Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A short summary of the health care debate
Author Message
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #1
A short summary of the health care debate
TT really nailed it with this one 03-lmfao

[Image: TMW2012-04-04colorKOS.png]
04-03-2012 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


MileHighBronco Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,302
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 1727
I Root For: Broncos
Location: Forgotten Time Zone
Post: #2
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
Don't read far left screeds but it doesn't surprise me that Max reads comics for his talking points.
04-03-2012 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #3
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 01:53 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Don't read far left screeds but it doesn't surprise me that Max reads comics for his talking points.

Yeah, I don't think max gets the point that you laugh at tommy tomorrow. Actually, his early strips, like the one about Zima, and Crystal Pepsi, were funny.
04-03-2012 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #4
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 01:53 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Don't read far left screeds but it doesn't surprise me that Max reads comics for his talking points.
So I take it you haven't posted or read any comics in the "comics: threads.
04-03-2012 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 969
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #5
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
Funniest part is the music note coming from that lump Thomas.
04-03-2012 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RaiderATO Offline
Puddin' Stick
*

Posts: 6,093
Joined: May 2005
Reputation: 139
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Post: #6
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Funniest part is the music note coming from that lump Thomas.

racist
04-03-2012 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #7
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Funniest part is the music note coming from that lump Thomas.

Why is that?

Oh, let me guess, you don't really know.
04-03-2012 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #8
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 02:19 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(04-03-2012 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Funniest part is the music note coming from that lump Thomas.

Why is that?

Oh, let me guess, you don't really know.

Someone on the internet has written about it Torch. Your duty, per Tom, is to search it out.
04-03-2012 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #9
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
If you think that's "nails it", it's no wonder you aren't against it

You clearly don't get it
04-03-2012 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #10
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
LOL what don't I get?
04-03-2012 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
I don't care to take the time to argue with you if this comic actually expresses your opinion about healthcare...

But let's take the obvious one...

The heritage mandate was for catastrophic care, not for comprehensive coverage. Further, the heritage foundation long ago turned against the thought for a variety of reasons, finally, they are not a legislative body... So while forcing people to buy insurance might sound like a good idea on paper, it doesn't make it constitutional. In fact, we already force all workers to buy insurance... It's called Medicaid. We also force retirement savings through social security... That doesnt mean we vcan force them ti buy savings bonds. Converting Medicaid to a catastrophic policy for everyone would satisfy the mandate.

I COulD Go panel by panel, but it is really pointless if you think that the Heritage foundation isn't allowed to change its position in 20+ years, or are constitutional scholars who would never suggest something unconstitutional

The point isn't whether they supported it or not. The point is, how is it implemented. If Obama wants to create a new tax, or increase Medicare taxes to cover his plans, I suspect he can get that passed. I mean, catastrophic insurance as in the heritage proposal was what Medicaid was founded on... But to impose a fine for failing to purchase coverage is constitutionally wrong. If health are is a right, then the government should provide it.... They shouldn't penalize you for not paying for your rights



Ftr, I am aware that I sometimes say Medicare when I mean Medicaid and vice versa. They both represent social insurance designed for people who can't afford to buy private polices... Precisely the target of obamacare
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2012 07:16 PM by Hambone10.)
04-03-2012 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #12
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
It's funny to me that Max keeps pointing out Heritage supported the individual mandate 20 years ago as some sort of evidence that conservatives only don't like it now because Obama does, but fails to acknowledge Obama was against it when Hillary was for during their primary.
04-03-2012 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 08:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  It's funny to me that Max keeps pointing out Heritage supported the individual mandate 20 years ago as some sort of evidence that conservatives only don't like it now because Obama does, but fails to acknowledge Obama was against it when Hillary was for during their primary.

There is another logical disconnect. Conservatives don't dislike Obamacare because the mandate is included. It's the OTHER parts of Obamacare that conservatives dislike. It's just that the mandate is the easiest place to attack the law constitutionally. Because, of course, Obama and the democrats had to pretend it wasn't a tax so that the lie of "I won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000" wouldn't be exposed. Had the mandate simply been posited as a tax all along, it would sail through constitutional muster. Obama and Pelosi and Reid may be exposed as having been too clever by half.

The mandate is actually a good idea. It's probably the best part of Obamacare. But it's also vulnerable because of the need to rely on the commerce clause to justify it in its present form. I would say that the basic conservative view of the mandate is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
04-03-2012 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #14
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 09:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The mandate is actually a good idea. It's probably the best part of Obamacare. But it's also vulnerable because of the need to rely on the commerce clause to justify it in its present form. I would say that the basic conservative view of the mandate is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I object to the mandate because I firmly believe that if it stands there really is no limiting principal to the commerce clause. It was interesting that at no point could the SG articulate one to the court. No doubt he'd thought about it and tried to come up with one. I just don't think there is one if the mandate stands.

I agree there are other aspects of the law conservatives don't like. The power it grants the HHS secretary and the payment advisory board are all awful. I firmly believe it will lead to full government control and providing of healthcare in this country, which, let's be honest, is what it's designed to do.

At the end of the date the mandate is what scares me most.
04-03-2012 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
Niner, keep in mind that it doesn't affect the commerce clause one whit if proponents were simply honest enough to call it a tax.
04-04-2012 06:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #16
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 08:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  It's funny to me that Max keeps pointing out Heritage supported the individual mandate 20 years ago as some sort of evidence that conservatives only don't like it now because Obama does, but fails to acknowledge Obama was against it when Hillary was for during their primary.

GOOD One!!! Maxi is the hapless fool.
04-04-2012 06:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #17
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-04-2012 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Niner, keep in mind that it doesn't affect the commerce clause one whit if proponents were simply honest enough to call it a tax.

I agree but I see a difference between the two, though with the same end effect.

We as citizens understand taxation and that the government can impose taxes. We also have very specific feelings on that, feelings that can be put to action visa vie elections. Politicians understand we are adverse to over taxation so they are wary to do it, thus we are protected in a sense.

With the mandate, couching it in the commerce clause, it is far more dangerous in my opinion. If that is ruled Constitutional then there is nothing the government can't compel me to buy. From health insurance to a Volt or, to Scalia's point, broccoli.

My personal feeling is that there is a natural check against over taxation within our system, as I believe the founders wanted. But we're not protected against a Commerce Clause with no limiting principal. And that's what the mandate is in my opinion.
04-04-2012 07:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #18
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 09:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-03-2012 08:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  It's funny to me that Max keeps pointing out Heritage supported the individual mandate 20 years ago as some sort of evidence that conservatives only don't like it now because Obama does, but fails to acknowledge Obama was against it when Hillary was for during their primary.

There is another logical disconnect. Conservatives don't dislike Obamacare because the mandate is included. It's the OTHER parts of Obamacare that conservatives dislike. It's just that the mandate is the easiest place to attack the law constitutionally. Because, of course, Obama and the democrats had to pretend it wasn't a tax so that the lie of "I won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000" wouldn't be exposed. Had the mandate simply been posited as a tax all along, it would sail through constitutional muster. Obama and Pelosi and Reid may be exposed as having been too clever by half.

The mandate is actually a good idea. It's probably the best part of Obamacare. But it's also vulnerable because of the need to rely on the commerce clause to justify it in its present form. I would say that the basic conservative view of the mandate is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The difference is Obama ADMITTED that he's changed positions on the mandate. And he said he opposed the Hillary mandate because it didn't have a hardship exemption, which is fixed here by expanding Medicaid and giving subsidies for low income Americans, so it's not really a complete flip flop. GOPers meanwhile pretend their flipflop never happened.

What other parts of Obamacare do conservatives dislike? It's virtually the same thing as Romney(again, soon to be the standardbearer of the GOP)care, the difference being Romneycare was paid for by the federal government (ie your tax dollars) while Obamacare had to tax Cadillac plans and made changes to Medicare to pay for it. Two of the architects of Romneycare, one of which is an MIT professor, said it's the exact same thing.

[Image: screen-shot-2011-09-12-at-12-45-25-am1.png]

Quote:Niner, keep in mind that it doesn't affect the commerce clause one whit if proponents were simply honest enough to call it a tax.

Sure but the opponents were just as dishonest about it by doing the opposite.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 09:36 AM by Max Power.)
04-04-2012 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wvucrazed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,363
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 179
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post: #19
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
(04-03-2012 01:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  TT really nailed it with this one 03-lmfao

[Image: TMW2012-04-04colorKOS.png]

04-bow
04-04-2012 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #20
RE: A short summary of the health care debate
How is this even material? Heritage admitted it as well... And not a few months later... But decades later. I mean, Obama was agsint it until he got elected, then suddenly for it. Coincidence??

You ignore that heritage supported critical care policies, not universal... Which are illegal under obamacare. Perhaps things like THIS are the problem, and not merely making everyone pay? That really is such a simple argument... I'm surprised someone of reasonable intelligence would even dignify it.

The mandate, in general is not the problem. Social security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes are mandatory... The problem with the mandate is, as has been explained to you, though you conveniently ignore, that it is being viewed as a penalty and not a tax, forcing people into commerce, as opposed to having the government enter into commerce for them, as we do for social security and Medicaid... And roads and the military and police for that matter. If you don't want to pay for it through Medicaid, then do it through the general fund. All you have to do is fund it and raise taxes or cut spending to pay for it.

I'll give you an example, Max. I generally favor partial privatization of social security. I don't particularly care if it is a government run "fund" that mirrors the S&P or the existing no load funds... Though I don't trust that the government will not skim off some funds for other purposes or create a burdensome as opposed to efficient management structure... But I digress... I trust them to keep private industry in line... I don't trust them to monitor themselves. This could be structured in a way that is Constitutional, and in ways that are not. I would prefer that it be Constitutional, and am not willing to bend on that merely to get my way. I CERTAINly wouldn't question and threaten the job of the SCOTUS in order to get my way. I mean seriously.... The administration passes a bill that their own people call a "big effing deal" and then try and act like it is merely day to day governmental legislation that would be unprecedented to overturn when they get questioned about it??

I've said it for months, and so have others, and it should NOw be perfectly clear that the administration could have avoided this particular challenge by calling it what it is. A Tax. They didn't for political reasons, and now they, and people like you, are trying to claim that it is the OTHER side that is playing politics?? Give me a break
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 09:56 AM by Hambone10.)
04-04-2012 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.