Post #409,853
5/5/16 6:30:34 PM
5/5/16 6:30:34 PM
|
Re: rolling back of such social gains...?
Well, there's the repeal of DADT and the general loosening—obvious pockets of resistance apart—of legal discrimination against same-sex liaisons, to say nothing of the legalization of same-sex marriage nationally. There's the "Fair Pay Act" back in 2009, the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The administration has scarcely been out front in the drive to scale back our lunatic "war on drugs," but at least it has stood largely aside from impeding reform. It has played defense on the Supreme Court. Diplomatic relations have been established with Cuba (you'll recall that your greasy rat and that other Cuban, the bag of feathers, each swore that these would be severed again within moments after his hand* came off the Bible). Libya destroyed? That would be the Jeffersonian democracy with all the Mediterranean real estate, the Switzerland of North Africa, that oasis of peace and freedom for forty years under the enlightened triumvirate of Colonels Gaddafi, Qadhafi and Khaddafi? Yes, that is too bad, but you forget that the three colonels had to be sacrificed as a necessary precondition for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens by Secretary of State Dread Butch Clinton. Stevens, you see, was blackmailing her about Vince Foster and the Mena Airport—but why go dredging up these old scandals? This is supposed to be a 'appy occasion. That the Kenyan Usurper has not fully extricated us from the foreign quagmires into which the Cheney Shogunate enmired us is, I admit, completely inexplicable, given that there were absolutely no political obstacles at any point to his doing so. Presidents McCain or Romney would have had the Taliban leadership signing the instruments of surrender on the decks of the USS Missouri in short order, I think we can all agree. Give greater evil a chance already can't fuck it up any worse than the dems already have. Obama's seven years in office have not gratified me in every particular (and a couple of his decisions have cost me money in noticeable sums), but I am more satisfied with his performance than I have been with that of any US president who has held the office since I was first old enough to vote. I expect that he'll look even better against any likely successor. I worry about the president who will someday soften my contempt for Bush the Younger, though. cordially, *If Trump does somehow take it, won't they need to acquire a special miniaturized Bible for the swearing-in? Maybe one of the ones inscribed on the head of a pin?
|
Post #409,860
5/6/16 8:19:36 AM
5/6/16 8:19:36 AM
|
Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"?
Of all the many things we have agreed on, and those non-trivially numbered things we have disagreed upon, that is the most stunningly inane thing I've ever heard you put forward. That's perhaps too harsh. If by "social gain" you mean accelerating our pace toward neo-fascist oligarchy, then yes, the passage of the ACA was a "social gain."
But, your recent tacit support of Hillary Clinton notwithstanding, I don't believe you really think that a complete corporate takeover of the federal government is a good idea. Still, to suggest that the passage of a law dictating that all Americans must pay the shareholder of some private company a profit for the "original sin" of being born is hardly what I'd call a "social gain."
|
Post #409,862
5/6/16 8:26:39 AM
5/6/16 8:26:39 AM
|
This is just stupid
How many millions of Americans have access to doctors that didn't before? That's a social gain, esp. for the people that have it now that didn't ten years ago. You know, the burger flippers part of the population, and ESPECIALLY their children.
The mechanism may suck, but politics is often the art of the possible. Even if it takes another forty years to move the needle forward, that's many millions of people who are going to experience a very large social gain over those decades.
|
Post #409,880
5/6/16 9:53:49 AM
5/6/16 9:53:49 AM
|
what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5%
increase in the medicare tax we already pay. Even if you earned 100k the 5k tax will be a savings of 15k you would not have to pay in premiums and co-pays. Corporations would still get their nut processing claims. No nother and the light of his life claim this is unworkable, we need to pay the 20k so the private corporation can make better bank. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #409,883
5/6/16 10:23:51 AM
5/6/16 10:23:51 AM
|
It would only work if you could get the law passed
Is the current system better than what we had before, where millions more people had no insurance? I say yes, this is better.
Would Medicare for all be even better than that? Absolutely, but plenty of lawmakers made it clear they wouldn't vote for that. Might it have passed if it came up for a vote? Maybe, and maybe someone should give that a shot.
Here's the key point IMO: Of all the Republicans talking about repealing Obamacare, I haven't heard a single one of them propose replacing it with Medicare for all. So if your argument is that Obamacare is bad because it's not as good as Medicare for all, that doesn't seem to be on the menu.
|
Post #409,887
5/6/16 10:48:02 AM
5/6/16 10:48:02 AM
|
Conyers gave it a shot in 2009. It died in committee (as it always does).
|
Post #409,888
5/6/16 11:39:19 AM
5/6/16 11:39:19 AM
|
Liar
That would have worked, not like Obamacare, so if anyone had proposed it clearly Republicans would have voted for it.
|
Post #409,890
5/6/16 11:49:54 AM
5/6/16 11:49:54 AM
|
Ack! You have cut me to the bone!!11
|
Post #409,893
5/6/16 12:12:17 PM
5/6/16 12:12:18 PM
|
33 million still have no insurance. HTH.
|
Post #409,900
5/6/16 12:23:56 PM
5/6/16 12:23:56 PM
|
Re: 33 million still have no insurance. HTH.
 HTH. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #409,894
5/6/16 12:13:34 PM
5/6/16 12:13:34 PM
|
Um, Bernie Sanders?
Oh, but right, we aren't supposed to elect him. We're supposed to fall in line behind Hillary.
|
Post #409,919
5/6/16 2:46:12 PM
5/6/16 2:46:12 PM
|
Presidents don't pass laws
|
Post #409,921
5/6/16 3:27:16 PM
5/6/16 3:27:16 PM
|
Right.
NASA, New Deal, Great Society, none of those were Presidential ideas. Er, ..., wait...
|
Post #409,885
5/6/16 10:44:20 AM
5/6/16 10:44:20 AM
|
Re: what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5%
1) Medicare doesn't cover everything. People would still need supplemental insurance. 2) There weren't the votes for it. Conyers's bill died in committee. Counter-factuals are fun, but reality is what matters. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #409,867
5/6/16 8:32:58 AM
5/6/16 8:32:58 AM
|
Re: Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"?
|
Post #409,873
5/6/16 9:09:02 AM
5/6/16 9:09:02 AM
|
Um, no.
Yes, I do dislike an industry that collects money from people that they spend in order to get healthcare and then profits by withholding that care. That is, I am opposed to people making money from our healthcare delivery system who do not contribute in any way, shape or form to the delivery of health care. If it weren't for Wall Street's influence in our government, this wouldn't be happening. 33 million people don't have health insurance, mostly because they cannot afford it. With guaranteed margins of 20% for private health insurers, who can blame them? We pay more and have worse outcomes than anyone and that's what I'm opposed to. Getting 1 in 10 regular access to our broken system is hardly cause for celebration. But I don't "hate" our medical care industry - if by that you mean the clinicians and support staff. I've no issue with them at all. It's these blood sucking fascists like Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, etc. need to go away. The ACA was nothing more than YAN gift to the shareholder class. Several million previously uninsured Americans now have coverage because of Obamacare, but it could be argued that the people who have benefited most from the law—at least financially—are the top executives and shareholders of the country’s health insurance companies.
Among those who apparently have not yet benefited much at all, at least so far, are owners of small businesses who would like to keep offering coverage to their employees but can no longer afford it. They can’t afford it because insurers keep jacking their rates up so high every year that more and more of them are dropping employee health benefits altogether.
And let’s be clear, these insurers aren’t suffering. UnitedHealth Group, the largest health insurer, reported last week that it made $10.3 billion in profits in 2014 on revenues of $130.5 billion. Both profits and revenues grew seven percent from 2013.
United impressed Wall Street so much that investors pushed its share price to an all-time high. When the New York Stock Exchange closed last Thursday, United’s share price stood at $113.85, a record.
To put that in perspective, United’s share price was $30.40 on March 23, 2010, the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. Since then, the company’s price per share has increased an astonishing 375 percent. That’s way more than either the Dow Jones or Standard & Poors averages has grown during the same period. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/26/16658/health-insurers-watch-profits-soar-they-dump-small-business-customersCare to defend this chart? 
|
Post #409,889
5/6/16 11:49:27 AM
5/6/16 11:49:27 AM
|
Re: Um, no.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/10/06/15867/obamacare-helps-millions-falls-short-many-ways (also by Wendell Potter): Although there is no shortage of critics of the Affordable Care Act — on the far left as well as the right — it’s hard to dispute that the law has benefited millions of Americans. And not just those who have become newly insured over the past year.
President Barack Obama cited some of the impressive statistics last Thursday, the day after the one-year anniversary of the turbulent debut of the Obamacare-created online health insurance exchanges.
"In just the last year, we’ve reduced the share of uninsured Americans by 26 percent," he said. "That means one in four uninsured Americans — about 10 million people — have gained the financial security of health insurance in less than one year."
Approximately 8 million people were finally able to sign up for coverage on the exchanges after the many technical problems were fixed. Many others were able to enroll in health plans on private exchanges or by working directly with an insurance company or agent. As a consequence, the rate of uninsured Americans dropped from 21 percent in September 2013 to 16.3 percent this past April.
Even though open enrollment for the Obamacare exchanges ended in April, people have still been joining the ranks of the insured since then. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of newly insured Americans will grow to 12 million by the end of this year.
A significant percentage of those folks were not able to find affordable coverage in the past, and many were not able to buy health insurance at any price because of insurance industry business practices that were outlawed by the ACA. Before Obamacare, insurance companies were able to declare you “uninsurable” if you had a preexisting condition, even conditions you might have been born with.
During the months that health care reform was being debated in Washington, I met many young people who told me they had not been able to buy an insurance policy because of congenital heart defects and other conditions they had had since birth.
Now they can.
That provision and other parts of Obamacare that force insurance companies to be more consumer-friendly benefit all of us, but those sections of the law are rarely mentioned these days, probably because many of them went into effect long before the exchanges were up and running. Here’s a partial list:
[...] FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #409,875
5/6/16 9:31:40 AM
5/6/16 9:31:40 AM
|
odd way of putting it
Of all the many things we have agreed on, and those non-trivially numbered things we have disagreed upon, that is the most stunningly inane thing I've ever heard you put forward. So what's the most stunningly inane thing I've put forward on an issue we have agreed upon? It must trouble you each time you fire up the trusty old flivver, incidentally, that the neo-fascist oligarchy that passes for your state government dictates that you must pay the shareholder of some private company a profit for the secondary sin of driving. Listen mate. I’m beginning to have my doubts about you. I’m telling you straight, mate. I don’t think you're Luchino Visconti/a real Marxist at all. I think you’re a secret libertarian. cordially,
|
Post #409,878
5/6/16 9:49:24 AM
5/6/16 11:57:04 AM
|
I predicted on this very board that Obama would raise that false equivalence...
several months before he said it, I predicted that he would claim being forced to purchase "health insurance" from a private entity is just like being forced to purchase "car insurance" from a private entity. That is absurd on its face. I am *NOT* required to purchase automobile insurance. I can avoid it by opting for public transportation, or living close enough to work so that I can bicycle or walk (which I did for a number of years). Avoiding the purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can *NOT* do if I wish to continue breathing.
Edit: Thanks for pointing out the error, Rand.
Edited by mmoffitt
May 6, 2016, 11:57:04 AM EDT
|
Post #409,882
5/6/16 10:02:25 AM
5/6/16 10:02:25 AM
|
speaking of inanity
Being forced to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can *NOT* do if I wish to continue breathing. Read that carefully. I think you probably meant to craft that sentence differently. But let's assume that what you aimed to convey was: " Refusing to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can *NOT* do if I wish to continue breathing." Is that a fair re-statement of your intended meaning? Because I must have missed the statutory language in the ACA that calls for capital punishment of the non-compliant. There is a penalty at tax-time, which you and, I daresay, many other good burghers in the Hoosier State may bitterly resent, but there is no blood-debt to be paid. So either you have been grotesquely misinformed as to the provisions of the Act or you are exaggerating so preposterously for effect that imputations of inanity to others must hereafter fall rather implausibly from your lips. cordially,
|
Post #409,891
5/6/16 11:58:24 AM
5/6/16 11:58:24 AM
|
Show me the equivalent Federal Penalty for not buying a car.
And, thank you for pointing out my mangling of my point. ;0)
|
Post #409,896
5/6/16 12:16:27 PM
5/6/16 12:16:27 PM
|
Roberts addressed this in 2012
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility
payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The
payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health
insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal-
ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by
the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel
Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay-
ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But
the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un-
lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches
negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond
requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—
stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—
does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It
may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur-
ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174.
Pp. 35–40. Congress has the power to tax. End of story. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #409,898
5/6/16 12:19:03 PM
5/6/16 12:19:03 PM
|
but they swore it was not a tax on the american people? So the tax is on top of
current medicare tax but still no benefit offered? Whats up with that? payola to lobbyists always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
Post #409,901
5/6/16 12:25:48 PM
5/6/16 12:25:48 PM
|
Man, you're agreeing with some interesting folks these days. Roberts? Really?
|
Post #409,904
5/6/16 12:33:04 PM
5/6/16 12:33:04 PM
|
Recognizing reality is a helpful way to get through life. ;-)
Of course Roberts is a monster, but the law is the law.
Or do you think that Congress doesn't have the power to tax now?
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #409,906
5/6/16 12:38:23 PM
5/6/16 12:39:04 PM
|
Heh. I think a "tax" you pay ONLY when you don't do something is a fine. ;0)
Edit: temporary brain freeze today.
Edited by mmoffitt
May 6, 2016, 12:39:04 PM EDT
|
Post #409,886
5/6/16 10:47:08 AM
5/6/16 10:47:08 AM
|
Nobody's "forced to purchase health insurance".
If you don't want to buy it, then pay the fine.
If you can't afford it (under the rules), then you don't have to buy it.
Quit making stuff up.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #409,892
5/6/16 12:09:31 PM
5/6/16 12:09:31 PM
|
Ah. I see. A federal fine is no injury at all.
That is not the worst part of that Give-A-Way to big insurance companies that is the ACA. The worst part is that it is now federal law that a very small subset of the US population is entitled to profit from others healthcare whilst doing absolutely nothing to deliver that healthcare. It is the law. If you get sick and need medical care, the law of the land says, "Shove some money into the pocket of a person who is going to do nothing for you." That's the worst part. Private Health insurance companies have by federal law become the exclusive means of receiving healthcare in this banana republic.
Even if you can pay for your healthcare yourself, if you don't add directly to Wall Street pockets, the federal government will slap you with a fine for not *directly* supporting the federal government's Wall Street masters.
|
Post #409,899
5/6/16 12:21:51 PM
5/6/16 12:21:51 PM
|
It used to be a federal law...
written into every contract with the government, that if the item purchased had a "jewelled movement" (like old-timey mechanical watches) then those "jewels" had to be purchased from a very specific particular company in South Dakota (IIRC).
The Republic survived.
There are compelling benefits to having the population covered by health insurance, as you know. The penalty is an encouragement for those able to to get coverage.
Your railing against the health care and insurance industry isn't going to change the reality of the fact that those are the systems we have and there weren't (and still aren't) the votes to make the system more single-payer-like and even more universal) no matter how much you (and I) might wish that to be the case.
Voting against Hillary isn't going to change that situation for the better.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #409,902
5/6/16 12:27:37 PM
5/6/16 12:27:37 PM
|
I'm not voting against her, I'm voting for someone committed to universal healthcare.
|
Post #409,903
5/6/16 12:31:06 PM
5/6/16 12:31:06 PM
|
That's fine in the primary. Vote the party in the general...
|
Post #409,905
5/6/16 12:36:05 PM
5/6/16 12:36:19 PM
|
Here's your sign. :0)
Edited by mmoffitt
May 6, 2016, 12:36:19 PM EDT
|
Post #409,908
5/6/16 12:44:42 PM
5/6/16 12:44:42 PM
|
I don't have a problem with that.
Do you think real change is easy?
;-p
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #409,912
5/6/16 1:37:32 PM
5/6/16 1:37:32 PM
|
No. But it's not as unpossible as you've suggested either. ;-)
|
Post #409,916
5/6/16 1:46:43 PM
5/6/16 1:46:43 PM
|
I think we've been through this before.
History tells us, on multiple occasions, that the PPACA was the most that could get through the Congress of the time.
Bernie gave it a good shot, but he showed that there aren't enough votes for him to start his Revolution™.
At some point, one has to recognize that votes matter, and if you don't have the votes to get what you want, then you work to get as much as you can that gets you toward the end you desire. Compromise, half-a-loaf, etc., is a good result.
Sure, it's not "impossible", but reality keeps getting in the way.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #409,929
5/7/16 2:30:34 PM
5/7/16 2:30:34 PM
|
I suspect this thread will wind down
...with no one having persuaded the other side. Cheers back to Scott, who has been patient, and to mmoffitt as well, whose tenacity in the defense of his obsessions has something admirable about it even when his arguments become preposterous, and whose tone, while occasionally strident, has never exceeded the boundaries of civil discourse. Mind you, we're a pub brawl here compared to the gentlemen's club over at Crooked Timber, but I like the tone overall. I do wish that ol' CRC would drop by more frequently to lob a grenade. I fear that fatherhood has dulled his edge.
cordially,
|
Post #409,930
5/7/16 2:58:33 PM
5/7/16 2:58:33 PM
|
We do well here.
I miss many of our old compatriots. :-(
I've learned a lot from you folks and greatly appreciate that. Balloon-Juice is fun, but there's a lot of noise and lots of people just post snark. Snark is great, but ... The trolling would be too much there without cleek's pie filter.
Let's keep it up! :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #409,932
5/7/16 6:30:56 PM
5/7/16 6:30:56 PM
|
Hats off to you both.
I know I've strayed from being civil on occasion, and for that I do apologize. I appreciate greatly being able to cross swords with the two of you because, despite my legion of posts indicating otherwise, I actually *do* value your opinions and very much look forward to reading your retorts.
|
Post #409,934
5/7/16 6:42:03 PM
5/7/16 6:42:03 PM
|
obviously I haven't read *all* your posts
...but I don't recall your ever going (cough!) off the reservation, and as I've observed before, you win points for keeping it together even when you, a lone man, are parrying a dozen swordthrusts at once from a group of us on this or that point(!) of politics or culture.
cordially,
|
Post #409,935
5/7/16 6:43:47 PM
5/7/16 6:43:47 PM
|
Thank you. Awfully kind of you.
|
Post #409,939
5/7/16 9:03:15 PM
5/7/16 9:03:15 PM
|
Well said.
|
Post #409,881
5/6/16 9:57:45 AM
5/6/16 9:57:45 AM
|
nope, you can do what million s of poor americans and illegals do. Drive without it.
Many years ago I drove for 2 years without insurance. Made me an extremely careful driver. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
|
