Politics 1884018840 Responses

Last post: 2 weeks, 4 days ago | Thread started: Sep 4, 08, 4:24 p.m.

RespondNew TopicDisable Images

• wormfood

  ^to my earlier post, Paul would win Missouri if they weren't adjourning caucuses without a vote. St. Charles county ends caucus today because of overwhelming Paul support.

  http://youtu.be/I9__0im5kQk

  • little help with the video here?– wormfood

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 18, 12, 5:08 p.m. – Permalink

• PonyBoy

  2 out 3 (Scrotorum & Newt) can't even FILE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK so they can win delegates... ... WHY are they even in this race still? It's near mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for them to win... ... yet they're gonna blow all that cash and talk all that shit next year... Mittens owns this...

  ... woops... I forgot about Paul... ... //cuz he's got a chance...

  • maybe they will all be on a plane that bursts into flames..– 74LEO

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 19, 12, 12:34 p.m. – Permalink

• qoob

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 20, 12, 1:46 p.m. – Permalink

• 74LEO

  I always liked the West Wing! Sadly Martin Sheen isn't running for President. Always enjoy listening to him. Great public speaker.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?fea…

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 7:25 a.m. – Permalink

• 74LEO

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?fea…

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 7:29 a.m. – Permalink

• ukit2

  

  Supreme Court begins review of health-care law

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/po…

  What do you think...is the mandate constitutional?

  • Mandatutional™– albums1/14

    nope. http://www.constitut…
    – deathboy2/14

    If it was constitutional so is forcing people to buy guns or anything in name of general welfare. Which steps on individuals property rights.– deathboy3/14

    individual property rights. But since they been building its infrastructure for the last 2 years im sure it will pass– deathboy4/14

    Could be argued that it's not actually forcing you to buy, it's a tax penalty.– ukit25/14

    So what about the constitutionality of the patriot act? No rush for judgement on that one is there...– IRNlun66/14

    hmm if its called a tax it seems fucked. you get taxed for not purchasing something. taxing inactivity– deathboy7/14

    seems a bit like extortion than a plausible reason for taxation– deathboy8/14

    patriot act is fucked. not surprised neither reps or dems in power try hard to repeal it. they both like the idea of the power if they win– deathboy9/14

    power if they win– deathboy10/14

    He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither– deathboy11/14

    When you get sick you are not entering into commerce, therefor the whole forcing you to buy stuff argument is invalid.– zarkonite12/14

    when you get sick you don't create demand for healthcare. In actuality, the cost of not having healthcare is spread to others regardless.– zarkonite13/14

    id declare war on religion by not funding the faith based initiative.– 74LEO14/14

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 2:23 p.m. – Permalink

• 74LEO

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?fea…

  • amazing how none of my videos appear– 74LEO

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 8:22 p.m. – Permalink

• IRNlun6

  Old article, but just goes to show the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans and willingness to do and say anything to regain power.

  http://articles.boston.com/2010-…

  I hope I'm wrong but I believe the conservatives on the supreme court are playing politics and will over turn the mandate and declare it to be unconstitutional. As I mentioned above, the patriot act is clearly unconstitutional and hasn't for the past 10 years been brought to question. The timing of this decision to question the healthcare mandate is extremely suspect. Especially since it isn't supposed to take affect until 2014.

  • Not mentioned in the article, but its goes back even further to Nixon who proposed a mandate.– IRNlun61/2

    damn, Nixon is mentioned in the article... :|– IRNlun62/2

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 8:43 p.m. – Permalink

• Josev

  I was surprised to learn that Mary Brown, the plaintiff in the case (details below), had to file bankruptcy due partially to her medical bills. I wonder who paid for those bills?

  http://articles.latimes.com/2012…
  "Reporting from Washington — Mary Brown, a 56-year-old Florida woman who owned a small auto repair shop but had no health insurance, became the lead plaintiff challenging President Obama's healthcare law because she was passionate about the issue.

  Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the Supreme Court plans to hear later this month."

  • She didnt have insurance. WE ended up paying her bills through insurance premiums, added hospital costs, etc.– Josev1/2

    4500 doesnt seem liek much to file a BK on. What was the other debts?
    – deathboy2/2

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 8:56 p.m. – Permalink

• Josev

  ^ from that article:

  "But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills. Those bills could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example of exactly the problem the healthcare law was intended to address."

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 9 p.m. – Permalink

• ukit2

  It's funny because the above argument is exactly what Romney argued and continues to argue.

  So the biggest issue for Republicans is that they hate health care mandates but they are on the verge of nominating the guy who came up with the idea...someone explain this to me.

  • They're cunts.
    That's your explanation.– mikotondria31/2

    both do it because people want something for nothing, or at least a deffered cost hoping they dont have to pay.– deathboy2/2

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 9:01 p.m. – Permalink

• deathboy

  Well it is for sure unconstitutional in all ways to me. And found this little portion that comes after the unconsitutional/constitutional debate and into the will it work? Seems spot on.

  If you're going to mandate something, you have to define it. Under an individual mandate, legislators and bureaucrats will need to specify a minimum benefits package that a policy must cover in order to qualify. It's not plausible to believe this package can be defined in an apolitical way. Each medical specialty, from oncology to acupuncture, will pressure the legislature to include their services in the package. And as the benefits package grows, so will the premiums.

  Limiting the mandate's scope with vacuous phrases like "basic health care products and services" will not solve the problem, because what is basic to some is crucial to others. Does contraception constitute basic health care? How about psychotherapy? Dental care? Chiropractic? The phrase "medically necessary" is just as problematic, because there is no objective definition of necessity. And even if there were, it wouldn't matter, because the content of the law will be determined by the legislative process. The "basic" package might initially be minimal, but over time it will succumb to the same special-interest lobbying that affects every other area of public policy. If psychotherapy is not initially included in the package, eventually it will be, once the psychotherapists' lobby has its way. And likewise for contraception, dental care, chiropractic, acupuncture, in vitro fertilization, hair transplants, ad infinitum.

  This is not mere speculation. Even now, every state in the union has a list of mandated benefits that any health insurance policy must cover. Mandated benefits have included all of the services listed above — yes, even hair transplants in some states. All states together have created nearly 1900 mandated benefits. Given that medical interest groups have found it worth their time and money to lobby 50 state legislatures for laws affecting only voluntarily purchased insurance policies, mandatory insurance will only exacerbate the problem. If the benefits package is established at the federal level, the incentive to lobby will be that much greater.

  Medicare and Medicaid provide further evidence. Given the massive funds at stake in those programs, it should come as no surprise that lobbying has affected the list of covered benefits. A public outcry prevented Viagra from being covered by Medicare and Medicaid, but other drugs and services have not attracted that kind of scrutiny. In 2004, after heavy lobbying by pharmaceutical companies that make antiobesity drugs, Medicare reclassified obesity as an illness (or rather, removed language saying it was not an illness), thereby clearing the way for coverage of obesity treatments including diet pills, weight-loss programs, and bariatric surgery. Although by law Medicare can pay only for "medically necessary" services, the obesity story aptly demonstrates the subjective and ultimately political meaning of that term.

  Mandated benefits drive up insurance premiums; after all, insurance companies can't make more payouts without higher revenues. Existing mandates have increased premiums by an estimated 20 to 50 percent, depending on the state. There is every reason to believe the same process will affect the minimum benefits package under an individual mandate. As a result, even more people will find themselves unable to buy insurance and decide not to comply. Others will buy the insurance, but only by relying on public subsidies. A health policy intended to rein in free riding and cost shifting will tend to encourage more of the same.

  ...toss my rant down here where no one will read becuase there was alot of words before it ... words above are better than my own...more of the same problem we have but making it much worse and almost impossible to repeal and fix through a democratic process. Since majority of the mob jsut wants as much as they can for as little and will vote for whoever give them either physical or spiritual securities(health/terrorism). Democratic rule has always been mob rule and why its so important to stick to the republics values. If not all you have is 51 percent of the population fucking the other 49 in the ass.

  • Libertarianism is fantasy.– DrBombay

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 10:36 p.m. – Permalink

• deathboy

  And i guess just a thought. People talk about uninsured/illegals or whoever else getting free care and cost being passed on to us... and thats why system is broke... guess who made that system? I still stand by the fact that government rules and regulations mandating coverage and subsidizing healthcare costs through employers and creating a trend that the only way to get healthcare is pooled costs chosen by employers. That is the real problem. How can you have a controlled system of supply and demand determining costs and advances when there really is no choice anymore. Hospitals fight for prestige buying the latest and most expensive equipment, when last year models worked fine, building valet parking and "healing gardens" and ever expanding because they know peopel will choose employer subsidized pooled insurances rather than plain cost of service fees. Hospitals prefer to get 15k from an insurance company for a pregnancy vs 5k from a cash person. When the only market is a guitly employer tryign to figure out what plan to get for employees with subsidized costs and knwoign they'll burden any extra costs less they be looked as evil for not providing insurance... which is kinda evil when all other employers think the same and the stigmata makes it almost impossible and self immolating to do the right thing. The best thign to do is to cut any tax breaks and mandates. .. if its not already too late... and let markets work... im sure insuranc ecompanies and hospitals already have enough power to make it look liek it doesnt work... fuck these protectionist doctors with the hypocratic oaths and their insurance goons..... or fuck it make a bunch of money and laugh at the dumb peasants who vote for this shit. After all it only helps increase wealth gaps even more. More need to print money usually lines the pockets of the rich with little to trickle down driving inflation and hurting the small even more.

  • Libertarianism is fantasy.– DrBombay

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 10:58 p.m. – Permalink

• ukit2

  I don't know how you ever reduce cost to the level where everyone who wants to be insured can be. No amount of bureaucracy and red tape cutting is going to make it profitable for insurance company to support someone who requires hundreds of thousands in care.

  • insurance is a gamble. 100% insurance is no longer a gamble and raises rates for all with no controls.– deathboy1/8

    i think insurance across statelines with multiple comapnies and making insurance individual vs company would allow more insurance– deathboy2/8

    company would allow mor einsurance at cheaper rates for more people. and keep hospitals inline more tiered services– deathboy3/8

    services and procedures. much like ferrari services vs chevy cobalts. Too much insurance makes them only offer ferrari services– deathboy4/8

    i only partake in employer insurance becuase they cover so much of it and if i refused id see no extra money.– deathboy5/8

    i think i could get a cheaper policy than what i pay+employer pays. But right now since they cover so much i go with it– deathboy6/8

    with it. I'd rather have a small detrimental health policy and pay otu of pocket for dental +vision– deathboy7/8

    My dental and vision thru employer is virtually nothing a month.– DrBombay8/8

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 11:22 p.m. – Permalink

• ukit2

  But this may be a fundamental difference in outlook - the left in America (and the establishment right like Romney) wants to insure everyone either because of the moral issues or the cost savings involved.

  But for the far right and libertarians this never enters into the picture, they could care less whether people are insured. Doesn't seem like you will ever be able to reconcile those two points of view.

  • Can reconcile it with reason. Did romney really decrease costs? Its nice to want everyone to have all the care they need but just illogical.– deathboy1/19

    It probably cant be reconciled since there are people who act more on what they want vs the logic and reality behind it.– deathboy2/19

    Why id rather see mroe improvement sin educaiton than war funds and social programs. Education is the foundation– deathboy3/19

    foundation– deathboy4/19

    and thats not saying i want to throw public funds at edu sector. more that its more important to sor tout problems it has– deathboy5/19

    in the edu sectors. unions, vouchers, and all that is more important than delaying deaths of weak gene pools– deathboy6/19

    Rest of the world shows that you can provide coverage for most people...we are really the only advanced economy that doesn't have some kind of universal care.– ukit27/19

    doesn't have some kind of universal care.– ukit28/19

    what cost do the other countrys have the policies? lower quality? longer wait times? you can have it but at what costs– deathboy9/19

    i knwo a german girl who paid for universal care but still had to have individual plan becuase qauilty and timely care was impossible– deathboy10/19

    care was almsot impossible. it really is about does it work and what costs.– deathboy11/19

    the best i have seen is probably swiss care for universal, but there mentality is different than ours is.– deathboy12/19

    if kid is doing bad in school and unfocused or whatever they say get more exercise instead of pilling them up.– deathboy13/19

    universal type care can only work with a strong foundation of people, albeit still risky. us to greedy with corporate stock holders– deathboy14/19

    holders and groups.– deathboy15/19

    Actually Obamacare is closest to the Swiss plan– ukit216/19

    And still universal care ran by a few peopel is less liekly to be successful than all people deciding and choosing with their money– deathboy17/19

    their money– deathboy18/19

    but we're not the swiss– deathboy19/19

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 11:25 p.m. – Permalink

• ukit2

  What about the advances in science, tech, business that could be gained from providing some level of baseline care for everyone?

  Extreme example would be if you had a seriously ill person who is also a genius, and it turned out that keeping them alive would benefit the rest of society greatly. Stephen Hawking for instance says he wouldn't be alive except for the NHS.

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/…

  • very small percentage. if it meant 100,000 had to starve for the cost of the one smart person is that right. perhaps 1 million starve– deathboy1/4

    million. the principle is the same jsut haggling on the cost– deathboy2/4

    and really i cant put a cost on a person. wether 100 has to suffer for soem crack ridden junkie or 1000 for a smart person..– deathboy3/4

    i think the jsut thign is to let markets decide. albeit cold and seemingly uncaring. it jsut seems more jsut– deathboy4/4

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 26, 12, 11:51 p.m. – Permalink

• deathboy

  what if opening up insurance across statelines and killing employer subsidies and creating incentives for individuals to be in control of their own policies reduce costs for many more peopel allowing the chances of many more smart people get affordable care who would usually be screwed. Yes a small percentage may go uncovered but cheaper care for more would have better odds for progress.

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 27, 12, 12:08 a.m. – Permalink

• deathboy

  what if opening up insurance across statelines and killing employer subsidies and creating incentives for individuals to be in control of their own policies reduce costs for many more peopel allowing the chances of many more smart people get affordable care who would usually be screwed. Yes a small percentage may go uncovered but cheaper care for more would have better odds for progress.

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 27, 12, 12:08 a.m. – Permalink

• pizzafire

  The Pirate Party (Germany) gets 7,4% of (Saarland) state election last sunday, giving them 4 seats in the state parliament. They got 9% in Berlin state election last year.

  http://www.spiegel.de/internatio…

  

  • and since this is mostly US politics in this thread ... i'd like to see this happen over there. http://en.wikipedia.…– pizzafire1/3

    Rrrrrr!– 74LEO2/3

    what letter comes after Q?– 74LEO3/3

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 27, 12, 5:31 a.m. – Permalink

• 74LEO

  

  You must be logged in to add a note. Login now or register for an account.

  Cancel

  Dog-earMar 27, 12, 9 a.m. – Permalink