Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional- Yes!

The Real UncleB wrote:

He's black. That's why it was denied. Enough said. /EOT

.

Come on Fake UncleB. You need a modicum of intelligence to impersonate me; although I do admit you can fool some of the letsrun posters who display incredible naivety. In particular, you will never find me using that peculiar term "enough said" which the Right Wing likes to use after they have made a particularly inane comment

Follows a real Real UncleB posting -- the old double standard:

"Visa, Mastercard and PayPal all enable donations to be made to US-registered groups funding illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law.

It appears at least one of the major credit cards also enables donations to an extremist Jewish group that has placed a bounty on the lives of Palestinians.

All three have in the last week ceased enabling donations to WikiLeaks. Neither Mastercard nor Visa have explained the basis for their decision to do so. PayPal has backed away from its initial claim that the US State Department told PayPal WikiLeaks had broken the law after the claim was discredited. This is the third occasion on which PayPal has suspended payment services for WikiLeaks.

Israel subsidises over 100 settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law. Another 100+ are “illegal outposts” even under Israeli law. All benefit from extensive support from the United States, channelled through a range of Jewish and right-wing Christian bodies, all of which have charitable status under US law. The International Crisis Group’s report on settlements in July 2009 identified the important role played by US charities. Israeli newspaper Haaretz has investigated the strong support provided via US charities, and Israeli peace groups have also targeted the generous support provided via private donations from the US and Canada.

Credit card transactional systems play a key role in facilitating this support for illegal settlements. Here are some examples.

•The Shuva Israel group, an evangelical Christian group based in Texas, is accused by Israeli group Gush Shalom of channelling money to fund the illegal West Bank settlement of Revava. You can donate to it, says the Shuva Israel website, via Mastercard, Visa and Paypal.

•The One Israel Fund, used as an example in the International Crisis Group report, boasts of being “the largest North American charity whose efforts are dedicated solely to the citizens and communities of Yesha”. You can donate to the One Israel Fund, according to its website, via Mastercard, Visa and Amex.

•The website of another right-wing Christian group, the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities describes support for settlements like Argaman, which are illegal under international law. You can donate, their website says, via Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.

•One of the highest-profile groups is the Hebron Fund, the centre of a 2009 row when the New York Mets were criticised for hosting a fundraising dinner for the group. It provides extensive support for the extraordinarily aggressive Hebron settlement, described by one Israeli group as “an ongoing war crime”, while the Fund itself has been linked to praise for an Israeli mass murderer. According to its website, it receives donations via all major credit cards.

•Worst of all is the extremist SOS Israel group, which has incurred even the wrath of the Israeli Defence Force by rewarding Israeli soldiers who disobey orders to evict settlers from illegal outposts (i.e. inciting mutiny), and which has offered a bounty for Palestinians shot by IDF soldiers. The SOS Israel website describes a number of ways you can make your “generous donation” to it, including credit cards. Crikey’s token $2 donation via a Visa card was successful last night.

At this stage WikiLeaks has breached no international law and no laws of any country, but Mastercard, Visa and PayPal have all blacklisted it. All three continue to enable the support of settlements that are in breach of international law, in some cases of Israeli law, and in defiance of US policy on settlements under successive Republican and Democrat administrations."

So now we have opposing rulings within the same state. No one should get too excited over this. In a year or so it will all be handled by the SC. Meanwhile these lower court rulings are pretty much a waste of time (and money).

Obviously the individual mandate is probably the most controversial of the items in the bill and most certainly will be determined by the US Supreme Court. Other posters have alluded to this, but one of the biggest problems is of course the uninsured and what happens when they go to a hospital or other health care provider.

As an "advanced" society, are we going to argue that a person that needs medical care (especially in an emergency situation) but doesn't have any insurance or money should be denied medical care?

It seems to me that we're not going to deny medical care so society absorbs these costs either through higher taxes, higher medical premiums, etc. We're also having people with no insurance go to the most expensive place to get it (the hospital). If everyone had insurance, they would probably have a primary care doctor. Yes, I understand the argument about not enough physicians for this system if everyone had insurance....At the end of the day, probably a slight problem but not a major one.

Most hospitals and doctors practices that I'm aware of are certainly making less money as unemployment and the uninsured go up. Providers know that they have a duty to serve the local citizens but also want to make sure they can earn a living.

Providers and hospitals are screaming about the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates while a large portion of society screams about deficits/debt.

Many of the doctors groups in my area are now part of the hospital system or a larger corporate entity in order to obtain some efficiencies with their operation.

I've got an OBGYN and a family physician who live within four houses of mine. The guy that sells the knees and hips to the orthopedic surgeons recently moved from our neighborhood (of 3,000 s.f. to 3,500 s.f. houses) to a 6,500 s.f. house. The orthopedic sales guy is important but should he be paid more than the OBGYN or Family doc?

I hear my conservative friends scream about trials lawyers and big jury verdicts. Sure medical malpractice claims contribute to the cost of insurance for providers, and thus the cost of health care. Perhaps caps on torts should be enacted that are reasonable for everyone involved. Right now we have a system involving 1) Big insurance companies(with a lot of money) appealing decisions 2) Trial lawyers paid as a percentage of a jury award 3) Citizens expecting perfect outcomes involving medical care

Something has to change.

I applaud Obama for making an attempt to make the system better. There is some much noise in the political system right now(backed by big corporate money) I don't know how Congress will be able to make the right decisions for the public...

and maybe someone can tell me why a corporation producing widgets should be involved in health care?

Hey Bud wrote:

and maybe someone can tell me why a corporation producing widgets should be involved in health care?

because they have employees?

maybe i know wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

and maybe someone can tell me why a corporation producing widgets should be involved in health care?

because they have employees?

Shouldn't that corporation concentrate on producing widgets and making money from that?

I'm not saying that insurance should necessarily fall to the government but it seems that corporations spend way too much time on health care insurance decisions. When I worked for a large corporation we used to have HR swat teams come in to give us the latest annual changes to the health insurance plans. This seems to be a waste of resources.

it's part of their compensation package?

maybe i know wrote:

it's part of their compensation package?

Sure. In how many other nations is there employer based health care? I hear commentators talk about corporate tax rates needing to come down in order for the U.S. to compete globally. What about changes to the health care insurance system to get corporations out of the health care business?

I think employees get aggregation and consumer protection benefits from being involved in employer based health care but is this the most efficient way for employees to get health insurance?

I'm really throwing this out there for discussion purposes to see what other ideas are out there.

maybe i know wrote:

it's part of their compensation package?

This really is key to the problem of healthcare. Employer provided health insurance is pretty much unique to the US. It is a result of progressive tax policies that encourage employers to provide non-taxable benefits, like health insurance, as a means of providing a more attractive wage/benefit package at a lower net cost. The system creates a number of issues. First it hurts the competitive position of corporations trying to compete internationally. Second, the beneficiaries of healthcare are insulated from the cost which removes much of the incentive to control expenditures. Finally, it leaves a large population uninsured via the typical route of employer provided coverage and employer provided coverage is non-transportable.

So the question is why are we so eager to retain an obviously flawed system which isn't particularly good for the employer or the employee. The answer mostly is that the insurance companies and the healthcare companies are making a killing on it.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

This really is key to the problem of healthcare. Employer provided health insurance is pretty much unique to the US. It is a result of progressive tax policies that encourage employers to provide non-taxable benefits, like health insurance, as a means of providing a more attractive wage/benefit package at a lower net cost. .

It's not a result of progressive tax policies. It is a legacy of government interference in free markets. Specifically attempts to institute wage and price controls during WWII.

So of course the answer to problems caused by governement regulation is......more government regulation.

Hey Bud wrote:

As an "advanced" society, are we going to argue that a person that needs medical care (especially in an emergency situation) but doesn't have any insurance or money should be denied medical care?

I would argue exactly this. Medical care is a good. It is not unique and not exempt from the laws of economics. If people want medical care they should purchase it, either directly or through insurance.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

It's not a result of progressive tax policies. It is a legacy of government interference in free markets. Specifically attempts to institute wage and price controls during WWII.

Employer provided health insurance got started as result of wage and price freezes during WWII, but it has survived as a tax dodge. I'm not saying that's all bad, but it's not the most efficient system out there.

X-Runner wrote:

The best way to get around forcing people to buy health insurance is having state run healthcare and funding it through taxes.

Wasn't that basically Massachusetts' system?

Fishing Instructor wrote:

Employer provided health insurance got started as result of wage and price freezes during WWII, but it has survived as a tax dodge. I'm not saying that's all bad, but it's not the most efficient system out there.

It's not the most efficient system because it removes the consumer from the true cost of care and puts the incentives in the wrong places. Why we want to move to a system that moves the consumer even farther from the true cost of care is beyond me.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

As an "advanced" society, are we going to argue that a person that needs medical care (especially in an emergency situation) but doesn't have any insurance or money should be denied medical care?

I would argue exactly this. Medical care is a good. It is not unique and not exempt from the laws of economics. If people want medical care they should purchase it, either directly or through insurance.

Interesting point....so if a guy comes into a hospital bleeding from the head and has no insurance or money, the hospital can turn him away?

The biggest problem I see with health care costs is: 1) Obesity in this country ( I know I'm with a friendly audience on this point) 2) How health care is administered in the last year of a person's life (difficult and perhaps moral question).

I was amused by the rationing argument during the health care debate. What do you think your insurance company does all the time?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

As an "advanced" society, are we going to argue that a person that needs medical care (especially in an emergency situation) but doesn't have any insurance or money should be denied medical care?

I would argue exactly this. Medical care is a good. It is not unique and not exempt from the laws of economics. If people want medical care they should purchase it, either directly or through insurance.

Good for you "Mr Oblivious." You've at least stated your honest opinion here, and are the first on the thread to say:

the way to solve this mess, is to yank EVERY PENNY of subsidized healthcare for children, poor and the elderly, and let them drop dead on our streets by the 1000's, and let insurance companies do whatever the hell they please, which would result in: them ONLY covering healthy, well-off people who don't need their services really, but are so well-off they don't mind dishing out $ just in case something tragic happens.

Yes, that would be a GRAND system and our country would be much much better off. You've nailed it.

Of course if we just cut taxes on the rich even more, and eliminate all regulations of any sort on any and every industry, the Free Market Fairy will fix everything, and suddenly, there will be no more poor, and everyone will be healthy, and insurance companies will do the right thing for their clients and their investors. In other words, UTOPIA!!!

You are right, some solutions are just "obvious."

Hey Bud wrote:

2) How health care is administered in the last year of a person's life (difficult and perhaps moral question).

Sounds like you are going down the "Death Panel" path. You want to kill all our grandmothers to save some $, don't you!?!?

Hey Bud wrote:I was amused by the rationing argument during the health care debate. What do you think your insurance company does all the time?

look, don't you dare criticize insurance companies. They are NOT gov't, therefore, they are good. And if they want to drop you when you get sick, even if they didn't explicitly state that in their policy, so be it. If you try and stop them, you are REG-U-LAT-ING them. Yes, a dirty 4 syllable word I don't like to utter in polite company.

If you don't like insurance companies, pay out of pocket. It's easy to shop around and find the best deal when you are in an ambulance rushing to the ER after a car accident. If your arms still work, have the EMT's hand you a laptop and just google "best price on brain surgery" and the choice will be obvious.

Hey Bud wrote:

In how many other nations is there employer based health care?

is the Canadian method superior?

Should the company also provide housing, food, utilities and the rest of the stuff their employees need? The problems with employer based health care are numerous. The consumer doesn't pick the health insurance plan so they don't get to pick the one that matches their needs. The employee doesn't have a direct stake in reducing cost. It limits mobility (if you have a preexisting condition, you can't leave to found your own company or work for a small start up). The poor (young single workers) subsidize the rich (older workers with families)There is no reason why things like retirement plans and health insurance should be company provided. Other than this is the way it has been for 70 years.

maybe i know wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

and maybe someone can tell me why a corporation producing widgets should be involved in health care?

because they have employees?