Chief Justice Roberts saves Obamacare!

[giblets]

That's because Obamacare covers lots and lots of stuff that has nothing to do with catastrophic coverage.

You gave the example of contraception, which seems trivial. Preventative care does has something to do with reducing catastrophic costs.

It's like arguing that only Big Macs can be served at any fastfood restaurant. Are you really private if you have to offer the exact same coverage for everyone? Why can't private insurers be permitted to cover the things that they want to cover a-la carte?

No, it's like arguing that every fast food restaurant must have certain things. That wouldn't destroy private fast food restaurants.

Goddamn. It's like arguing with ****ing retards.

UNINSURED PEOPLE BY CHOICE ARE GOING TO GET ****ED. End stop. Yes, some people cannot get coverage. The reason they can't get coverage is because private insurers have to make money. If they private insurers raise their premiums to cover the very sick people, then the healthy people will flee that insurer and that insurers will go into a death spiral.

By making Obamacare unescapable - Obama is forcing healthy people to cover the sick. The problem is that it makes zero economic sense. Unless you raise the premiums to cover the actual cost (which isn't what O-care is doing), you are going to see rationing.

Which means that even if you have your ****ty O-care coverage, you aren't going to be able to get treatment that you need when you need it because the system can't afford to treat you. You're exactly where you were before, except now, you can't buy the coverage you need!

I don't care if healthy people have to pay a little more for healthcare than what they actually use. I think in any civilized society the healthy care for the sick. If premiums actually need to go up, I don't see why they can't- insurance is still private, so it doesn't take a government decree.

[kentonio]

Why can't private insurers be permitted to cover the things that they want to cover a-la carte?

Because then people end up not being able to afford to cover themselves for things that they need you ****ing moron.

Goddamn. It's like arguing with ****ing retards.

Welcome to our world.

UNINSURED PEOPLE BY CHOICE ARE GOING TO GET ****ED. End stop. Yes, some people cannot get coverage. The reason they can't get coverage is because private insurers have to make money. If they private insurers raise their premiums to cover the very sick people, then the healthy people will flee that insurer and that insurers will go into a death spiral.

By making Obamacare unescapable - Obama is forcing healthy people to cover the sick. The problem is that it makes zero economic sense. Unless you raise the premiums to cover the actual cost (which isn't what O-care is doing), you are going to see rationing.

Which means that even if you have your ****ty O-care coverage, you aren't going to be able to get treatment that you need when you need it because the system can't afford to treat you. You're exactly where you were before, except now, you can't buy the coverage you need!

Please explain how providing private industry with a guaranteed supply of customers for ever is going to drive them all out of business, and please especially explain why the insurance companies were actively lobbying for something that would make them go bust.

[Ben Kenobi]

Such a cluster**** of better outcomes for less money

Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while five favoured the United States. The other 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two countries.

So, according to the actual facts, the conclusion is that the average study showed that the systems are equivalent.

Few uninsured patients in the United States, who probably suffer the worst quality care, were included in the studies examined.

Given that the average uninsured person in the US is young and healthy, is a great way to game the study.

[DinoDoc]

I believe the reasoning is that Anti-Injunction Act analysis is to get to the merits of the case. So on first glance, since the Administration and Congress don't call it a tax, it doesn't fall under it. But when you get to the merits, you realize that regardless of what they call it, it's basically a tax.

Aren't Tax Bills required by the Constitution to originate in the House? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act originated in the Senate.

[MRT144]

So, according to the actual facts, the conclusion is that the average study showed that the systems are equivalent.



Given that the average uninsured person in the US is young and healthy, is a great way to game the study.

Let me put this in terms of Hockey season record
Canada:14-5-19
USA:5-14-19.

Which team is better?

And not only that but they do it for less money.

[Ben Kenobi]

You gave the example of contraception, which seems trivial. Preventative care does has something to do with reducing catastrophic costs.

What 'catastrophic costs' does contraception prevent?

No, it's like arguing that every fast food restaurant must have certain things.

Actually, it would be as if they are required to have the exact same menus, since that is what Obamacare requires of private insurers. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me.

That wouldn't destroy private fast food restaurants.

Absolutely it would, and that's the whole point of the legislation. Destroy the private insurers, establish a public health care monopoly, and then jack up the premiums sky high.

I don't care if healthy people have to pay a little more for healthcare than what they actually use.

It's not 'just a little bit more'. What Obamacare is charging isn't going to pay for SFA. Where's the money going to come from since the fees aren't going to cover the actual costs?

I think in any civilized society the healthy care for the sick.

Absolutely - but they do so voluntarily, not because the government is going to throw them in jail.

You're willing to pay for my new hearing aids? Great. I expect to see a check from you for 4 grand. No, you don't believe that at all.

You believe that other people should be forced to pay for your healthcare rather then you having to pay for yourself.

If premiums actually need to go up, I don't see why they can't

Obamacare makes no distinction for income. Raising the premiums even higher will force the poorest Americans to be paying more for other people's health coverage. Where's that money going to come from?

the whole point in the mandate and extra tax is to stop healthy people from fleeing in a "death spiral"- duhhhh.

Which means rationing for cost control. Which means that people who are paying for their health care aren't going to be able to get the care they need when they need it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let me put this in terms of Hockey season record

Let's do this as a GPA.

14 A, 19 B 5 C gives us:

14 + 38 + 15 = 1.717

Average score = B = Inconclusive.

[MRT144]

Let's do this as a GPA.

14 A, 19 B 5 C gives us:

14 + 38 + 15 = 1.717

Average score = B = Inconclusive.

Which obviously makes no sense since this is an A-B comparison.

Your sophistry knows no bounds.

[giblets]

What 'catastrophic costs' does contraception prevent?

I said it was trivial, I didn't say it prevented catastrophic costs.

Actually, it would be as if they are required to have the exact same menus, since that is what Obamacare requires of private insurers. Sounds like the Soviet Union to me.

Absolutely it would, and that's the whole point of the legislation. Destroy the private insurers, establish a public health care monopoly, and then jack up the premiums sky high.

You're just repeating yourself here. Private insurers are not going to go out of business simply because they had to cover certain things. If every fast food restaurant had to sell burgers, private fast food restaurants would not all go out of business and need to be replaced by public restaurants.

It's not 'just a little bit more'. What Obamacare is charging isn't going to pay for SFA. Where's the money going to come from since the fees aren't going to cover the actual costs?

What are you talking about here? The only thing "Obamacare" charges is a fine for people who don't get coverage and a fine for employers who don't provide adequate coverage. Private health insurers charge what the market will bear.

Absolutely - but they do so voluntarily, not because the government is going to throw them in jail.

You're willing to pay for my new hearing aids? Great. I expect to see a check from you for 4 grand. No, you don't believe that at all.

You believe that other people should be forced to pay for your healthcare rather then you having to pay for yourself.

If someone needs hearing aids, it must be affordable. If they can't afford it, there is nothing wrong with the government helping them pay for it.

Obamacare makes no distinction for income. Raising the premiums even higher will force the poorest Americans to be paying more for other people's health coverage. Where's that money going to come from?

Why aren't "the poorest Americans" on Medicaid?

Which means rationing for cost control. Which means that people who are paying for their health care aren't going to be able to get the care they need when they need it.

No, making healthy people buy insurance does not mean rationing. That doesn't make sense.

[giblets]

Let's do this as a GPA.

14 A, 19 B 5 C gives us:

14 + 38 + 15 = 1.717

Average score = B = Inconclusive.

So in your world an A is worth... 1 point, a B is worth 2 points and a C is worth 3 points? And 67/38 = 1.717?

[MRT144]

Why aren't "the poorest Americans" on Medicaid?



No, making healthy people buy insurance does not mean rationing. That doesn't make sense.

Most of them would be on medicaid if it weren't for health care obstructionists like Ben. It's pretty funny how he "worries" about poor people and then subverts any action to help poor people.

And also, the Health Care industry could probably serve us better by rationing certain things.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=4

[MRT144]

So in your world an A is worth... 1 point, a B is worth 2 points and a C is worth 3 points? And 67/38 = 1.717?

His poor students.

"I thought straight C's were great!"

[MikeH]

Lying about maths, a new low.

[Ben Kenobi]

I said it was trivial, I didn't say it prevented catastrophic costs.

So you expect dismissive handwaving to make the point go away?

My point is obviously well taken.

Private insurers are not going to go out of business simply because they had to cover certain things.

Forcing all private insurers to have the exact same coverage is going to put them out of business. A business has to be able to establish a competitive advantage. When the government sets the price and the coverage, what's left? There's simply no point to it.

What are you talking about here?

You need to actually read the legislation. Understandable that you haven't since Pelosi didn't either.

The only thing "Obamacare" charges is a fine for people who don't get coverage and a fine for employers who don't provide adequate coverage. Private health insurers charge what the market will bear.

Fines for charging too much and gouging as well. Have you not been listening to Obama? Obama sets what can be bought and the price as well.

there is nothing wrong with the government helping them pay for it.

Nonsense. You said a civilized country, people pay for each other's health care needs. I didn't ask the government to pay. I asked you.

Are you unwilling to stand behind your convictions? Or are you admitting that you support spending other people's money rather than your own?

Why aren't "the poorest Americans" on Medicaid?

Because Obama cut their state off?

No, making healthy people buy insurance does not mean rationing.

Yeah, it will. So long as some people are getting more health care than they pay for, rationing will be invoked. Guarantee it.

[MikeH]

Meaningless though, all systems have limits to what healthcare they can deliver and overall level of funding so all are therefore somehow 'rationed'.