most American people for the bill, have no idea what it even consists of, and thats frightening.

do you, or most americans, know (or care) about what's in ANY other bill that gets passed?

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-21-2010, 10:21 PM
damn socialists are making us into a third world. show us the birth certificate!

koryp
03-21-2010, 10:57 PM
this healthcare bill is gonna take our jobs!

It won't be taking mine, however I will be paying more to cover the care I provide to the people who will benefit from this bill. Kind of like self subsidizing. The upside is that the 23% of patients currently coming into our ER with no coverage or intention to pay for the treatment we give will have the chance to have some coverage. I'd rather get paid 50% of our cost than 0.

lunatic core
03-21-2010, 11:01 PM
do you, or most americans, know (or care) about what's in ANY other bill that gets passed?

thread over.

HunterGather
03-21-2010, 11:06 PM
hurr

juloxx
03-21-2010, 11:10 PM
I'm not gonna act like I know everything the bill consists of, but I feel fairly confident that most American people for the bill, have no idea what it even consists of, and thats frightening.

Most Americans dont know anything about what passed bills consist of.

This maybe a good thing or a bad thing, but I would rather we focus our negative attention on something that is more blatantly evil than this. Something like The Patriot Act.

Geno_g
03-21-2010, 11:44 PM
<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mEJL2Uuv-oQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mEJL2Uuv-oQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

woogie846
03-22-2010, 06:14 AM
It still needs to go through the Senate, so we'll see what happens.

guedita
03-22-2010, 06:19 AM
It still needs to go through the Senate, so we'll see what happens.

You aren't serious, are you?

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 06:23 AM
no he's not.

TomAz
03-22-2010, 06:30 AM
It won't be taking mine, however I will be paying more to cover the care I provide to the people who will benefit from this bill. Kind of like self subsidizing. The upside is that the 23% of patients currently coming into our ER with no coverage or intention to pay for the treatment we give will have the chance to have some coverage. I'd rather get paid 50% of our cost than 0.

are you a hospital administrator?

nahuatldream
03-22-2010, 07:05 AM
All I know is that without a bill I now have "coissurance", my premiums and copays went up and my decuctible tripled. This bill can't be worse than the trend we're already on, right?

TomAz
03-22-2010, 07:11 AM
ha ha ha

koryp
03-22-2010, 07:13 AM
are you a hospital administrator?

Middle management, but involved in both direct patient care and administration. None of us like this idea, much less this particular bill, however we have to find the brightsides to any change and still be able to do our jobs within whatever resources are made available. Even when the change is made by people who have no idea what goes on in delivering that care.

koryp
03-22-2010, 07:16 AM
All I know is that without a bill I now have "coissurance", my premiums and copays went up and my decuctible tripled. This bill can't be worse than the trend we're already on, right?

This is a very good understanding of how this will affect your life. A+
thank you for being a citizen concerned with covering your own needs.

JustSteve
03-22-2010, 08:53 AM
All I know is that without a bill I now have "coissurance", my premiums and copays went up and my decuctible tripled. This bill can't be worse than the trend we're already on, right?

i saw a good point somewhere else. we were all freaking out when gas hit $5 a gallon, but now that it is down to $3 a gallon everyone has moved on...even though we are still paying $3 fuckin' dollars for a gallon of gas. the oil companies set us up to think that $3 per gallon is an acceptable amount. i still remember getting gas for around $1 a gallon a little over a decade ago.

point is, people will freak out at first, but once everything settles down everyone will move on.

marooko
03-22-2010, 09:14 AM
Great Job Pelosi. You've successfully managed to drive this country even further into the depths of hell. Pat on the back. You really accomplished something. Change for the worst.


Discuss.

Yay!

Fucking bullshit.

marooko
03-22-2010, 09:39 AM
damn socialists are making us into a third world. show us the birth certificate!

You all know damn well if he was a republican you'd all be harping at this like mad men and women.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 09:44 AM
It still needs to go through the Senate, so we'll see what happens.


You aren't serious, are you?


no he's not.

It still DOES have to get signed onto by the Senate. It'll most likely get done, but it could take forever because the Republicans can delay it significantly.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/senate.health.care.ahead/index.html?hpt=T1

stinkbutt
03-22-2010, 09:47 AM
You all know damn well if he was a republican you'd all be harping at this like mad men and women.

What are your qualms with it? I honestly don't know much about this, but I'm just curious to know why people are bitching

marooko
03-22-2010, 09:56 AM
I have no qualms. I don't give a shit where he was or wasn't born. No one really does. The people that bitch about it just want something to bitch about and the people that don't believe it aren't going to no matter what. No one actually cares.

It's about where he was born. Some say Hawai'i, some say outside the US. That's how much a care, or don't, i don't know where else he was supposedly born. Nigeria, Kenya? The fucking Moon!?

???

My point is, people are still bitching about Bush stealing the election. Not because he did or didn't, but because he's a republican.

This is juts my opinion.

fatbastard
03-22-2010, 09:57 AM
Thanks in advance for paying for my liposuction. I just need Obama to get me some new pants.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 09:58 AM
No, people bitch about Bush stealing the election because he lost the popular vote, and the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore stopped the recount.

fatbastard
03-22-2010, 10:01 AM
...and pecks. Moob removal!!!

canexplain
03-22-2010, 10:02 AM
The health bill is going to cost me. I don't care because it will help some people that can't help themselves, take away preconditions, fuck stupak and his bunch even though without them it would not have passed ... Screw the states that are taking this to court because it is a waste of time and money .... hummm lots more .... We won, you lost, get over it ...

stinkbutt
03-22-2010, 10:05 AM
I have no qualms. I don't give a shit where he was or wasn't born. No one really does. The people that bitch about it just want something to bitch about and the people that don't believe it aren't going to no matter what. No one actually cares.

It's about where he was born. Some say Hawai'i, some say outside the US. That's how much a care, or don't, i don't know where else he was supposedly born. Nigeria, Kenya? The fucking Moon!?

???

My point is, people are still bitching about Bush stealing the election. Not because he did or didn't, but because he's a republican.

This is juts my opinion.

Oh I thought you were saying the healthcare bill was bullshit, and that is what I was inquiring about

SoulDischarge
03-22-2010, 10:07 AM
Marco was being facetious, guys.

marooko
03-22-2010, 10:26 AM
I wasn't.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 10:40 AM
Marco was being facetious, guys.

clearly no one heard those rush limbaugh messages.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 11:05 AM
How is anyone okay with the government telling them they HAVE to buy something? How is that not tyranny?

bmack86
03-22-2010, 11:06 AM
You don't have to buy insurance from the government. I don't know where you got that idea.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 11:14 AM
You don't have to buy insurance from the government. I don't know where you got that idea.

Mistyped. Either way the government is telling us we must buy a product, which violates our freedom. This is the beginning of tyranny.

JebusLives
03-22-2010, 11:16 AM
"psyco" gets a lot of ideas from someplace that doesn't provide references. Like his asshole, perhaps.

Yes, all Americans agreeing to help each other out health-wise is totally the first step towards tyranny. How could I not see this before? Its just so obvious.

If you don't like it, you should move to... oh shit, every other 1st world country already has universal health care. Here, pick any of the grey places on this map (except the US, now). Avoid the blue ones especially - they have a single-payer system and are therefore particularly oppressive.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e7/Universal_Health_Care_World_Map.svg/800px-Universal_Health_Care_World_Map.svg.png

Enjoy your new tyranny-free lifestyle in the Congo!

weeklymix
03-22-2010, 11:30 AM
This thread is supremely retarded.

OP: I feel like you just wanted attention.

summerkid
03-22-2010, 11:33 AM
How is anyone okay with the government telling them they HAVE to buy something? How is that not tyranny?

Its illegal to drive without car insurance.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 11:47 AM
You HAVE to pay for Social Security. You have to pay into medicare benefits. Tyranny didn't result from either of those.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 11:53 AM
Its illegal to drive without car insurance.

See TomAz's response to this argument. It's not the same thing. Yes, I read the part where Tom said he didn't agree with the argument, but I can't figure out why not.

For the record, it's incredibly stupid for it to be illegal to drive without car insurance.


"psyco" gets a lot of ideas from someplace that doesn't provide references. Like his asshole, perhaps.

What is this bullshit? I have to have a reference to explain what tyranny is or why your analogy was blatantly stupid? And really, you're pulling the redneck "if you don't like it get out" card?

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 11:57 AM
You HAVE to pay for Social Security. You have to pay into medicare benefits. Tyranny didn't result from either of those.

I didn't say all taxes are tyrannical (although Medicare and Social Security obviously aren't working very well). This bill calls for buying a product or being punished for not buying it.

TomAz
03-22-2010, 11:59 AM
See TomAz's response to this argument. It's not the same thing. Yes, I read the part where Tom said he didn't agree with the argument, but I can't figure out why not.


You HAVE to pay for Social Security. You have to pay into medicare benefits. Tyranny didn't result from either of those.

bmack did a good job explaining why I don't buy the argument. I mean yes, car insurance and health insurance are different, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a mandate for health insurance.

The mandate is crucial to make this work. Without it everything falls to shit.

Three options:

- status quo, 40 million americans without health insurance

- private market reform, remove barriers to coverage, provide subsidies for low income people, and require that everyone buy into the program so that the insurance pool maintains a reasonable mix of risks.

- have the government take over the whole thing and run it (single payer)


of these three, I think the 2nd one is the best.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 12:03 PM
bmack did a good job explaining why I don't buy the argument. I mean yes, car insurance and health insurance are different, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a mandate for health insurance.

The mandate is crucial to make this work. Without it everything falls to shit.

Three options:

- status quo, 40 million americans without health insurance

- private market reform, remove barriers to coverage, provide subsidies for low income people, and require that everyone buy into the program so that the insurance pool maintains a reasonable mix of risks.

- have the government take over the whole thing and run it (single payer)


of these three, I think the 2nd one is the best.

Ok I think I'll take the status quo, but maybe that's because I don't understand the details of #2.

I think I need it explained to me why a mandate for insurance is okay but not a mandate for a certain amount of food each month.

hawkingvsreeve
03-22-2010, 12:16 PM
Enjoy your new tyranny-free lifestyle in the Congo!

lulzapalooza

chairmenmeow47
03-22-2010, 12:19 PM
ABORTIONS FOR ALL

JebusLives
03-22-2010, 12:21 PM
And really, you're pulling the redneck "if you don't like it get out" card?

no, i went for something slightly more subtle and of course failed miserably.

JebusLives
03-22-2010, 12:22 PM
ABORTIONS FOR ALL

Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others.

crazzz2007
03-22-2010, 12:23 PM
How is anyone okay with the government telling them they HAVE to buy something? How is that not tyranny?

the government tells you that you have to pay taxes.

the government tells you that you can't drive over __ miles per hour.

the government tells you that you can't litter.

the government tells you that you have to buy car insurance in order to drive.

the government tells you that you have to wear clothes in public.

the government tells you that you have to buy social security insurance.

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?

marooko
03-22-2010, 12:25 PM
http://www.yorkblog.com/mma/ckongo.jpeg

marooko
03-22-2010, 12:26 PM
the government tells you that you have to pay taxes.

the government tells you that you can't drive over __ miles per hour.

the government tells you that you can't litter.

the government tells you that you have to buy car insurance in order to drive.

the government tells you that you have to wear clothes in public.

the government tells you that you have to buy social security insurance.

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?


think about this post the next time a republican in prominent office says something about God. In other words, telling us what religion we should practice.

hawkingvsreeve
03-22-2010, 12:28 PM
Not the same there, tonto. With the exception of the clothes one none of those infringe upon 1st amendment rights.

fatbastard
03-22-2010, 12:30 PM
Cankle reduction! I'll be a new man.

crazzz2007
03-22-2010, 12:30 PM
Not the same there, tonto. With the exception of the clothes one none of those infringe upon 1st amendment rights.

How is being required to purchase health insurance any difference than being required to purchase social security insurance?

guedita
03-22-2010, 12:31 PM
It still DOES have to get signed onto by the Senate. It'll most likely get done, but it could take forever because the Republicans can delay it significantly.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/senate.health.care.ahead/index.html?hpt=T1

Thanks, MJA. I know the Senate still has to sign it, I was just wondering if that guy seriously thought it wouldn't get to Obama (eventually).

This can't turn into a filibuster shit show though...right?

hawkingvsreeve
03-22-2010, 12:32 PM
How is being required to purchase health insurance any difference than being required to purchase social security insurance?

My post was directed at Marokoo.

crazzz2007
03-22-2010, 12:32 PM
ok i'm slow today. had a rough weekend.

hawkingvsreeve
03-22-2010, 12:33 PM
No worries, baby.

dantoro
03-22-2010, 12:44 PM
haha now your tax $$ will have to pay for my penis reduction (this is the second one)

Im just happy our dysfunctional system was able to get something ...anything done at all. I have read part of the bill and what some political journalist/bloggers are saying about it, and though its flawed it will help millions of people get medical coverage who desperately need it. At a price... a price that should have come out of the defense budget.

It's easy for people to say negative things about it, most of those people know very little about it and are just chanting what they hear in their right wing hate-email circles. you know those birther / moose-love folks

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 12:47 PM
the government tells you that you have to pay taxes.

the government tells you that you can't drive over __ miles per hour.

the government tells you that you can't litter.

the government tells you that you have to buy car insurance in order to drive.

the government tells you that you have to wear clothes in public.

the government tells you that you have to buy social security insurance.

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?

What hawking said. There's a little thing called the constitution, and this little health bill violates it. You really think our government is allowed to tell us to do whatever it wants? That's called a dictatorship, and we don't have one.

And honestly, telling us we have to wear clothes is tyranny. We may have no problem with it because we like to wear clothes, but the government has no right to force us to.

ELECtROjan
03-22-2010, 12:52 PM
i love this government. Demonize the successful class to guilt trip congress into voting for a bill that furthers the welfare state that Washington has created over the past thirty years. The true Robin Hood of politics is fucking bullshit. Where can I turn in my college degree and start getting the handouts?

hawkingvsreeve
03-22-2010, 12:54 PM
Whoa there. Slow your roll.

I don't think the health bill is unconstitutional. At least in spirit. I haven't read any of it so I can't say if it is or not. I was addressing Marokoo when he claimed it was the same thing as us getting uppity if a republican told us what religion to believe in. That was where my comment came from.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 01:00 PM
Whoa there. Slow your roll.

I don't think the health bill is unconstitutional. At least in spirit. I haven't read any of it so I can't say if it is or not. I was addressing Marokoo when he claimed it was the same thing as us getting uppity if a republican told us what religion to believe in. That was where my comment came from.

I didn't mean to imply that you agree with whatever I wrote, sorry. But if I understand the basics of the bill, it violates the 10th amendment and the commerce clause.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/virginia-calls-health-bill-unconstitutional-files-suit.html

djandrews25
03-22-2010, 01:04 PM
This thread and the health bill are all kinds of retarded.

marooko
03-22-2010, 01:22 PM
The picture of the rolling eyed guy watching Lois and Peter get freaky in the office.

crazzz2007
03-22-2010, 01:23 PM
What hawking said. There's a little thing called the constitution, and this little health bill violates it. You really think our government is allowed to tell us to do whatever it wants? That's called a dictatorship, and we don't have one.

And honestly, telling us we have to wear clothes is tyranny. We may have no problem with it because we like to wear clothes, but the government has no right to force us to.

You're an idiot. Which provision of the health care bill violates the Constitution? How do this provision violate the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment? And have you heard of our judicial system? If this health care bill does violate the Constitution, you can be sure that the current Supreme Court will overturn the supposedly unconstitutional provisions.

Stop talking out of your ass.

hawkingvsreeve
03-22-2010, 01:23 PM
I've been waaaay behind on my commerce clause reading lately.

zajaa
03-22-2010, 01:23 PM
that would be opie, employee of the month.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/familyguy/images//d/d9/Opie.png

TomAz
03-22-2010, 01:24 PM
Washington Post article on why some states think the HCR bill may be unconstitutional (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html)

marooko
03-22-2010, 01:37 PM
that would be opie, employee of the month.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/familyguy/images//d/d9/Opie.png

I couldn't remember his name. Good work!

bmack86
03-22-2010, 04:22 PM
Commerce Clause arguments get really vapid really quick on both sides. The court recently has really reigned in any commerce clause arguments, and it probably would not be a strong argument here. However, the commerce clause allows the government to regulate anything that would have an interstate effect. Could argue the old health care system would have an adverse affect on commerce by creating people who would travel into new states and get injured without insurance, creating a strain on the hospital system. Because of the Heart of Atlanta case, the commerce clause is extended to transient guests, not just goods or products, so it might be an argument that this is fully covered by the commerce clause.

As far as 10th amendment violations, I don't see it. What exactly is this violating?

vinylmartyr
03-22-2010, 04:23 PM
WHOA free abortions!! HELLO LADIES!!

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 05:58 PM
Commerce Clause arguments get really vapid really quick on both sides. The court recently has really reigned in any commerce clause arguments, and it probably would not be a strong argument here. However, the commerce clause allows the government to regulate anything that would have an interstate effect. Could argue the old health care system would have an adverse affect on commerce by creating people who would travel into new states and get injured without insurance, creating a strain on the hospital system. Because of the Heart of Atlanta case, the commerce clause is extended to transient guests, not just goods or products, so it might be an argument that this is fully covered by the commerce clause.

As far as 10th amendment violations, I don't see it. What exactly is this violating?

Good for you, pal. Heart of Atlanta FTW.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 06:03 PM
You're an idiot. Which provision of the health care bill violates the Constitution? How do this provision violate the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment? And have you heard of our judicial system? If this health care bill does violate the Constitution, you can be sure that the current Supreme Court will overturn the supposedly unconstitutional provisions.

Stop talking out of your ass.

Does your internet have a 23 minute delay or something?

And no I can't be sure of that because we have a ton of unconstitutional laws that are passed and retained without a second thought. The worst of them being the Patriot act.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 06:17 PM
Just because someone doesn't reply to your post as soon as you post it doesn't make their point invalid.

Although, to be fair, the fact that Crazzzzzz posted it makes it invalid.

mountmccabe
03-22-2010, 07:03 PM
For the record, it's incredibly stupid for it to be illegal to drive without car insurance.

Go back to New Hampshire, hippie.



I think I need it explained to me why a mandate for insurance is okay but not a mandate for a certain amount of food each month.

When they start mandating the amount of food we each get per month I will stand with you.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:10 PM
Just because someone doesn't reply to your post as soon as you post it doesn't make their point invalid.

Although, to be fair, the fact that Crazzzzzz posted it makes it invalid.

No, I was just pointing out that he blatantly skipped over my post where I answered his question in advance. But agreed about the second point.


Go back to New Hampshire, hippie.

Actually, I just came from Rhode Island (SWEET SIXTEEN), but I'm considering anywhere in New England to live someday. It's great over there.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 07:15 PM
Why is it stupid to make people have car insurance? I want to hear your reasoning.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 07:16 PM
Actually, I just came from Rhode Island (SWEET SIXTEEN), but I'm considering anywhere in New England to live someday. It's great over there.

How about Massachusetts and their Health Care system?

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:19 PM
Massachusetts can do what it wants, they're a state, not a country.

How about your reasoning for being forced to buy car insurance? I truly don't see why the law is justified. If I want to pay thousands of dollars for a fender bender I should have the right.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:19 PM
Do you think Thomas Jefferson provided his slaves with health care or do you think he figured sleeping with them was enough "care"?

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:20 PM
Massachusetts can do what it wants, they're a state, not a country.

How about your reasoning for being forced to buy car insurance? I truly don't see why the law is justified. If I want to pay thousands of dollars for a fender bender I should have the right.

It's because if you don't pay thousands of dollars to the OTHER person you hit and you can't afford it then that person just gets boned.

Monklish
03-22-2010, 07:20 PM
I like that he thinks the reason that car insurance is mandatory is the costs of fender benders.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:21 PM
I didn't claim to know the reason, but that's one thing that's affected by the law. I actually claimed to not know the reason at all. It doesn't make sense.

Monklish
03-22-2010, 07:21 PM
It's also because if you hit someone with a car you might put them in the hospital and cost them thousands of dollars in medical bills and/or take their lives and the government wants to make sure that you have something in place to actually be able to pay something to the injured person/family of the victim.

Monklish
03-22-2010, 07:22 PM
You dumb fuck. You unbelievably dumb, obtuse fuck.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:22 PM
I think that's along the lines of what I said. And also it makes perfect fucking sense.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:22 PM
It's because if you don't pay thousands of dollars to the OTHER person you hit and you can't afford it then that person just gets boned.

Why not just take my car/house/whatever else they need to take? It's my fault for not having insurance.

guedita
03-22-2010, 07:23 PM
Why not just take my car/house/whatever else they need to take? It's my fault for not having insurance.

Isn't that essentially what will happen when people without insurance get penalized? Except a much smaller fee?

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:23 PM
Why not just take my car/house/whatever else they need to take? It's my fault for not having insurance.

What if you don't have anything? What if you don't have enough to cover the costs? Based on your answers here alone I certainly hope you don't have anything of value.

Monklish
03-22-2010, 07:24 PM
You do understand that most people don't really own their houses or a lot of times their cars either, right? And that you can't pay a hospital bill with a car?

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Isn't that essentially what will happen when people without insurance get penalized? Except a much smaller fee?

Fucking guedita running shit.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Exactly. The reason we have to all have car insurance is because it's not fair to let someone drive, get into a car crash, seriously injure someone and then just leave them that way because they don't have enough money to compensate them for their idiocy. And because fairness is, at least ideally, the driving policy reason behind many of our laws.

And, you should only be allowed to shell out $1,000 dollars for a fender bender if you have it. It'd be bullshit to allow everyone to drive if they couldn't cover for their accidents. And, if that were the case, then either we'd have to come up with an extremely costly new legislative scheme to deal with all the resulting accidents, or we'd have to only let people who could afford to pay for accidents drive. Neither is a viable solution.

Monklish
03-22-2010, 07:25 PM
Dude is seriously regularly the single most oblivious fucking twerp that comes around here. Jesus Christ.

Bud Luster
03-22-2010, 07:25 PM
I can't believe you all actually entertained the thought of explaining shit to this dumb mother fucker.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:26 PM
"What if I have like, a ton of sweet ass shells I found at the shore ... couldn't I just give them that? It's not MY fucking fault."

PlayaDelWes
03-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Why not just take my car/house/whatever else they need to take? It's my fault for not having insurance.

Because all that is not enough to cover the cost. Especially when you think the highest risk drivers are 16 - 25. You really think 16 - 25 year olds have equity in a house? You really think the car you just totaled is worth anything to the guy you put in the hospital? You really think your 'whatever' is going to pay for medical bills?

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:28 PM
Medical bills that, if they have a pre-existing condition, insurance may likely not pay for.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:28 PM
What if you don't have anything? What if you don't have enough to cover the costs? Based on your answers here alone I certainly hope you don't have anything of value.

If you have a car you have something. I'm sure a better system could be set up than one that forces us to buy a service. I don't like being forced to buy a good or service, and I don't know why that's unreasonable.


Isn't that essentially what will happen when people without insurance get penalized? Except a much smaller fee?

You're talking about health insurance now? Yeah, a much smaller fee. But that isn't relevant, because punishment shouldn't be necessary just for existing. Punishment/penalty is necessary for driving into someone else's car and damaging their property.

Monklish
03-22-2010, 07:28 PM
"What if I have like, a ton of sweet ass shells I found at the shore ... couldn't I just give them that? It's not MY fucking fault."

"If they need money why don't they just sell the car I stained with their blood and hair fragments when I crashed into them?"

TomAz
03-22-2010, 07:29 PM
I've been waaaay behind on my commerce clause reading lately.

not Bryan!


Commerce Clause arguments get really vapid really quick on both sides. The court recently has really reigned in any commerce clause arguments, and it probably would not be a strong argument here. However, the commerce clause allows the government to regulate anything that would have an interstate effect. Could argue the old health care system would have an adverse affect on commerce by creating people who would travel into new states and get injured without insurance, creating a strain on the hospital system. Because of the Heart of Atlanta case, the commerce clause is extended to transient guests, not just goods or products, so it might be an argument that this is fully covered by the commerce clause.

As far as 10th amendment violations, I don't see it. What exactly is this violating?

Monklish
03-22-2010, 07:29 PM
If you have a car you have something. I'm sure a better system could be set up than one that forces us to buy a service. I don't like being forced to buy a good or service, and I don't know why that's unreasonable.

Again--you realize that most people who actually possess cars worth anything don't own them, don't you? Oh wait, no you don't. You don't understand anything.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:29 PM
If you have a car you have something. I'm sure a better system could be set up than one that forces us to buy a service. I don't like being forced to buy a good or service, and I don't know why that's unreasonable.



1) Not if you don't own the car.
2) Say you cause $30,000 worth of damage for the guy you hit and it's clearly your fault because you're so fucking stupid and you have a piece of shit car worth about $2,000. Does that solve the problem?

bmack86
03-22-2010, 07:31 PM
I guess we could just get rid of cars. That might work.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:31 PM
psycho, can you feel your fucking brain hurting every time you try to squeeze a coherent thought out of its mangled, lesioned folds?

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:34 PM
I really don't understand anything, which is what I said before. Calm down a little bit about it, or stop posting maybe?

So the insurance system is set up so that insurance companies pay damages for accidents, is that right? If so, that means anyone who buys insurance and doesn't get in accidents is paying for other people's accidents. Am I wrong about this?

bmack86
03-22-2010, 07:35 PM
Massachusetts can do what it wants, they're a state, not a country.


I also don't understand this reasoning. They're still a government presiding over people forcing them to get insurance. At its most basic level, and on many higher levels, it's the same exact thing. Not in principle, but in practice.

SoulDischarge
03-22-2010, 07:36 PM
I don't like being forced to buy food in order to live.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 07:37 PM
this thread is turning into a full on tea party.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:37 PM
I really don't understand anything, which is what I said before. Calm down a little bit about it, or stop posting maybe?

So the insurance system is set up so that insurance companies pay damages for accidents, is that right? If so, that means anyone who buys insurance and doesn't get in accidents is paying for other people's accidents. Am I wrong about this?

That's a simplified way of looking at it but sure.

Some people who pay for insurance to help pay for their costs if/when they need them will ultimately use that insurance less than someone who gets in a lot of accidents. It's how insurance companies make money and how they spread risk out over enrollees.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:38 PM
I also don't understand this reasoning. They're still a government presiding over people forcing them to get insurance. At its most basic level, and on many higher levels, it's the same exact thing. Not in principle, but in practice.

I don't know, I don't live in Massachusetts and haven't looked into their health care law. I'm sure a lot of MA conservatives hate the law. But states have the constitutional right to decide things on their own, and the federal government doesn't in this case, at least based on my interpretation. I don't really care about MA's laws though.

SoulDischarge
03-22-2010, 07:39 PM
this thread is turning into a full on tea party.

Teabag party maybe. Holla!

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:39 PM
I don't know, I don't live in Massachusetts and haven't looked into their health care law. I'm sure a lot of MA conservatives hate the law. But states have the constitutional right to decide things on their own, and the federal government doesn't in this case, at least based on my interpretation. I don't really care about MA's laws though.

What kinds of "things" do the states have the constitutional right to decide that the federal government doesn't and what part of the constitution are you basing this interpretation on?

For posterity's sake, let it be known that I know what the answer should be.

SoulDischarge
03-22-2010, 07:44 PM
"You know, the whole thing."

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:44 PM
That's a simplified way of looking at it but sure.

Some people who pay for insurance to help pay for their costs if/when they need them will ultimately use that insurance less than someone who gets in a lot of accidents. It's how insurance companies make money and how they spread risk out over enrollees.

I don't like having to pay for other people's mistakes. I would buy car insurance even if it wasn't mandated, but I shouldn't have to. And I don't have an alternative idea. It just seems a little strange that most insurance is optional but car insurance is not.


I don't like being forced to buy food in order to live.

You're not forced to buy food. It would be just as criminal as the health bill if you were.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 07:44 PM
I don't know, I don't live in Massachusetts and haven't looked into their health care law. I'm sure a lot of MA conservatives hate the law. But states have the constitutional right to decide things on their own, and the federal government doesn't in this case, at least based on my interpretation. I don't really care about MA's laws though.

Are you originally from California?

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:44 PM
What kinds of "things" do the states have the constitutional right to decide that the federal government doesn't and what part of the constitution are you basing this interpretation on?

For posterity's sake, let it be known that I know what the answer should be.

10th amendment, don't need to get into it, everyone knows what it is.

guedita
03-22-2010, 07:46 PM
If you have a car you have something. I'm sure a better system could be set up than one that forces us to buy a service. I don't like being forced to buy a good or service, and I don't know why that's unreasonable.



You're talking about health insurance now? Yeah, a much smaller fee. But that isn't relevant, because punishment shouldn't be necessary just for existing. Punishment/penalty is necessary for driving into someone else's car and damaging their property.

No one's being punished for existing. They're being fined if they don't procure themselves health care from the available options. Plenty of people don't have car insurance, even though it's advisable that they should for their own safety. Plenty of people probably won't buy health insurance, and if they're caught without it, they'll pay a fine. But it's advisable that they should have health insurance. Because maybe something will happen to them, like some lunatic without car insurance will hit them, and they'll need to go to the hospital. I mean, do you honestly see this as an explicit way for the government to PUNISH people for punishment's sake?

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 07:48 PM
So the insurance system is set up so that insurance companies pay damages for accidents, is that right? If so, that means anyone who buys insurance and doesn't get in accidents is paying for other people's accidents. Am I wrong about this?

But one day you might need the insurance. You don't know if you're going to get into a car accident, and you're the one at fault, until you die or you're unable to drive.

You worthless fucking mongoloid/chimp hybrid.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:49 PM
10th amendment, don't need to get into it, everyone knows what it is.

No no, go ahead. Explain the 10th Amendment for the people that don't know.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 07:49 PM
But one day you might need the insurance. You don't know if you're going to get into a car accident, and you're the one at fault, until you die or you're unable to drive.

You worthless fucking mongoloid/chimp hybrid.

:pulse

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:51 PM
No one's being punished for existing. They're being fined if they don't procure themselves health care from the available options. Plenty of people don't have car insurance, even though it's advisable that they should for their own safety. Plenty of people probably won't buy health insurance, and if they're caught without it, they'll pay a fine. But it's advisable that they should have health insurance. Because maybe something will happen to them, like some lunatic without car insurance will hit them, and they'll need to go to the hospital. I mean, do you honestly see this as an explicit way for the government to PUNISH people for punishment's sake?

Plenty of people don't have car insurance, but they're violating the law if they own a car.

Plenty of people won't have health insurance, but they'll be violating the law, thus the conditional tax. Taxes aren't friendly donations.

No, I don't think the government intends to punish me for punishment's sake, but that's really all the tax is. If I don't buy this service, the government takes money from me. That's not really an option, is it? It's punishment.

Bud Luster
03-22-2010, 07:52 PM
Its right after the 9th and just before the 11th. It amends the constitution.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:53 PM
Its right after the 9th and just before the 11th. It amends the constitution.

See, psycho? Bud definitely needs you to explain the 10th Amendment and what about it makes you think something is wrong.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 07:53 PM
But one day you might need the insurance. You don't know if you're going to get into a car accident, and you're the one at fault, until you die or you're unable to drive.

You worthless fucking mongoloid/chimp hybrid.

Right, one day I might need insurance but it's my call. And like I said, while I am a near perfect driver, I would never not buy insurance.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 07:57 PM
Right, one day I might need insurance but it's my call. And like I said, while I am a near perfect driver, I would never not buy insurance.

I guess it would be your call. And if you couldn't afford to pay my bills, because you show the same common sense with your driving ability as you do in your posts, then I would send one of my cholo cousins to break each and every one of your limbs. Fair is fair. You infringe on my rights because you're too fucking stupid to operate a machine on the road and I infringe on yours by making you live the rest of your live through a breathing tube.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 07:59 PM
Right, one day I might need insurance but it's my call. And like I said, while I am a near perfect driver, I would never not buy insurance.

Here's the thing: it's not so much about you needing insurance for YOU; it's about you needing insurance in case you fuck somebody else up because if you don't have insurance, and you don't have the type of collateral to pay for their costs that YOU caused, then that person is just fucked out of having their bills paid for and it's your fault.

In terms of health insurance, when people don't have any insurance, a lot of times they end up going to the emergency room when they need to see a doctor. This is because the federal law says that emergency rooms can't turn a patient away because of inability to pay. So, they go in, get services which they can't pay for, and then the taxpayers fund the costs (which can be millions on top of millions in a year) through programs like Medicaid and Medicare (where lots of these types of costs end up). So, again, by not getting insurance, these people are actually fucking everyone else.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:00 PM
I'm a near perfect driver, don't worry about it.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:03 PM
So, again, by not getting insurance, these people are actually fucking everyone else.

I guess you could say I don't really believe in insurance or at least our dependence on it. If no one had it, costs would be more affordable for everyone, although obviously some people are dirt poor.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 08:04 PM
I guess you could say I don't really believe in insurance or at least our dependence on it. If no one had it, costs would be more affordable for everyone, although obviously some people are dirt poor.

What costs would be more affordable for everyone?

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:07 PM
Medical costs would certainly go down if health insurance didn't exist. I don't want to elaborate, don't have the time, but John Stossel covered it pretty well on 20/20, YouTube it if you're curious.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 08:07 PM
That's the problem with your arguments, Psycho. They're not taking into account anything except yourself. You might be a good driver, you might be able to afford stuff, but there are extremely large amounts of the population who fall into neither category. I shouldn't get punished because of that.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 08:08 PM
Psyco thinks that if everyone just had unlimited money then everything would be more affordable.

it's a California thing.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 08:10 PM
Hey now, I've lived in California for 21 of my 24 years.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:10 PM
That's the problem with your arguments, Psycho. They're not taking into account anything except yourself. You might be a good driver, you might be able to afford stuff, but there are extremely large amounts of the population who fall into neither category. I shouldn't get punished because of that.

I was just joking. I'm a pretty good driver though. And I can't afford stuff, I'm broke as shit.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 08:11 PM
Medical costs would certainly go down if health insurance didn't exist. I don't want to elaborate, don't have the time, but John Stossel covered it pretty well on 20/20, YouTube it if you're curious.

Medical costs for whom? Because I'm pretty sure the people providing medical services and manufacturing drugs and devices are going to have the same amount of overhead whether there is insurance or not.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 08:11 PM
In terms of health insurance, when people don't have any insurance, a lot of times they end up going to the emergency room when they need to see a doctor. This is because the federal law says that emergency rooms can't turn a patient away because of inability to pay. So, they go in, get services which they can't pay for, and then the taxpayers fund the costs (which can be millions on top of millions in a year) through programs like Medicaid and Medicare (where lots of these types of costs end up). So, again, by not getting insurance, these people are actually fucking everyone else.

For those of you against the bill because the money is being re-distributed, read this paragraph and soak it in. Our money is already being re-distributed to people who don't buy health insurance. Maybe under this new plan it will be re-distributed in a more efficient, fair way. Maybe instead of paying for ER visits, we can pay for physicals and early detection.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 08:11 PM
Hey now, I've lived in California for 21 of my 24 years.

But you're strange because you're on the level and tend to make sense. Maybe a Norcal thing?

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:13 PM
Stop saying Norcal.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 08:14 PM
Northern California* Bay Area*

guedita
03-22-2010, 08:16 PM
Northern California* Bay Area*

I'm from the Bay Area. There's idiots everywhere you go in California.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 08:17 PM
Stop saying Norcal.

You are just posting now for the sake of posting. I think we should all stop humoring you. You said yourself that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You don't have the slightest clue how insurance works.

Next.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:18 PM
There are far more idiots down south. All the idiots I know up here are from there.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:19 PM
You are just posting now for the sake of posting. I think we should all stop humoring you. You said yourself that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You don't have the slightest clue how insurance works.

Next.

I have a pretty good idea of how health insurance works, and I don't know why it needs to exist.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 08:22 PM
I have a pretty good idea of how health insurance works, and I don't know why it needs to exist.

Because most people couldn't afford the actual costs of medical services and medicine. They are services that are often times incredibly expensive to render and medicine is often incredibly expensive to produce. By creating a risk pooling system with insurance, health care becomes affordable to a degree where we can actually have fucking health care. Don't believe me? Go get a physical and pay cash. Get a prescription for Lipitor and pay cash every month. Break your fucking leg and stay in a hospital for a few days and pay cash. Then tell me if health insurance makes sense or not.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 08:22 PM
I have a pretty good idea of how health insurance works, and I don't know why it needs to exist.

How do you propose that people pay medical costs? Everyone gets free medical attention? Sign me up.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 08:23 PM
For the record, I'm not from Northern California. Further, I have family in Livermore and have spent quite a bit of time there, and there are tons of absolutely ig'nant folk living in that town.

That said, Car Insurance should be required, and I'm glad it is.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 08:24 PM
I took a radioactive iodine pill for my hyperactive thyroid. You wanna know how much that was? $31,000. You think I can afford that? Fuck no. Wanna know how much I paid due to my health insurance? $0.00.

Explain why having health insurance is bad.


Edit: I was mistaken, I just looked at the bill. It was $31,785.

weeklymix
03-22-2010, 08:26 PM
Name brand prescription medications wouldn't be accessible were it not for health insurance.

(Before one of you assholes says "get generic," school yourself on patent protection.)

TomAz
03-22-2010, 08:31 PM
Here's the thing: it's not so much about you needing insurance for YOU; it's about you needing insurance in case you fuck somebody else up because if you don't have insurance, and you don't have the type of collateral to pay for their costs that YOU caused, then that person is just fucked out of having their bills paid for and it's your fault.

In terms of health insurance, when people don't have any insurance, a lot of times they end up going to the emergency room when they need to see a doctor. This is because the federal law says that emergency rooms can't turn a patient away because of inability to pay. So, they go in, get services which they can't pay for, and then the taxpayers fund the costs (which can be millions on top of millions in a year) through programs like Medicaid and Medicare (where lots of these types of costs end up). So, again, by not getting insurance, these people are actually fucking everyone else.

psycho, I get where you're coming from. I really do. I don't wanna jump on your ass like everyone else.

But you need to read MJA's words here. They are wisdom and they are just the tip of the iceberg. You can choose not to have health insurance, I suppose, but if you get in a wreck the EMTs aren't just gonna let you die because you don't have a way to pay. it's called financial responsibility and it makes sense to require it. And the consequences of not requiring it are really bad.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:31 PM
3WnS96NVlMI

TomAz
03-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Name brand prescription medications wouldn't be accessible were it not for health insurance.

(Before one of you assholes says "get generic," school yourself on patent protection.)

patent protection: 7 years.

after that: 6 month window where one (and only one) imitator can compete.

after that: it's fair game.

psycobetabuckdown
03-22-2010, 08:32 PM
psycho, I get where you're coming from. I really do. I don't wanna jump on your ass like everyone else.

But you need to read MJA's words here. They are wisdom and they are just the tip of the iceberg. You can choose not to have health insurance, I suppose, but if you get in a wreck the EMTs aren't just gonna let you die because you don't have a way to pay. it's called financial responsibility and it makes sense to require it. And the consequences of not requiring it are really bad.

Trust me, MJA is the only reason I've gotten anything out of this discussion, I'm paying attention. To me, requiring it doesn't make as much sense as not having it exist at all, which obviously is a fringe idea that isn't discussed.

TomAz
03-22-2010, 08:35 PM
Edit: I was mistaken, I just looked at the bill. It was $31,785.

this is a digression, and probably will distract a few people from the real issue, but 'billed charges' mean virtually nothing. Seriously. no insurance company pays them, the government sure as hell doesn't, and no self-pay people do either.

your point is valid though.

TomAz
03-22-2010, 08:40 PM
Trust me, MJA is the only reason I've gotten anything out of this discussion, I'm paying attention. To me, requiring it doesn't make as much sense as not having it exist at all, which obviously is a fringe idea that isn't discussed.

An academic point but: no health insurance is a really bad idea. some time you and I can have a private discussion about India, where there is a burgeoning middle class, a greatly expanding healthcare delivery system, almost no government coverage, and a poorly regulated and overall lousy private insurance market. The stories there are full of: successful professional from a traditionally poor family --> middle class status --> health problem ---> lifetime savings wiped out --> oops, poor as shit again.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 08:41 PM
3WnS96NVlMI

Seems to me that he's talking about health-insurance REFORM. Not eliminating it all together. At least, I hope that's what he's talking about. If he's talking about elimination, that would be throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

Do you want me to shop around for nuclear medicine? This procedure costs $31,785, BUT I found one on the cheap for only $28,300!! Score! You want cancer patients to shop around?

In no way did that video prove that it's a good idea to not have health insurance.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 08:44 PM
this is a digression, and probably will distract a few people from the real issue, but 'billed charges' mean virtually nothing. Seriously. no insurance company pays them, the government sure as hell doesn't, and no self-pay people do either.

your point is valid though.

I hear ya. Even if it was $29,000 cheaper, I probably couldn't pay for it.

BlackSwan
03-22-2010, 08:45 PM
Psyco, where did you learn to be this stupid? Seriously, who made you a Libertarian?

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 08:48 PM
That video, sadly, is only telling bits and pieces of the health insurance story.

For starters, a lot of the points being made are really only applicable to healthy, young people. Older, sicker people certainly require more care, all of which is very expensive, but often wouldn't necessarily be considered "catastrophic".

Further, while the availability of insurance has created an increase in the quantity of services people seek out (though the statement that healthcare pays for "everything" is misleading), it's also allowed for more preventative care which is in turn helping people avoid disease and live longer.

And that's another element. I'm not sure what John Stossell's magic mustache chart really said as he clearly doesn't cite any of his information, but one reason health care costs may go up with the availability of insurance is that people receiving more medical care are living longer, and the longer someone lives, inevitably the more their care is going to cost.

As far as the ugly man in the video's statement about how health insurance is the "only thing we expect someone else to pay for" rather than groceries and cars, tell that to people on food stamps. And a lot of times, WE'RE not paying for our cars with a little help from our friendly lenders at the bank. The reason, you ugly bastard in your stupid red polo, is because for the most part, is to most people, there is a BIG difference in the real cost of a week's worth of groceries versus the cost of serious medical care, the main one being that most people can afford the groceries.

weeklymix
03-22-2010, 08:50 PM
Yeah I figured you would know, TomAZ. I've taken brand name medications that were still up to $100 a month even with coverage. Companies can even file for things like pediatric exclusivity that will push back its patent expiration date. It's really obnoxious on the business end but were it not for health insurance it would be far worse.

Somewhat Damaged
03-22-2010, 08:50 PM
I hear ya. Even if it was $29,000 cheaper, I probably couldn't pay for it.

I bet you could if you didn't spend so much money traveling across various states for concerts.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 08:53 PM
Yeah I figured you would know, TomAZ. I've taken brand name medications that were still up to $100 a month even with coverage. Companies can even file for things like pediatric exclusivity that will push back its patent expiration date. It's really obnoxious on the business end but were it not for health insurance it would be far worse.

Just being devil's advocate here, but the amount a pharmaceutical manufacturer has to plunk down into research and development just to weed through hundreds and thousands of molecules that never become a viable compound (each of which costing several million dollars) just to develop one drug they can bring to market creates a pretty understandable motivation behind getting as much income and patent exclusivity as they can off a branded drug.

weeklymix
03-22-2010, 08:57 PM
I honestly understand the business end of the argument I was just using personal experience to support the need for health insurance.

TommyboyUNM
03-22-2010, 08:57 PM
I bet you could if you didn't spend so much money traveling across various states for concerts.

On the off chance that it was actually $29,000 cheaper....probably. I bet I could also pay it if I didn't spend money to go to school and try to be a productive member of society.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 09:00 PM
So, I didn't even think about this because it's a stupid approach to lawsuits that conservative justices seem to love, but it doesn't seem like the states will have standing to challenge the mandate to purchase insurance until 2014, because until then the mandate will have no effect.

TomAz
03-22-2010, 09:03 PM
Yeah I figured you would know, TomAZ. I've taken brand name medications that were still up to $100 a month even with coverage. Companies can even file for things like pediatric exclusivity that will push back its patent expiration date. It's really obnoxious on the business end but were it not for health insurance it would be far worse.

the whole patent thing is a bizarre battle. See: Nexium.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 09:11 PM
So, I didn't even think about this because it's a stupid approach to lawsuits that conservative justices seem to love, but it doesn't seem like the states will have standing to challenge the mandate to purchase insurance until 2014, because until then the mandate will have no effect.

Negative, brother. Some of the changes (like the no pre-existing conditions for children) will go into effect soon. Then they can proceed with a Commerce Clause challenge or whatever the hell they want.

bmack86
03-22-2010, 09:13 PM
I guess because they're all bound together in the same bill that's probably true. And, i meant that it would be ripe, not standing. It's been a long night of Con Law reading, things are starting to blur together.

malcolmjamalawesome
03-22-2010, 09:14 PM
Ripeness it is. Marbury v. motherfucking Madison.

PlayaDelWes
03-22-2010, 09:29 PM
How the fuck can this chick take credit for anything when only 11% have a favorable view of her?
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/03/22/image6323224.gif

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

bmack86
03-22-2010, 09:34 PM
Because that's the populace, not congress.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
03-22-2010, 10:39 PM
How the fuck can this chick take credit for anything when only 11% have a favorable view of her?
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/03/22/image6323224.gif

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

this is why
http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/12/us/201012usd000.jpg
http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719190

Lexington

Nancy Pelosi's challenge
The House speaker is not popular with voters. But she can count noses
Mar 18th 2010 | From The Economist print edition


WHEN Nancy Pelosi moved to San Francisco, she struggled to find somewhere to live. For months, and with four small children, she lodged with her mother-in-law. So she was relieved when she found a perfect home to rent: big, childproof and with swings in the garden. She was about to seal the deal when she discovered that the owner’s husband was heading east to join the Nixon administration. “We won’t be able to live here,” she said. “I could never live anyplace that was made available because of the election of Richard Nixon.”

If this story were told by a Republican, Lexington would dismiss it as apocryphal. It confirms too neatly the caricature of Mrs Pelosi as a petty and tribal partisan. But the source is Mrs Pelosi’s autobiography, “Know Your Power: a Message to America’s Daughters”. And in case you think it out of character, she adds that her daughter Alexandra “often says to me that she knows everything she needs to know about me by hearing that story.”

As health-care reform hangs in the balance, nearly everything depends on the House of Representatives. To simplify a gruesomely complex process: if House Democrats approve a health bill the Senate passed last year (plus a few tweaks), America will have something close to universal health insurance. The left’s fondest ambition will become law, and Barack Obama will suddenly look like a successful president. A vote is expected within days, but only if Mrs Pelosi, the House speaker, can hold her party together. Is she up to the job?

Mrs Pelosi is arguably the most powerful woman in American history. There have been female governors, secretaries of state and Supreme Court justices, but only one female speaker. When she won the gavel, after the Democratic landslide of 2006, many saw it as a sign that the “marble ceiling” in American politics was cracking. Mrs Pelosi called it “a pivotal moment for all women”. But others saw it as depressing evidence of the lingering power of political dynasties. Mrs Pelosi’s family are not quite Democratic royalty, like the Kennedys or the Clintons, but they are certainly aristocrats. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro, was a congressman and mayor of Baltimore. Her brother was also mayor of Baltimore. She made her first public speech when she was seven, at her father’s swearing-in.

Despite her hyper-political upbringing, she is a mediocre orator. Harold Meyerson, a friendly journalist, likens her rhetoric to “a compendium of bumper-stickers”. Unlike, say, Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker, she has few interesting thoughts about policy. Her autobiography contains less substance than Sarah Palin’s, which is saying something. And although she has no trouble getting re-elected in San Francisco, she is unpopular in the country as a whole. A recent Daily Kos poll found that only 22% of independents and 7% of Republicans view her favourably. But an effective speaker need not be loved, or think original thoughts. Her job is to round up votes. And at this, Mrs Pelosi excels.

She learned the family business by watching her father dole out jobs and her mother keep a file of favours owed. As a little girl, she answered the phone and told supplicants whom to call to get on welfare or into the city hospital. Six decades later, she is a master of horse-trading. Although she is on her party’s left, centrist Democrats find her a good listener. She is far more disciplined than the House Democrats’ previous leader, Dick Gephardt, and does a better job of keeping her fractious party united.

Which is just as well, because health care is a tough sell. Not one Republican will touch it, so she needs 85% of her party’s votes for a bare majority. Some pro-life Democrats, such as Bart Stupak of Michigan, bridle because they think the Senate bill would use public funds to pay for abortions. Some Hispanic Democrats, such as Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, are angry that it bars illegal immigrants from buying insurance through government-sponsored exchanges. Some left-wingers remain aloof because it does not include a government-run insurer, though one leader of the half-a-loaf-is-worse-than-none faction, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, recanted two days after sharing a stage with Barack Obama and being urged by the crowd to vote yes. And a bevy of fiscally conservative Democrats, many of them from swing districts, fret that a costly new entitlement will shatter both the budget and their chances of re-election. A new poll in 35 swing districts found that, by a two-to-one margin, voters there want their representatives to scrap the current bill.

The smiling finger-breaker
So Mrs Pelosi is coaxing waverers, calling in favours, breaking fingers and pulling toenails. The Democratic Party controls the White House and has big majorities in both arms of Congress. If it can’t enact universal health care now, when can it? If Obamacare flops at the finish line, Democrats will look hopelessly incompetent. Their opponents will be enthused; their supporters, despondent. “Our kids cannot wait another moment for us to act,” says Mrs Pelosi, in bumper-sticker mode.

She may not see it this way, but the Republicans have done a skilful job of blocking health reform by using the same tactics that she once used against them. When the Democrats were in opposition, her style was to demonise Republican proposals without offering an alternative. It worked. In 2005, for example, when George Bush suggested allowing workers to divert some of their Social Security payments into private accounts, Mrs Pelosi portrayed this as a plan to unravel public pensions. Voters were spooked, and the plan died. Today, Republicans decry Obamacare in similarly hysterical terms, and voters are once again spooked. It will take all the speaker’s skill—and some ugly parliamentary manoeuvres—to enact health reform. But if Mrs Pelosi succeeds, she will take her place in the Democratic pantheon.