Thread: Obama And Judicial Review

Originally Posted by tsquare

Not that you could ever do your own research...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us...pagewanted=all

Your link just proves that the Republicans have nothing ready:

They remain optimistic about the possibility of a court victory, even as they begin thinking more seriously about what would follow.

Beyond some familiar ideas and slogans about “patient-centered health care,” the Republicans concede that they have far to go to come up with a comprehensive policy to fill the gap that could be left by a Supreme Court ruling this summer.

Basically they have been fighting the ACA for a couple of years and are just now trying to find something to replace it with. Not a very responsible way to do things.

Originally Posted by adaher

The President doesn't make law, but he should at least say he'd be willing to sign a bipartisan bill. I think he'd veto it out of spite.

I agree...

Originally Posted by wooyarn

Your link just proves that the Republicans have nothing ready:

They remain optimistic about the possibility of a court victory, even as they begin thinking more seriously about what would follow.

Beyond some familiar ideas and slogans about “patient-centered health care,” the Republicans concede that they have far to go to come up with a comprehensive policy to fill the gap that could be left by a Supreme Court ruling this summer.

Basically they have been fighting the ACA for a couple of years and are just now trying to find something to replace it with. Not a very responsible way to do things.

No need to replace it. Things were better before it. If anything, get rid of more govt laws.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

No they didnt.

Arguing from ignorance again, and TSquare likes it too, proof you're flat out wrong
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7866.pdf

Originally Posted by tsquare

I have no doubt that once the ACA is struck down the GOP led House will pass a truly bi-partisan bill replacing it.

The Democratic Senate will then refuse to act...

You just said, explicitly, that one side will be partisan over a bipartisan work. You might just have buried, in language as in politics, the principle of cooperation. It leaves me speechless so let's not digress in a thread whose purpose is to bash someone to no end for something he said.

Well, if ACA gets struck down then whatever replaces it will not be a mandate, it will be a tax, and everyone will pay.
Which I like more, because you can make it progressive (The reason the GOP liked the mandate was because it was regressive).
Then it's either single payer or government run, both are more efficient than oligopoly pricing model we currently have.
I would expect the congress to face this, and the fact that over 60% of the people want something done about health care, all the SC will have done is narrow down what that something can be.

Originally Posted by jviehe

No need to replace it. Things were better before it. If anything, get rid of more govt laws.

The Republicans seem to think it needs to be replaced.

Just out of curiosity, what country are you a citizen of, that way we can compare your health care to ours.

Originally Posted by wooyarn

The Republicans seem to think it needs to be replaced.

Just out of curiosity, what country are you a citizen of, that way we can compare your health care to ours.

For someone who doesnt care what I post, you sure respond a lot.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Letting the free market work! What a great idea!

The reality of the free market, when it comes to health insurance, is this:

There is no financial incentive to cover people with pre-existing conditions. None. In fact, there is a huge incentive not to cover people with pre-existing conditions. When health insurance companies deny coverage to these people, they are acting rationally according to the logic of the market.

Similarly, there is a huge financial incentive to drop people once they get sick.

So if we are looking to get everybody covered — including those with preexisting conditions — and make sure that coverage isn't dropped due to actual illness/injury, it absolutely cannot be done by the free market, because it's simply not profitable. Which is why the government, when requiring that those people be covered have to add in an individual mandate, which brings more young and healthy people into the system, which makes it financially feasible for these companies to cover everybody.

However worthy it sounds, "we need to raise healthy people's costs to save sick people money" is not a constitutional principle. In fact, it's not even great policy, given that the young are the poorest age group and least able to afford higher insurance costs. Thus the mandate, which would force them to eat Ramen and beans until they are 35.

Originally Posted by adaher

However worthy it sounds, "we need to raise healthy people's costs to save sick people money" is not a constitutional principle. In fact, it's not even great policy, given that the young are the poorest age group and least able to afford higher insurance costs. Thus the mandate, which would force them to eat Ramen and beans until they are 35.

Actually, the idea that everyone shares the cost of health care is a great idea, because the alternative is a game where some people get stuck with the cost of health care, and some people avoid it, and that creates inefficiencies, and those inefficiencies have resulted in the most expensive health care system in the world, with results that barely place it in the top 40.
Nearly a third of the expense of our system is spent trying to pass the cost off onto someone else.
The "incentives" the system provides are to provide all sorts of tests and unnecessary procedures for those who have coverage, and to deny service to those without until they qualify to have have the taxpayers pick up the cost. Government already spends more per capita in the US than government spends in Canada, covering everyone.

That's true, which is why we should just have Medicare for all, but using only Medicare's current budget. That would provide whatever health care the budget will allow, and people can pay if they want more.

Originally Posted by goober

government already spends more per capita in the us than government spends in canada, covering everyone.

huh