One more opinion (at least) still to be read...we should know within the next few minutes.
EDIT: FCC vs. Fox was read. Second Circuit reversed - fuck the FCC.
Not sure if there's any more.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
One more opinion (at least) still to be read...we should know within the next few minutes.
EDIT: FCC vs. Fox was read. Second Circuit reversed - fuck the FCC.
Not sure if there's any more.
Probably in the next hour... they still could release a few more cases today potentially since they're only at Breyer.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
i'm excited no matter what happens.
The Librarian
Banned
"Multiple sites" lol.
Apparently they all took the new press protocol to mean it must be coming today. Great reporting.
ToxicAdam said:
LOL, if only for the hilarity and to stick it to Obama for publicly chastising the SCOTUS on Citizen United during the State of the Union.
Black Republican
Member
lol SEIU
It'll probably be on Monday then.
As a French Gaffer, I hope the SC will uphold the entirety of the law because for once you were getting closer to modern standards on health care.
Kennedy and Roberts better make the right decision, after the disastrous Citizens United ruling.
As a French Gaffer, I hope the SC will uphold the entirety of the law because for once you were getting closer to modern standards on health care.
Kennedy and Roberts better make the right decision, after the disastrous Citizens United ruling.
lol
Right on mon ami.
The Librarian
Banned
"Nothing says freedom like obsessively clicking on a website to find out if my wife and I will be able to buy affordable health insurance."
https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/215814169566527490
https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/215814169566527490
How would you know that?
And more importantly, why do you think it's a good idea to let the president to decide what he disclose and what he doesn't?
If he's worried about agents safety or what's not (which would surprise me, considering what we know of the story) he can have a closed doors hearing, there are people with high clearance in congress.
And this is not only about Obama or Fast and Furious, this is what we allow future presidents to get away with.
p.s.
Again, find me one case in history when hiding information from the public after the fact was a good idea.
A giant handout to the insurance industry and doing very little to curb the total health care costs is a step forward?
The Librarian
Banned
Thankfully it's the opposite of that.
Invisible_Insane
Member
...huh?
Blergmeister
Member
No no, single payer wasn't passed.
Actually it's the opposite of that.
Focusing on the insurance side of things was always misguided. Hospitals aren't good guys either.
It kind of is a pretty big handout to the insurance companies. If the mandate is upheld, they get a ton of new paying customers.
Single payer would have been better.
benjipwns
Banned
I feel like they will, unless they have some ruling they want to paper over like "IN A DOUBLE WHAMMY POLYGAMY IS LEGAL" or "TED TURNER NOW OWNS ALL AMERICANS."
The Librarian
Banned
Half of the people who would gain insurance through the new health care law will get it through Medicaid. The other half have to get it through private insurers in regulated exchanges that are held to a certain spending standard, of which consumers are already seeing the benefits. If you want to look at it as the insurance industry getting more customers, sure, I guess you can call it a handout. But with its common connotation of being "free money," then that's really misleading.
I hadn't realized I disputed that anywhere.
"Insurance" doesn't really imply hospitals, so I wasn't mentioning that. That said, if single-payer had been past without nationalizing most hospitals, I guess you could call that a handout to the hospitals even then.
"But whatever people think of the law, they don't want a Supreme Court ruling against it to be the last word on health care reform. More than three-fourths of Americans want their political leaders to undertake a new effort, rather than leave the health care system alone if the court rules against the law, according to the poll."
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Poll-U-S-needs-a-health-care-plan-3650586.php#ixzz1yRTBfVI2
Surprised it's only 3/4ths
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Poll-U-S-needs-a-health-care-plan-3650586.php#ixzz1yRTBfVI2
Surprised it's only 3/4ths
You didn't, I was merely stating that was how I felt about the whole thing. It wasn't meant to imply that you were disputing it at all.
I think it is.
I'm not a huge fan of the mandate, never was, but I still think the bill as a whole improve the current situation.
But yeah, this is more a reflection of the sad state of healthcare in this country than a praise for Obamacare.
p.s.
I'm curious, what type of solution do you support?
The Librarian
Banned
Thanks for the clarification. Obviously single-payer would be better than the ACA, but I'll defend as an improvement upon the status quo.
benjipwns
Banned
Important part is still if they strike the mandate or the entire law. If it's just the mandate, the entire private insurance market is going to collapse. No idea if polls internalize this.
Required snarky point about mandates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ
I agree with this, we obviously couldn't keep going with the status quo, costs are out of control.
Its a step in the right direction, I just don't think we are where we should be yet. Of course to get there, it would require everyone to be able to get affordable healthcare while simultaneously reducing the wild costs it has risen to. I'm not particularly sure how to accomplish that.
Black Republican
Member
On the one important ruling from today:
http://reason.com/blog#article_159856
That's actually kind of huge. Forcing employees to opt-in to new political funding.
http://reason.com/blog#article_159856
That's actually kind of huge. Forcing employees to opt-in to new political funding.
The Librarian
Banned
Not necessarily. Remember, the ACA provides subsidies to people within a certain income range to help afford insurance, with or without the mandate (unless the law is thrown out or this part of the law is thrown out with it). Some of these people will purchase insurance because it's affordable now. Because of the subsidies, the insurance death spiral, as seen in states like Washington and New Jersey, may not play out on the national level, or more likely won't be as severe. Nobody knows what, exactly, the lack of a mandate will have on health care in this manner.
Everybody does agree, though, that without the mandate the law won't be nearly as effective. People will only sign up in large numbers if there is a mandate in place, and thus the effectiveness of the ACA's cost control measures will be reduced.
If the mandate is struck down it will embolden the GOP in congress and they'll simply not fund the exchanges. The states who have already taken steps to set theirs up will be straight fucked.
I think striking down just the mandate will make for some insane summer politics. Either other option will just make for a lot of sound with no fury.
I think striking down just the mandate will make for some insane summer politics. Either other option will just make for a lot of sound with no fury.
I don't have an all-encompassing answer, but I would support a system where the government provides free preventative care and services for everyone, provides the consumer with an incredible amount of information on costs/etc. Empower the patient with information so they can shop around for the best deal/service. Then insurance takes over from there to cover the treatment. But insurance shouldn't be mandated, if I am a healthy 30 year old male just trying to establish myself, I shouldn't have to buy insurance if i so chose. It's a small gamble, but that's what we do constantly in life. I think those two solutions alone would remarkably improve not only costs .. but overall outcomes of our collective health.
The current system we have now completely leaves the consumer at the whim of what arrangement the health care provider (usually pre-determined by an employer) and the insurance companies decide. With no way of comparing or knowing if you are getting hosed in the process. You are just a cork bobbing in an ocean of ignorance.
You can pay 1000 dollars for an ambulance ride, but no way of knowing if someone on the other side of town paid the same amount. Nor any recourse if someone paid 1/4 of that.
benjipwns
Banned
It's pretty obvious.
You can't subsidize it or every employer will drop coverage and send everyone into the exchanges. If you leave all the various regulations in place they can't sell cheap plans, etc. The entire thing implodes.
HHS can't even fucking figure out how to implement the plans they have in place now, let alone the clusterfuck that's occurring with implementing everything forward.
There's a reason the GOP proposed this as a STOP GAP plan against HillaryCare.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Obama's lead falls 10 points in a single day.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-obama-with-3-point-lead-over-romney
The Librarian
Banned
We'll see. I haven't read anything that says employers will do what you say they'll do, but I do agree that the law will not be as effective if the mandate isn't in place. It'll cause people to be without insurance.
Blergmeister
Member
Employers will keep offering coverage for the same reason they offer coverage today: To entice people to work for them. In fact, it was more cost effective for them to drop coverage for employees before the ACA than after.
Invisible_Insane
Member
That's your perception and ultimately you are making a choice based on that perception. Feels good, eh?
benjipwns
Banned
And that's the point, because the exchanges and subsidies are not there for people eligible for Medicaid it's way up there. It's for the "middle class" that's going to be kicked out of their plans.
Employers who don't ditch people into the exchanges will be morons. Especially when you take into account any regulations that demand plans they aren't willing to pay for yet the government will.
Those of us below the penalty won't matter, we just won't get a tax rebate. But employers will get to shove people onto exchanges, and insurance companies will get to soak up all the compilers.
Without the mandate, but with all the other aspects of the law? You don't get the latter. That's why it falls apart.
Hey, if you trust employers, why not mandate they pay us $100 an hour too?
Why make a choice when your President can tell you what you should do?
- Status