Court rRuling on Obamacare

[Token Williams-Black]

"Obamacare" explained in layman's terms...->http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm

[buttslinger]

I don't think you can say that Robert's is Obama's guy on the strength of the affordable health care ruling. Bit premature that!

ha ha, very true, but he's not Scalia's guy either. And that is a GOOD thing,


http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm
Simpler explanation than that: All the practical shit that every other industrialized country but ours has had for decades.

[flabbybody]

that website did not address a major issue.
I'm concerned that Republican governors like Jindal are saying they won't set up the insurance exchanges. It seems like thats an important part of making this work. If the Federal government is forced to set them up in non-complying states, will low income residents still qualify for the subsidies? Those same governors will certainly not opt for expanded Medicaid so where does that leave those folks? No one would believe that a politician would go so far to undermine Obamacare but after listening to the likes of Jindal and Perry of Texas, it's clear they don't give a rat's ass for their citizens' well being. Even fatso Governor Christy (who I respect) is hinting he may not put the exchanges together by 2014.
Anyone have an idea how this will be resolved ?

[buttslinger]

The Republicans have a problem, you can only bluff so long before you have to show your hand and lose your money. Obama will be re-elected, Fat Rush Limbo will get tired jumping up and down, and Republicans will have lots of soul searching to do. The Republicans have no real plan for ANYTHING!!!! The economy, China, Iran, Syria, Health costs, Immigration, Women's Rights, Gay Rights, Jobs, Taxes, well no, they have tax plans and Inheritance tax plans and Stock Dividends plans. But everything else is dire threats, warnings, and whining. After the election, the never say die party will become the sour grapes party.

[Odelay]

Depending on one's politics, if this DID happen, it would return America to the Dark Ages or at least an era where women have no say over what happens to their bodies. Margaret Attwood's brilliant but bleak dystopia The Handmaid's Tale may not be that far away - a truly chilling prospect.

Nahh, it won't plunge all of America into the dark ages, just states like Mississippi and Utah. And even in those places, impregnated girls will travel to "Blue" liberal states to get an abortion, if needed. Some of the more liberal states, like Washington on the west coast, have already passed strongly supportive reproduction rights laws which would be the rule of the day if Roe v Wade were overturned.

I found Atom Egoyan's film Felicia's Journey to be a very good movie telling the simple story of a Northern Ireland lass who travels from her home country where abortion is severely restricted to London to have the option to end her pregnancy. As much as I like The Handmaid's Tale, I don't think that dystopia will be realized in the near future.

[BluegrassCat]

that website did not address a major issue.
I'm concerned that Republican governors like Jindal are saying they won't set up the insurance exchanges. It seems like thats an important part of making this work. If the Federal government is forced to set them up in non-complying states, will low income residents still qualify for the subsidies? Those same governors will certainly not opt for expanded Medicaid so where does that leave those folks? No one would believe that a politician would go so far to undermine Obamacare but after listening to the likes of Jindal and Perry of Texas, it's clear they don't give a rat's ass for their citizens' well being. Even fatso Governor Christy (who I respect) is hinting he may not put the exchanges together by 2014.
Anyone have an idea how this will be resolved ?

I was reading a piece about how Arizona originally refused to implement Medicaid, and didn't finally cave until the early 80's. So these red state governors will probably refuse the free money at first. But as time goes on and the state still has to bear the cost of these people anyway, pressure from within the state will build and eventually they'll quietly slink back to D.C. with their hands out. Sad thing is all that political posturing will hurt some people in the meantime unnecessarily.

[broncofan]

I wonder why there is such a deep loathing of this on the right when, leaving aside the issue of how it is paid for, almost all of its provisions for extending health care are positive ones eg. preventing insurance companies from denying cover to those with pre-existing medical conditions. Why is something designed to enhance the health coverage for the nation so loathed by those whose primary concern seems to be to avoid paying tax?

As your post indicates they are all excuses. The support of states' rights is to prevent the Federal government from helping people who are suffering, to support unconscionable state laws that ratify the most parochial, superstitious and often transparently hateful of views. They don't want to pay any sort of tax that might potentially go to someone undeserving and so they want a referendum on every policy measure that takes a penny out of their pockets.

I heard a story the other day about a Republican woman complaining that she couldn't get fully compensated for a major injury she sustained in a car accident because the Republicans have passed tort reform in her state. Tort reforms limit recovery for injuries and are passed by Republican legislatures to protect the insurance industry against large judgments. To pass the laws, Republicans try to conjure up mental images of career con artists faking paraplegia or something and making everyone's insurance premiums go up. Nearly the same images they've used to stimulate outrage in the heartland by making folks afraid of the "black welfare mom" to achieve welfare reforms. The woman, who supported tort reform kept saying, "but I'm one of the people who really deserves the settlement." For some reason I feel like this pretty much sums up the Republican mentality. Pure toxic hatred until they find they're not immune to it and then self-pity.

[Stavros]

Broncofan, when you write They don't want to pay any sort of tax that might potentially go to someone undeserving and so they want a referendum on every policy measure that takes a penny out of their pockets... you highlight the kind of 'moral dilemma' that upon investigation cannot be resolved by politics.

For example, enough people these days are aware that smoking cigarettes on a regular basis runs the risk of causing cancer -why should non-smokers pay any kind of general health tax to treat someone for an illness that was caused by their own behaviour? Young people who become habitual drinkers run the risk of another cancer, cirrhosis of the liver. But if you take the argument further, the US govt does not raise a special tax to fight specific wars, so you are not in a position to say: Yes, I will pay taxes for the military involvement in Grenada, but not in Iraq. A list-based system would not work, most people would not taxes if it was simply a matter of choice, politics can only offer at the national level an enabling principle, leaving it to bureaucrats and local officials to work out the day to day details.

But as I said before, the research that has gone into cancer has had multiple spin-offs in science which have benefited people who don't smoke. Just as we have email from previously secure/secret messaging systems in the military; just as tampons were developed from the use of absorbent materials used to make bandages in the First World War, and so on. There are many people who need medical treatment for 'life-style' behaviour, but just as many falling ill because of environmental pollution, inherited conditions, car accidents and so on. We are all in this together, to try and separate out those who merit care and those who don't doesn't work as your example shows, and in practical terms it is a waste of time.

The ability to pay already has mainained an order of preference, including in the UK, but the British Medical Association fought for the right for doctors to maintain their private patients and the Attlee Government in 1945-47 had to accept the compromise to get the NHS off the ground.

[broncofan]

Well put Stavros. We cannot earmark every dollar we give to the government. Since we all do things that put ourselves at risk, despite that some do them more, we cannot avoid our obligations just to spite a few people we think are frauds. And as you say, cancer research for those who have developed cancers related to consumption is no less beneficial to those who do not smoke or drink.

This mentality occurs in poker as well, where there's always one person who can't stand someone getting away with stealing a hand, so he will call just to see the other guy's aces. And he will lose all of his money because he's sure he's being suckered. Sometimes you have to accept that there's a one in a thousand chance you're being had.

I assure everyone that the person who is "living off of the government" and foregoing all worthwhile employment is not getting an especially good deal as it is. And our insurance rates are not going to skyrocket if we do not prevent all of the legitimate claims from being fully compensated to spite the one scum who cheats.

The Republicans still have the playground mentality that they would rather everyone starve than risk the chance that someone gets a free lunch.

[Odelay]

^^^^^
spot on

I try to be a good liberal and watch out for people who are less fortunate than I am. But even I sometimes have some bad thoughts when I see all these obese people in the Midwest where I live, driving in motorized carts, presumably paid for by Medicaid. But as you say Broncofan, their lives aren't all that great, and then I think of all the people that Medicaid helps who are truly deserving of that assistance. I just can't stay angry at the scammers or irresponsible for long when I see all the good that the programs do as a whole.