Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

CuteOldGuy · 06-28-2012, 12:03 PM

Libertarian presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s health care ruling:

“It has been clear for a while that we need a new President and a new Congress. Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court.

“Whether the Court chooses to call the individual mandate a tax or anything else, allowing it to stand is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today.

“There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access. Only competition and the price transparency that competition will bring can accomplish the imperatives of affordability and availability. Whether it is the President’s plan or the Republican prescription drug benefit, the idea that anyone in Washington can somehow manage one of the most essential and substantial parts of both our quality of life and the economy is, and always has been, fundamentally wrong.

“We can never know how many Americans are out of work today because of the uncertainty the monstrous health care law has caused. The Court has done nothing to remove that burden.

“Nothing about today’s decision changes the basic reality that it is impossible to eliminate deficit spending and remove the smothering consequences of federal debt without dramatically reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have given the slightest hint of willingness to do so.”

Sexyeccentric1 · 06-28-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackie S

One other thing I would like to know.

In Harris County, we have what they call a Hospitol District, which in laymans terms means you can go and get treated for free. That has always meant that there is no such thing as people without health care. The big one on the East SIde of Houston is LBJ. If you go there, it helps if you can speak Spanish.

We pay for these Hospitols through the county taxing authority.

Since now everybody is mandated to have health insurance, should not these hospitol districts be disbanded, and turned into private institutions, and the tax done away with?

Jackie,

The hospitals do not provide health care. The law only says that they must provide bare minimum stabilization to someone who might be ill or injured. All the hospitals are required BY LAW is to make sure that anyone who has an illness or injury gets treated and stabilized. That isn't health care. Health care is when you get follow up care and medications provided on a regular basis etc. Hospitals do not do that.

If you break your leg, and don't have insurance, all the hospital does BY LAW is do what necessary to fix your leg and then send you on your way. As soon as you are discharged there is no follow up care, or medication given beyond what is given and prescribed at the time of your hospital visit.

If you have cancer and are dying, all the hospital is required to do is to stabilize you if they can then send you on your way. They don't provide the treatments needed to fight your cancer or surgery to get rid of it, or follow up care.

See? There is a big difference.

I have seen people that I know personally go in to the ER that had no insurance and they were hustled in and out quickly and given bare minimum treatment to stabilize them, nothing more. Many people have literally died after leaving a hospital for bare minimum treatment because they could not afford to see a doctor for a follow up or for actual health care. People whose infections got worse after being released after the "save you at the moment" hospital treatment.

CuteOldGuy · 06-28-2012, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Oh sorry COG I forgot you were the grammar police and I forgot this was English 101 and I am getting graded on my post so I went back and did an edit on the spelling to make you happy- you are the one who told everyone in this room that Rick Perry would be the next POTUS so you have pretty much worn out your welcome as far as I am concerned.. For you to think Perry was going to win the GOP nomination and win the POTUS election really speaks volume of what you know about politics.

LOL! I also predicted the Court would vote 6-3 against Obamacare. So my clairvoyant abilities are not what I hope they'd be. But I can still see what is going on now.

Keep it up, WE! It's really funny to read your posts. Especially when you make an incoherent comment on someone else's lack of competence. That was the best one today!

CuteOldGuy · 06-28-2012, 12:10 PM

There are hospitals that will provide complete care at no cost. They are generally private charities, like St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Shriner Burn Centers. Not everyone is as selfish as the government would have us believe. It may be the same in Houston.

You think all hospitals are selfish, and must be commanded by government to be compassionate. I feel sorry for you.

wellendowed1911 · 06-28-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL! I also predicted the Court would vote 6-3 against Obamacare. So my clairvoyant abilities are not what I hope they'd be. But I can still see what is going on now.

Keep it up, WE! It's really funny to read your posts. Especially when you make an incoherent comment on someone else's lack of competence. That was the best one today!

COG you can quote Gary Johnson and Ron Paul until the cows come home- fact of the matter is whether they think it's right or wrong it's the ruling. Johnson went too far to say we need a new Supreme Court. Why? Because it was a ruling he didn't like???? Does Gary Johnson like the supreme Court ruling where outside donors can donate as much as they want and thereby "buy" or heavily influence an election???

All you republicans, tea party right wingers need to move on- the split vote came from your Republican President appointed nominee and so now you guys act like little spoiled kids CRYING no fair- RESPECT THE FUCKING RULING AND MOVE ON!!!!

Now Cantor wants to repeal it in the House in July- you guys are pathetic and sour grapes. So when will this ever end??? If the law had been struck down then the DEMS will cry foul and repeal it????? I have seen various of you so called conservatives already calling Justice Roberts a traitor- how pathetic are you people I mean seriously- if you can't accept a ruling from the SCOTUS than you don't respect the constitution that you so love.

I WILL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN- THE REPUBLICANS WERE PLAYING CHECKERS AND OBAMA WAS PLAYING CHESS!!!

IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF MARSHALL AND I QUOTE HIM: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:mf_w 00t2:

:mf_w 00t2:

wellendowed1911 · 06-28-2012, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There are hospitals that will provide complete care at no cost. They are generally private charities, like St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Shriner Burn Centers. Not everyone is as selfish as the government would have us believe. It may be the same in Houston.

You think all hospitals are selfish, and must be commanded by government to be compassionate. I feel sorry for you.

My point is even at the "Charity" hospital do you think everyone working there is working for free? They do get the money from somewhere and have to pay for those expenses so it's not "free" in the true definition of the word. It's free to actually attend public school, but in reality your parents are paying taxes to fund the school.

Jackie S · 06-28-2012, 12:28 PM

But, since everybody now is mandated to have health insurance, why do these hospitols need to be subsidized by the taxpayer. The hospitols will turn into full service institutions, no different than Methodist or St Lukes. After all, they will now be guaranteed payment.

Guest050715-1 · 06-28-2012, 12:33 PM

COG, it’s all good. Anyone who has to tell the world they are well endowed, well you know.

Yes, WE I think I’ll stick to my day job, but skip the advise of anyone that thinks either Bush II or Obama are qualified to be anything but superior snobs that were made by their daddies whether they be rich or the right skin color daddies.

This bill has helped no one but the middle class Americans with no insurance for some reason that can afford the new expense without loosing too much in the way of lifestyle and the wealthy oligarchs in the pharma, medical and insurance industries and the business owners that can drop insured from their group policies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

...................
By the way anyone every wonder why don't see massive protest from politicians and citizens in Europe and Canada where they have universal health coverage??? You know why? It's because maybe it's working in those counties.
It's amazing how someone can justify U.S tax payers paying nearly 500 million to a billion dollars on the Iraq War which was based on a lie and has made us no safer yet we go ape shit when we want to spend money to make our own citizens healthier- WTF????

Because they have universal, socialized medicine. We don’t’, because this law isn’t. Go, WE, prove how well endowed you are. Go look up what the cut offs for subsidies are and the upper end limits before a surcharge is added to earners. All the morons out there that think they are going to have universal health care are just getting a new bill. THIS BILL ISN’T SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. IT’S MANDATED INSURANCE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO $14,400 PER YEAR. Go on, I’ll wait. When you come back, we’ll discuss how you, every other lap dog are going to try to explain how it’s a good thing – really. The tax to pay for a single payer system should be mandatory and spread across every single earner in the country so the poor, working and uninsured middle classes can have access to good healthcare. THE POOR AND THE WORKING CLASS SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY THE PREMIUMS OR THE TAXES THE PEOPLE THAT CAN SHOULD. Don’t you get it? Or are you just being cruel to those that can’t defend or fight for themselves.

wellendowed1911 · 06-28-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackie S

But, since everybody now is mandated to have health insurance, why do these hospitols need to be subsidized by the taxpayer. The hospitols will turn into full service institutions, no different than Methodist or St Lukes. After all, they will now be guaranteed payment.

Jacjie you bring up good points there are a lot of things that are going to have to be twisted, taken out etc- it's going to take some time and legislation to get it right- even Obama admitted that were some things that need to be taken out or omitted it's a good start for right now better than the status quo.

However can someone answer my question- why is it in countries that have the system in place- why do not see politicians trying to repeal it and get a system like ours? You never hear about huge protest anywhere in France, Canada, or Germany or whatever country has the system to repeal their healthcare- I can only conclude the citizen like it and the system is working.

wellendowed1911 · 06-28-2012, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

COG, it’s all good. Anyone who has to tell the world they are well endowed, well you know.

Yes, WE I think I’ll stick to my day job, but skip the advise of anyone that thinks either Bush II or Obama are qualified to be anything but superior snobs that were made by their daddies whether they be rich or the right skin color daddies.

This bill has helped no one but the middle class Americans with no insurance for some reason that can afford the new expense without loosing too much in the way of lifestyle and the wealthy oligarchs in the pharma, medical and insurance industries and the business owners that can drop insured from their group policies.

Because they have universal, socialized medicine. We don’t’, because this law isn’t. Go, WE, prove how well endowed you are. Go look up what the cut offs for subsidies are and the upper end limits before a surcharge is added to earners. All the morons out there that think they are going to have universal health care are just getting a new bill. THIS BILL ISN’T SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. IT’S MANDATED INSURANCE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO $14,400 PER YEAR. Go on, I’ll wait. When you come back, we’ll discuss how you, every other lap dog are going to try to explain how it’s a good thing – really. The tax to pay for a single payer system should be mandatory and spread across every single earner in the country so the poor, working and uninsured middle classes can have access to good healthcare. THE POOR AND THE WORKING CLASS SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY THE PREMIUMS OR THE TAXES THE PEOPLE THAT CAN SHOULD. Don’t you get it? Or are you just being cruel to those that can’t defend or fight for themselves.

Trust me I have had plenty of escorts who were glad to know what they were getting into before the session so my name came in very handy but back to the topic- Olivia I have worked in the health care industry and have close friends on both sides of the aisle- now first things first when you are talking about poor- what is your definition of poor? Obama clearly mention what plans would be available to what population(income) and Romney told a lie that 20 million would lose their insurance because the provision states if you are happy with your insurance keep it, but Oliva I want to first know what your definition of poor is- are you talking about poor people that would not be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid???
Also, I guess based on your logic than Olivia you support Obama on repealing the Bush Tax cuts an raising taxes on the wealthy?
However, I do want to answer your question but I need to know what is your definition of poor from an income standpoint.

CJ7 · 06-28-2012, 01:20 PM

what did I miss ? ... LMAO

oh yeah ... Jackie being honest.

I wasnt surprised by the decision.

Having read about the #'s (savings/liberals .. cost/repub) both sides of the argument keep touting, I will say neither (longterm) are much more than misleading ... fact is the law is so big and layered even the number crunchers cant look down the road any further than a few short years... what did get my attention IS the fact it will put the brakes on the profession gouging Medicare to the tune of billions of dollars long term ... if it does that AND saves business owners like Jackie a significant amount of money, the rest can be worked in or out as we go ... works for me.

Whirlaway · 06-28-2012, 01:26 PM

This is a financial time bomb for small businesses. Jackie is wrong to think otherwise.

CJ7 · 06-28-2012, 01:32 PM

could be youre wrong to think Jackie is wrong

Im pretty sure Jackie and his cpa know what will and wont effect the bottomline on a sreadsheet

Laz · 06-28-2012, 01:42 PM

Realistically the mandate is out. What was left is a tax on the uninsured which will primarily be on the young and poor. Those are the people least likely to be able to afford the tax.

The take all comers mandate for the insurance companies is a time bomb. People will quickly decide to pay the lessor of the tax or the insurance premium. When they get sick they will then buy the insurance. Long term that will lead to massive premium increases.

Because the states do not have to expand medicaid the lower income people can not look at that for support to offset the tax.

All around this is going to be bad even if the decision was correct. While Roberts is correct that this is a tax and I will accept that it is constitutional on that basis I have a problem with the court relabeling what congress passed. If they do not pass it as a tax I do not think the court should call it a tax.

Whirlaway · 06-28-2012, 02:00 PM

Very good post. Thanks. This will accelerate the rationing of medical services especially on the poor and elderly. The poor will get fucked even harder by Obamacare and the SCOTUS decision. If you can afford health insurance, then no sweat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

Realistically the mandate is out. What was left is a tax on the uninsured which will primarily be on the young and poor. Those are the people least likely to be able to afford the tax.

The take all comers mandate for the insurance companies is a time bomb. People will quickly decide to pay the lessor of the tax or the insurance premium. When they get sick they will then buy the insurance. Long term that will lead to massive premium increases.

Because the states do not have to expand medicaid the lower income people can not look at that for support to offset the tax.

All around this is going to be bad even if the decision was correct. While Roberts is correct that this is a tax and I will accept that it is constitutional on that basis I have a problem with the court relabeling what congress passed. If they do not pass it as a tax I do not think the court should call it a tax.