Mandatory Health Insurance part 3 - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-30-2012, 06:25 PM   #196
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I don't fully understand the "America is big, so universal health care won't work" argument. Is it impossible to scale a system up? If so, why?


because there are big differences between different states, so it's not like the US is like any other medium-sized country, just bigger, it's that it's a very big country comprised of a highly diverse population spread over a continent and made up of 50 different governments. a one-sized solution may not work as well for 300m people spread over a continent than it does for 10m relatively homogenous Swedes. lifestyles are very different in Mississippi than they are in the Bay Area.

as for comparisons for California and Canada, the comparison was not about price but about overall quality of health as we'd established that the US system if much more expensive than in places with a single-payer system. perhaps the US, due to it's population, is simply much more expensive to keep healthy.

i have no solutions, i think Obamacare is a step in the right direction. my instinct is towards a single-payer system financed by slightly higher taxes because it seems to be the only way we'll be able to control costs as the population ages.

it's just that, in the way that some people get irritated (with justification) and think, "why does the US always think it does it right," i in turn think, "why do small, wealthy countries think we can even begin to make these comparisons?"
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2012, 06:34 PM   #197
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

i have no solutions, i think Obamacare is a step in the right direction.
I give him credit for doing something. There are parts of Obamacare that are good and necessary. But the constitutional issue is bothersome and I think people who are saying that if the SCOTUS strikes this down it will be a victory for Obama are a bit deluded to be honest. Almost half the population hates him, and these people are going to be told that a president who was a constitutional law professor passed an unconstitutional bill forcing them into socialism. It's a disaster.

Maybe it would be a good thing in the long run, maybe you'd get something better down the road. But in the short run it would be seen as a pretty bad defeat IMO.

Quote:
it's just that, in the way that some people get irritated (with justification) and think, "why does the US always think it does it right," i in turn think, "why do small, wealthy countries think we can even begin to make these comparisons?"
Which would be a nice theory if the US wasn't ahead of every other Western democracy in terms of GDP per capita except for Norway. So the idea that somehow everyone else is sitting with buckets of money and passing judgment of a poorer nation doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2012, 11:54 PM   #198
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511

because there are big differences between different states, so it's not like the US is like any other medium-sized country, just bigger, it's that it's a very big country comprised of a highly diverse population spread over a continent and made up of 50 different governments. a one-sized solution may not work as well for 300m people spread over a continent than it does for 10m relatively homogenous Swedes. lifestyles are very different in Mississippi than they are in the Bay Area.
I get that. But how does that actually translate into a tangible obstacle to implementation? Lifestyles may be different, but the types of health care that people seek aren't really that different.

All I'm seeing is descriptions on what the US is, but I've never found anyone give a specific example of how it translates into an actual policy roadblock.
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2012, 01:56 PM   #199
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Don't know if I should post this here or in the Personhood Amendments thread, but here you go:

Quote:
Barack Obama's hometown Archbishop, Cardinal George, has issued a dire warning: if Obama's regulations on health insurance are allowed to stand, all Catholic hospitals and schools will be destroyed through fines, sold-off to non-Catholics, or closed down within two years. He says that the Church will be "despoiled of her institutions" be stripped of its "voice in public life," because Obama's regulations of health insurance force Catholics to act against their faith.
The regulations which go into effect next year require religiously affiliated charities, hospitals, and universities to purchase insurance for their employees that includes contraception, sterilization and 'morning after' pills. For Catholics this amounts to "material cooperation" with an objectively sinful act.
Francis Cardinal George wrote about the choices Obama is forcing on the Church in his column this week:
What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurancepolicies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.
George has been warning of the state's intrusion into religious affairs for a long time. In 2010 he predicted, “I expect to die in bed. My successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”



Read more: Chicago's Archbishop: Obama Will 'Steal' Or Close Down All Catholic Hospitals Within Two Years - Business Insider

Its insane for some people to think Obama would make the U.S. another Soviet Union. It's also insane for a religious institution to not go along with birth control when 90% of its female adherents use it.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2012, 02:06 PM   #200
Acrobat
 
ladyfreckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 402
Local Time: 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
Don't know if I should post this here or in the Personhood Amendments thread, but here you go:


[/B]

Read more: Chicago's Archbishop: Obama Will 'Steal' Or Close Down All Catholic Hospitals Within Two Years - Business Insider

Its insane for some people to think Obama would make the U.S. another Soviet Union. It's also insane for a religious institution to not go along with birth control when 90% of its female adherents use it.

__________________
ladyfreckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 11:35 AM   #201
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,862
Local Time: 06:33 PM
We Christians sure do love to play the victim card.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 01:12 PM   #202
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:33 PM
Some Christians like to play the victim card. And some prefer to see things in a more rational manner.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 02:28 PM   #203
Acrobat
 
ladyfreckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 402
Local Time: 04:33 PM
There is some merit in what they're saying, but it isn't that much merit. I can understand a doctor feeling uncomfortable with performing surgeries like, say, abortions or even sterilization. That is a doctor's personal choice. But some of the treatments that the Catholic church deems "immoral" are just... ugh. Some believe it's wrong to perform surgery on transgenders. Others believe that any surgery that might even result in temporary infertility is wrong. Some won't treat abortion-related health emergencies.

I'm sorry but it's not a hospital's job to sit there and judge whether or not a transgender deserves surgery. A hospital's job is to treat sick people, and if your morals somehow get in the way of that... then that is truly messed up.
__________________
ladyfreckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 03:50 PM   #204
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:33 PM
(AP)NEW YORK — Roman Catholic dioceses, schools and other groups sued the Obama administration Monday in eight states and the District of Columbia over a federal mandate that most employers provide workers free birth control as part of their health insurance.

The federal lawsuits represent the largest push against the mandate since President Barack Obama announced the policy in January. Among those suing are the University of Notre Dame, the Archdioceses of Washington and New York, the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Catholic University of America.

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress, and we'll keep at it, but there's still no fix," said New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."

The Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. Last year, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.

However, many faith leaders from across religious traditions protested, saying the mandate violates religious freedom. The original rule includes a religious exemption that allows houses of worship to opt-out, but keeps the requirement in place for religiously affiliated charities.

In response to the political furor, Obama offered to soften the rule so that insurers would pay for birth control instead of religious groups. However, the bishops and others have said that the accommodation doesn't go far enough to protect religious freedom.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields said Monday that the department does not comment on pending litigation. When Obama announced the accommodation in February, he said that no religious group will have to pay for the contraceptive services or provide the services directly.

Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, said in a statement that the school decided to sue "after much deliberation, discussion and efforts to find a solution acceptable to the various parties." The university argued that the mandate violates religious freedom by requiring many religiously affiliated hospitals, schools and charities to comply.

"We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others," Jenkins said. "We simply ask that the government not impose its values on the university when those values conflict with our religious teachings."

Other religious colleges and institutions have already filed federal suit over the mandate, but observers had been closely watching for Notre Dame's next step.

The university, among the best-known Catholic schools in the country, has indicated past willingness to work with Obama, despite their differences with him on abortion and other issues. Notre Dame came under unprecedented criticism from U.S. bishops and others in 2009 for inviting Obama, who supports abortion rights, as commencement speaker and presenting him with an honorary law degree.

The federal suits were filed Monday in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and the District of Columbia. At a news conference, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, whose diocese is among the plaintiffs, said the law firm Jones Day was handling the lawsuits pro bono nationally.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2012, 01:33 PM   #205
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Supreme Court ruling due by months end.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 09:40 AM   #206
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress, and we'll keep at it, but there's still no fix," said New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
"We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others," Jenkins said. "We simply ask that the government not impose its values on the university when those values conflict with our religious teachings."
they should get of their high horse,
actually someone should kick them off their high horse

it's not like anyone is going to make them hand out birth control at the front door
they are made to financially contribute to something they might not like, but eventually is beneficial (overall) for society

perhaps they should just think of it as a tax they pay and pray that God will somehow forgive all those naught birth control users
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2012, 11:53 PM   #207
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Intrade - The US Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before midnight ET 31 Dec 2013

The US Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before midnight ET 31 Dec 2013
79.9% CHANCE
Last prediction was: $7.99 / share
Expiry date:
Today's Change: +$0.39(+5.1%)

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2012, 01:54 AM   #208
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Considering the how conservative the SCOTUS is right now (Citizens United, anyone?), I wouldn't be surprised to see the individual mandate struck down.

It was a shitty healthcare reform effort that was a hand-out to (SURPRISE!) private insurance companies instead of providing a public option, and a tactical error to try and get it done before the summer recess in Congress to leave the Republican misinformation machine time to rile up the locals at town halls.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2012, 08:58 AM   #209
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 05:33 PM
There are still a very large number of people in this country who believe that death panels are a component of the Affordable Care Act
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2012, 12:42 PM   #210
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:33 PM
The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA's Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature | Diane Cohen and Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Heard of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAD?

Quote:
When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB "proposal" requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board's edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB's edicts in court.

Worse, PPACA forbids Congress from repealing IPAB outside of a seven-month window in the year 2017, and even then requires a three-fifths majority in both chambers. A heretofore unreported feature of PPACA dictates that if Congress misses that repeal window, PPACA prohibits Congress from ever altering an IPAB "proposal." By restricting lawmaking powers of future Congresses, PPACA thus attempts to amend the Constitution by statute.
In the name of "cost control" of course. Not very small r republican is it?
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com