ACA upheld!

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 361 - 380 of total 413 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Barbarian

Trad climber

New and Bionic too!

Jun 30, 2012 - 02:31pm PT

I like that Bobby Jindal says he will not implement the ACA. That means that a Republican governor who has been hinted as a possible VP selection has decided he will not follow the Executive, Legislative, of Judicial branch directives. I take it he does not believe in supporting or defending the Constitution.

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

mammoth lakes ca

Jun 30, 2012 - 02:33pm PT

Jindal sounds like another petulant tea-bagger dork...?

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Jun 30, 2012 - 02:34pm PT

Is Jindal taking advantage of the part of the SCOTUS ruling that struck down the State's requirement to expand Medicaid coverage? He could do that, but there will be a looooot of pissed off people in his state, and they vote...

yosguns

climber

Durham, NC

Jun 30, 2012 - 02:42pm PT

And, government is furthering it's reach into health decisions. I'm in favor of government(society) providing some level of health care to the less fortunate through, city, county, state run clinics and hospitals, they usually provide an inferior level of care when compared to "private" health plans. This drive to "equal" care will be a burden on society.

I understand that there is a difference in values at the core of this discussion. If you favor federalism and strong state rights, then you will not favor the federal government making decisions about things like healthcare, the laws about which are arguably reserved to the states constitutionally. This does not necessarily oppose the belief that healthcare should be provided to the less fortunate, it's simply a belief about how it should be provided.

I absolutely respect federal models because there are so many examples in the world of models that aren't federal, that maybe should be (Ireland? Indonesia?) and so many examples of federal models that work. I am therefore a proponent of state rights to an extent. However, the federal model requires a federal government to regulate certain things that--due to coordination problems and infrastructure--states aren't able to. The founding fathers made provisions for this and I think healthcare has proven to be one of these things.

If one is such a staunch defender of state rights that it doesn't matter whether the federal gov't is better equipped to regulate certain things and as many things as possible should be reserved to the states and community government no matter what, this argument--that healthcare is the type of current issue that is best regulated by the federal government--will not matter.

I have a hard time understanding this, though, unless you can prove to me that healthcare is NOT the type of issue that should be regulated by the federal government for economic and efficiency reasons. At the core, a strong state rights proponent is one because he believes that regulating things at the community level is what's best for his community. The main objective is to do what is best for the community. Thus, wouldn't it be counter to the objective of doing that--what's best for a community--to opt for state rights no matter what, even if the issue being regulated is such that the federal government may be in a better position to regulate it?

As far as equal care being a burden on society, why?

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Jun 30, 2012 - 02:44pm PT

The ACA requires that by the end of this year each State have set up healthcare "exchanges" to provide competitive CHOICE for healthcare shoppers.

Up to now, there has been NO choice, some markets have only one provider.

Some Republican governors are refusing to comply and not setting up exchanges.

They are a$$holes, and don't care about lower rates from "free markets"

Fear not, this has been anticipated.

The Fed will go in and set up the markets if they don't.

Curt

Boulder climber

Gilbert, AZ

Jun 30, 2012 - 02:46pm PT

Nice, but the real problems will happen further out than the CBO's 10 years, just as the exploding costs of Medicare and Social Security will need to addressed.

The problem with your statement (as with most everything you post) is that there isn't a shred of evidence or study to back it up--it is merely a partisan and biased opinion. When you do cite a reference (which is rare) it is often of anecdotal interest only and is never from a nonpartisan source, like CBO.

Curt

mouse from merced

Trad climber

merced, california

Jun 30, 2012 - 03:29pm PT

An interesting commentary one how our lives are manipulated and controlled by others. This is our democracy, this Forum. Not that we can or should or will change much, but it's how we feel and all that fuzzy thinking and pungent repartee helps.

My friend on FB posted a link from www.upworthy.com and if you are on FB you can see it at my wall. Brian Bermingham.

It is entitled

"Three Minds, a Failing System, and One Uncomfortable Truth."

It is a real good thing to challenge our thinking processes. It enables us to try to at least rationalize the facts that we are getting f*#ked regularly. And don't seem to realize it.

It is hard to realize that may be what the powers-that-be don't want us to do. But George Carlin's philosophy of questioning the absurdity of life just got very damn serious in this video. I was toying with the idea of starting a "What Would Carlin Say?" thread, but this will do.

It is food for thought and this is as good a place to post it as any.

I can't go to the website and download this as I am not subscribed.

Also check out

"Here's What Obama Care Really Does for You"

on my page, as well, another FB post from another friend from the same website. Man, am I missing something?

"I may not be worthy but I sure am weird."---Captain Beefheart, paraphrased

"Why is there no route on the Captain named for Don van Vliet? Kinda weird, don't you think?"---George Carlin-type comment from a big fan of both Captains

apogee

climber

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy

Jun 30, 2012 - 03:39pm PT

"The Fed will go in and set up the markets if they don't."

Is that what Jindal is resisting?

That's my understanding of the law, too, Norton- that resistance like this (is futile!) would happen, and there is a provision for the Feds to do this if States don't. It may take a while, though, as that State will try to throw up every footdragging roadblock they can think of.

What will happen, though, is that over time, citizens in that State (NO, in this example) will become accustomed to these markets & their advantages, and will then make the usual 'out with the Feds!' noise, and move to have their own State operate them. Which the Feds will gladly oblige, I'm sure.

For now, Jindal is just trying to score political points with his teabagging base...he knows where this will go, and is trying to make the most out of it while he can. Whiney loser.

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Jun 30, 2012 - 03:44pm PT

exactly, Apogee

well said

monolith

climber

albany,ca

Jun 30, 2012 - 05:46pm PT

Since we are talking about ACA and medicare:

Projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Whenever Fatrad throws up a link and then beats his chest, good chance the link will shoot himself in the foot.

Looks like medicare outlook improved with ACA, right Fatrad?

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Jun 30, 2012 - 05:50pm PT

Jun 30, 2012 - 02:46pm PT
Projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Whenever Fatrad throws up a link and then beats his chest, good chance the link will shoot himself in the foot.

game, set, and match

good Lord, the guy doesn't even know when his own link proves him wrong!

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Taos, NM

Jun 30, 2012 - 05:53pm PT

From Fat's link...Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086

What a retard.

mouse from merced

Trad climber

merced, california

Jun 30, 2012 - 06:07pm PT

Norton, it's far from over. He's going to keep swinging until...you never know with tards.

With hard-ons.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Taos, NM

Jun 30, 2012 - 07:04pm PT

Fat wrote: Bob,

You struck me as being bright, but obviously not, can't you read "reduced benefits". So, you're counting on stupid young people to pay for your SS, they won't do it.

No I'm counting on the backwards, toothless hillbilly republicans to disappear along with their fear mongering.

nature

climber

SoSlo, CO

Jun 30, 2012 - 07:20pm PT

fatty, has it ever occurred to you that you might do better in this world if you quit sucking?

give it a rest. the record is old and scratched. and the player needs a new needle. and the song sucked in the first place.

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Jun 30, 2012 - 07:36pm PT

Yes Fattass, I DID get out on the new Triumph today.

YOU, however, have been averaging over SIXTY POSTS A DAY HERE.

You have no clue how close you are to being banned again, this time for good.

Your need to troll and post for attention is the same as Lois's.

Now shut the fuk up for a while, get a life away from here, and grow up will ya?