Post by redheadbaker on Jun 28, 2012 10:55:39 GMT -5
Anybody else LOLing at Romney's comment that the most troubling aspect of Obamacare is that it puts the federal government between you and your doctor?
And Republican anti-choice laws don't do the same thing??
Um, all conservatives are not displeased about the same thing. I thought you, of all people, would be aware of that. That lady was talking about the freedoms and the crazy world her kids would be growing up in where the government could force anything blah blah blah.
She was not talking about the costs.
Is this where we enter the "conservative PCErs are outliers" portion of the discussion?
FYI, in re: the commerce clause line, this is from the most brilliant guy in my law school class (seriously, he graduated #1):
Don't think the commerce clause decision is all that terrible. It could have been much much worse. First, the CJ labels the ACA as distinct from any previous legislation in U.S. history -- making this a very narrow holding. He then goes on to reaffirm Wickard v Fillburn and say that if you're doing something (that affects commerce) the fed. gov't can tell you how to do it or not to do it at all. It's only that the fed. gov't can't force you to do something you're not already doing. The fed. gov't can regulate the farmer growing vegetables (or wheat). What it can't do is make people eat those vegetables (unless perhaps it does so by imposing a tax penalty for not eating them). That's my reading anyway.
Anybody else LOLing at Romney's comment that the most troubling aspect of Obamacare is that it puts the federal government between you and your doctor?
And Republican anti-choice laws don't do the same thing??
Um, all conservatives are not displeased about the same thing. I thought you, of all people, would be aware of that. That lady was talking about the freedoms and the crazy world her kids would be growing up in where the government could force anything blah blah blah.
She was not talking about the costs.
Is this where we enter the "conservative PCErs are outliers" portion of the discussion?
I'm going to lock this damn thread if it turns into that. Talk about totalitarian rule.
Um, all conservatives are not displeased about the same thing. I thought you, of all people, would be aware of that. That lady was talking about the freedoms and the crazy world her kids would be growing up in where the government could force anything blah blah blah.
She was not talking about the costs.
Is this where we enter the "conservative PCErs are outliers" portion of the discussion?
Anybody else LOLing at Romney's comment that the most troubling aspect of Obamacare is that it puts the federal government between you and your doctor?
And Republican anti-choice laws don't do the same thing??
This might be a dumb question, but how does it do that? The insurance company is between me and my doctor already, sure, but how does this put the government in there? From what I've read I haven't seen any implications that point to that. The same accusations get thrown at the Canadian healthcare model, and I don't see it there either.
This does nothing to help hc costs so I am not buying those saying "but it is something". Dngi.
It may help costs--one quote said it will reduce administrative burden to physicians regarding insurance and another noted that people with insurance tend to be treated before minor injuries become life threatening ones.
I wish I could find the source--it was linked to CNN but I can't find it anymore.
I agree it's constitutional as SCOTUS interpreted it. It was absolutely not constitutional under the commerce clause, and I think it's great to see that affirmed.
None of this means I think it's good policy.
None of this means I'm not excited to kill Obama with the dual message that his bill raised your taxes and took away your doctor this fall.
How did this bill take away my doctor?
The argument primarily works in the context of medicare. Strict medicare reimbursement caps --> doctors stop taking medicare --> patients lose their doctors.
The argument primarily works in the context of medicare. Strict medicare reimbursement caps --> doctors stop taking medicare --> patients lose their doctors.
The olds don't want to lose their doctors.
This is what just gets me about conservative old people. "we must cut all government spending and reduce costs!! Except on me!! If it's spending on me, you should never reduce costs only increase them!"
FYI, in re: the commerce clause line, this is from the most brilliant guy in my law school class (seriously, he graduated #1):
Don't think the commerce clause decision is all that terrible. It could have been much much worse. First, the CJ labels the ACA as distinct from any previous legislation in U.S. history -- making this a very narrow holding. He then goes on to reaffirm Wickard v Fillburn and say that if you're doing something (that affects commerce) the fed. gov't can tell you how to do it or not to do it at all. It's only that the fed. gov't can't force you to do something you're not already doing. The fed. gov't can regulate the farmer growing vegetables (or wheat). What it can't do is make people eat those vegetables (unless perhaps it does so by imposing a tax penalty for not eating them). That's my reading anyway.
I like this explanation a lot. I will probably use it and try to pawn it off as my own.
LOL.
You don't know how many times I've shared your personhood post lately (always crediting you, of course). Some rather "famous" people in the prochoice world are now aware of your awesomeness.
I am glad I came to this post late because that was confusing as hell. I am still kinda confused and waiting for the explain it to me like I'm 5 post.
I think average people still don't really understand what is going on. I think I am pretty smart and I am confused as fuck.
I wrote this to explain it to another group. If I'm off base, will someone PLEASE correct me?
So the main question was, "What is the penalty if you opt out of receiving health care?" being that was part of the Act. The ruling addresses that in relation to, "Is it constitutional for the government to impose a penalty for not having health care."
The answer came back that Yes, it is constitutional, but only if it is done in the form of a tax. If you opt out of having healthcare, then you will be "fined" in the form of a tax.
Part of the provision was also that states, as a whole, could be penalized if the opted out (as is the state's right). Part of that was upheld in the Medicare ruling, but only in regard to new funds.
I'm looking forward to TAX being the dirty word of this election instead of VAGINA or GAY. Taxes are something I understand people actually caring about.
I had this EXACT thought somewhere around 10:35am or so.
I am glad I came to this post late because that was confusing as hell. I am still kinda confused and waiting for the explain it to me like I'm 5 post.
I think average people still don't really understand what is going on. I think I am pretty smart and I am confused as fuck.
I wrote this to explain it to another group. If I'm off base, will someone PLEASE correct me?
So the main question was, "What is the penalty if you opt out of receiving health care?" being that was part of the Act. The ruling addresses that in relation to, "Is it constitutional for the government to impose a penalty for not having health care."
The answer came back that Yes, it is constitutional, but only if it is done in the form of a tax. If you opt out of having healthcare, then you will be "fined" in the form of a tax.
Part of the provision was also that states, as a whole, could be penalized if the opted out (as is the state's right). Part of that was upheld in the Medicare ruling, but only in regard to new funds.
Sounds right to me...not that I'm an expert - except nobody is required to have health CARE. They are required to have health INSURANCE. I see that as an important distinction.
Side note - One of my BFF's just messaged me the following, with absolutely no lead up: fyi - broccoli makes its first appearance in the supreme court ruling on health care at page 27
Side note - One of my BFF's just messaged me the following, with absolutely no lead up: fyi - broccoli makes its first appearance in the supreme court ruling on health care at page 27
Did you see my earlier post that the word broccoli apparently appears in the dissent 12 times? It was possibly the single most important post in this entire 12-page thread and I'm not even biased.
Side note - One of my BFF's just messaged me the following, with absolutely no lead up: fyi - broccoli makes its first appearance in the supreme court ruling on health care at page 27
Did you see my earlier post that the word broccoli apparently appears in the dissent 12 times? It was possibly the single most important post in this entire 12-page thread and I'm not even biased.
I can't wait to tell Jackson... broccoli is his newest eating obsession. He'll be thrilled it's getting the recognition it deserves.
(also I find him so weird. broccoli, really? I hate veggies. I have no idea where he came from.)
Side note - One of my BFF's just messaged me the following, with absolutely no lead up: fyi - broccoli makes its first appearance in the supreme court ruling on health care at page 27
Did you see my earlier post that the word broccoli apparently appears in the dissent 12 times? It was possibly the single most important post in this entire 12-page thread and I'm not even biased.
Do you know how awesome I think MoJo is right now for allowing me to search the opinion for the word broccoli?
Side note - One of my BFF's just messaged me the following, with absolutely no lead up: fyi - broccoli makes its first appearance in the supreme court ruling on health care at page 27
Did you see my earlier post that the word broccoli apparently appears in the dissent 12 times? It was possibly the single most important post in this entire 12-page thread and I'm not even biased.