Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
I'm really digging the Triumph ads...
Fearing being Shunned, Norton wants to be included
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
OK, this is pretty funny ...
Lots of folks Tweeting I'm moving to Canada until Rmoney gets elected and overturns Obamacare !!
But ABC takes a look: Where To Escape the Individual Mandate (Hint: Not Canada)
So... Where would one move to??
The Supreme Court's ruling upholding Obama's health care law on Thursday made some people so disillusioned with the United States that they posted on Facebook and Twitter that they were jumping ship and moving to Canada.
But Canada's health care system makes Obamacare look like the poster child for free market capitalism. Canada not only has an individual mandate requiring all residents to buy health insurance, but that insurance is government-run.
So if not America's northern neighbor, where can people looking for a reprieve from a government that will soon force them to buy health insurance turn?
Heading south to Mexico won't work. Nearly the entire Mexican population gets their health care from a Medicaid-like system funded by the government.
Europe isn't an option either. The health care systems in Britain, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Sweden are all funded by taxes much in the same way as public schools or the police force.
Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden all mandate that residents buy private insurance and those insurance companies are non-profits that are required to cover everyone and are highly regulated, giving governments the control to manage costs.
Even Singapore has a policy similar to Obamacare's individual mandate, requiring residents to set aside part of their incomes in personal savings accounts, which can be used to pay for health care.
"As far as I can tell, there's not really any developed country that doesn't have either a government-provided system or a mandate," said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Libertarian Cato Institute who studies health policy.
Even with the individual mandate, the United States still has one of the most privately-run health care systems in the world, said Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"We were very exceptional," Huang said of the U.S. "Among industrialized countries we were the only one that adopted the market-based system."
So where can people disillusioned by 'Obamacare' turn to find a country whose health care system has less government involvement than the United States?
"I can't name one," said Robin Osborn, vice president and director of The Commonwealth Fund's International Program in Health Policy. "It'd be more likely a third world country."
Haung suggested "maybe sub-Saharan Africa."
What a bunch of numbskulls are the Right Wingers ...
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
If you are a Democrat, ask yourself if you would be cheering this plan had it been passed under a Republican president (it's a Republican plan, and Obama gave in on the public option--bargaining chip--and was in bed with the health insurance industry from day one--i.e. business as usual: http://tinyurl.com/7b8nosp);.
If you are a Republican, ask yourself why you've allowed yourself to be dragged by your party to fantastical extremes, due to the fact that Obama has taken your game away: a zero on climate, lending trillions to banks, leaving the little guy to suffer solo, etc.
And why you are willing to be shafted by large corporations (the "I have a choice" bs), but freak out about "government control." Maybe both deserve a freak out.
As to the SCOTUS decision, it seems way too profound an issue to tie it to just the health care legislation.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
If you are a Democrat, ask yourself if you would be cheering this plan had it been passed under a Republican president (it's a Republican plan,
I vote Democrat
and yes, I sure would be cheering the ACA if it was passed by Republicans
just like I cheered the 2003 Bush Republicans when they passed the Medicare Part D
Prescription Drug Act which provided much needed drugs cheaper to seniors
solving problems that benefit people is much more important than the political party
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"If you are a Democrat, ask yourself if you would be cheering this plan had it been passed under a Republican president..."
tarek, that is an unbelievably false choice, because there is no way in the fecking world that a Republican POTUS would make any movement on an issue like this, period.
Think about it....Repubs have been against any and every kind of social program that is run by the gov't for the benefit of the citizenry. When Repubs have been in power, they've made every effort to undermine, underfund, or terminate such programs.
The point is that the Democratic Party has made this a priority for decades, and though the ACA needs a lot of changes, it's still faaaaar more progress than any Republican administration would have ever made.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
apogee, you seem not to understand the guts and origin of this bill, and seem anxious to declare partial victory simply because a Democrat passed it--exactly my point. The Republicans wouldn't pass it NOW, because they've become a party backed up to the cliff edge of extremism. The Dems have taken over the Republican playing field and have demonstrated that they can deliver to big business just as well--if not better--than the GOP. As Roberto Unger says, "they put a human face on the plan of their opponents." But this plan has its origins in the Heritage Fndn and the like.
Norton, if you liked Bush's corporate welfare gift to big pharma, well, I'd get nowhere arguing with you anyhow.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Bush's corporate welfare gift to big pharma
That muthur. Made it so the US Gov't couldn't bargain down the prices of meds... Total gift to corps.
I hear ya tarek...
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"...you seem not to understand the guts and origin of this bill, and seem anxious to declare partial victory simply because a Democrat passed it..."
Not exactly, tarek- I think I understand the underpinnings of it reasonably well. This bill & law are far from what I would consider a victory, no matter who passed it...but for now, it's a battle won, which is more than we would have had under Shrub, McCain or Romney.
Edit: Hey, look...I got 5.10! Who says this isn't a climber's forum...
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Norton, if you liked Bush's corporate welfare gift to big pharma, well, I'd get nowhere arguing with you anyhow.
terek, NO I did not "like" the fact that the drug companies are adding to their already massive profits from the Medicare Part D program being handed to them.
And NO, I sure did not like the fact that little if any negotiated drug pricing was included as the VA did.
BUT, given that big pharma is going to make huge profits with or without the help of the Medicare Part D, then yes I'll take seniors finally getting some prescription drug cost coverage as a sad but necessary part of the shitty "deal"
We can all point out gross profiteering in medical services and that will continue
But that is no reason by itself to deny needed coverage to those less well off
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
|
|
+
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
beautiful
looks much like my black 850
Norton, shooting up today?
The Tool
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
ouch
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
Tarek said
"ask yourself if you would be cheering this plan"
Good points Tarek, but have you tried buying health insurance in the individual market? The health exchanges mandated by the ACA are going to be a huge win for consumers. Better than a single payer system?...No, but way better than the status quo.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
(Reposted from last week)
John- I'd be interested on your take of this angle of the SCOTUS ruling (as well as any other law professional)...
The 5-4 decision found Roberts siding with the Libs..for the first time, maybe...in a split that no-one anticipated. Prior to the ruling, there was speculation that Roberts was concerned about the institutional integrity of the SCOTUS, and that after a string of rulings that trended rightward on hot-button issues, another such ruling on the ACA would politicize and undermine the integrity of the SCOTUS that would work against the longterm best interests of the institution.
Since the ruling, he's been excoriated by some on the Right...even going so far as to say he should resign...one quote I just heard was that if he wasn't capable of making objective decisions each and every time, based solely on whether a given issue is constitutionally valid or not, then he should throw in the towel immediately.
Some/many on the Left have felt that 'finally...he sided with us'.
The supposed (and to my eye, unachievable) goal of impartiality of a Justice has been argued endlessly. It's curious to me that the CJ might give strong weight to the institutional integrity of the SCOTUS, and possibly go so far as to allow that concern to dominate where he stood on an issue, even if that meant setting aside the core elements of that issue (as it relates to constitutionality). Your thoughts?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Apogee,
Sorry I missed the last post, but I basically agree with Dave. I would add these twists:
1. The Chief Justice, more than any other jurist, does have a responsibility for the court as a whole. That said, the court's decisions haven't been nearly as "political" as popular pundits would have you believe. There were plenty of rulings that were very one-sided in the voting.
2. 5-4 opinions aren't an affront to the law when dealing with close cases. I was convinced that my criminal procedure prof had an endless supply of such decisions, going either way, none of which were in our materials. More than once, I'd opine in class, and his response was "That's very good reasoning, Mr. Eleazarian. Four justices of the Supreme Court agreed with you."
3. There's the old saw "hard cases make bad law." I think Roberts had a hard time with the idea that the Constitution prevented congress from enacting regulation of economic activity as large as health care, when it's already been held that congress can regulate just about anything else. Perhaps he thought that treating this under the taxing power placed more restrictions on future congressional activity than would occur if he validated it under the Commerce Clause. I thought so, too, when I first read his opinion, but I don't now upon further reflection.
All I can really say is that the outcome surprised me, but I read all of the opinions, thought his was intellectually honest, and seemed like a rational interpretation of the law and the Constitution. I happen to disagree with the approach, but there's a lot in the law where reasonable people disagree.
John
|
|
juar
Sport climber
socal
|
|
hes playing the long game and got the win hes looking for
But Roberts is a conservative, and a very smart, forward-looking one at that. What Roberts accomplished on one issue was to enshrine two conservative ideologies — without the Democrats even noticing while they were cheering. He did this by using the Court’s ability to turn metaphors into law. He accomplished this with two votes.
First he was the swing vote that imposed the idea that Health Care Is A Product and set the stage for a possible general principle: The Interstate Commerce Clause governs the buying and selling of products and the government cannot force anyone to people to buy a product (real or metaphorical).
Second, Roberts was the swing vote on the ruling that saved the Affordable Health Care Act by creating a precedent for another metaphorical legal principle: A fee or payment imposed by the government is a tax.
In short, in his votes on one single issue, Roberts single-handedly extended the power of the Court to turn metaphor into law in two conservative directions.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/02-2
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
From JE:
2. 5-4 opinions aren't an affront to the law when dealing with close cases. I was convinced that my criminal procedure prof had an endless supply of such decisions, going either way, none of which were in our materials. More than once, I'd opine in class, and his response was "That's very good reasoning, Mr. Eleazarian. Four justices of the Supreme Court agreed with you."
All reasonable points, but I disagree with the above.
When most (or at least many) politicized cases are 5-4 decisions with the same justices on each side, average Joe begins to realize that what justices do is just as political as the other branches of government, rather than engaging in something like a science of jurisprudence that applies technical legal reasoning over mere political preference.
I think average Joe would basically be right in thinking that, but your smartypants like CJ Roberts likes to obscure that "fact" (actually more of a general guideline). It certainly adds to the Supreme Court's prestige when people think they are dong something other than just voting their social/political preferences and then using whatever legal tools are suitable for the occasion to generate an opinion.
And it's just my feeling, but I agree with the point that Roberts was somewhat concerned about being on the wrong side of history if he used the Court's power to invalidate legislation that certainly isn't "obviously" unconstitutional, doesn't invidiously discriminate against anyone, and can easily be overturned by the normal political process.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
i thought the oliver wendell holmes reference was amusing.
2nd time as farce
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!