Worst Joke Ever 2024

[Tug]

This will absolutely kill the republicans in 2020 they will look and indeed they are the bad guys get ready for universal health care!!!

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, Tug said:

This will absolutely kill the republicans in 2020 they will look and indeed they are the bad guys get ready for universal health care!!!

If the Democrats had wanted universal health care, which they didn't, why would they not have established it in 2008-2010 when they controlled both branches of Congress and the Presidency?

 

The truth is if universal health care is to come about it will be as a result of the roll back of Obamacare rather than the establishing of Obamacare. There have been no Great Society type mandates in the US since, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon. Anything we might accomplish now will be as a result of, as Churchill once said (paraphrased), doing the right thing after we've tried everything else. 

[Tug]

The affordable care act was a stepping stone now the country is ready I hope .it would be nice to get something useful from our tax dollars 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

If the Democrats had wanted universal health care, which they didn't, why would they not have established it in 2008-2010 when they controlled both branches of Congress and the Presidency?

 

The truth is if universal health care is to come about it will be as a result of the roll back of Obamacare rather than the establishing of Obamacare. There have been no Great Society type mandates in the US since, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon. Anything we might accomplish now will be as a result of, as Churchill once said (paraphrased), doing the right thing after we've tried everything else. 

And what do you tell the roughly half of all Americans who get their health insurance via employer provided plans? Poll after poll shows that they are happy with what they've got. Moreover you ignore various Democratic Medicare-for-all plans. These plans over time will allow for a migration to medicare-for-all.

The goal is universal coverage. Immediate institution of single payer is not the only way to get there.

And it should be pointed out that plenty of nations use an Obamacare type program to provide just that.

[Tug]

As a union member I pay part and my employer pays part hopefully soon I can keep that money and my employer wins as well plus we get something for the taxes we pay!!comon single payer god that would piss Donald off !!!

[Cryingdick]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

This will absolutely kill the republicans in 2020 they will look and indeed they are the bad guys get ready for universal health care!!!

 

Universal healthcare isn't going to happen. Whether it's under Trump or anybody else. It is simply too expensive at the moment.

[lannarebirth]

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And what do you tell the roughly half of all Americans who get their health insurance via employer provided plans? Poll after poll shows that they are happy with what they've got. Moreover you ignore various Democratic Medicare-for-all plans. These plans over time will allow for a migration to medicare-for-all.

The goal is universal coverage. Immediate institution of single payer is not the only way to get there.

And it should be pointed out that plenty of nations use an Obamacare type program to provide just that.

I favor Medicare for all. As for employer provided plans, nothing is stopping them from providing benefits over and above what a Medicare for all plan would provide. 

 

I don't see health care as a benefit, employer provided or otherwise. I see it as a right, having nothing to do with one's employment status, age, sex, income level, whatever.

Edited December 16, 2018 by lannarebirth

[Langsuan Man]

Everyone needs to just calm down

 

This is just one Federal Judge that has ruled, it is not yet settled law 

 

The only positive is that Trump finally has one win in court, but one win after his administrations many losses is nothing to crow about, it will be appealed and if history is any judge this decision too will be overturned

 

 

Quote

Donald Trump is proving to be the losing-est loser of all: the courts. Because they happen so frequently, it’s almost impossible to keep track of all the massive and consequential rulings against this president and his administration that are logged every week and rarely viewed in the aggregate.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/donald-trump-losing-courts-jurisprudence.html

[Nigel Garvie]

10 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Um, yeah we are, unless you're in a low income bracket and only have to pay $50\month, then of course you'd love it. 

This doesn't really make sense, in every civilized society the poor pay less than the rich for certain services, which is usually achieved through the taxation system. The fact that you are ALL being ripped off for your healthcare doesn't benefit those paying $50 a month in the slightest, unless for example, they have shares in a medical insurance company, a rather unlikely situation I would have thought.

On the other hand just imagine how happy the better off Americans would feel if they were paying half as much for their healthcare, as we fortunate Europeans do. 

[NotYourBusiness]

Please could someone point out where in the US Constitution does it give the power for the government to require that it's citizens purchase a particular product? And what's next on this slippery slope?

[ricklev]

31 minutes ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Please could someone point out where in the US Constitution does it give the power for the government to require that it's citizens purchase a particular product? And what's next on this slippery slope?

Well, do you think people should required to buy liability insurance for their car before they can register it?  Why?

 

OK, let's not require people to have health insurance and not provide universal coverage paid for by taxes.  Should we then refuse to treat people with no money in emergency rooms and let them die bleeding on the streets? Who is going to pay for their treatment?

 

If we decide we are not going to let people die on the street we need to come up with a rational system that pays for everyone's care.  But if you believe we should let people die and suffer if they can't afford medical care, I respect your opinion but disagree with your political ideology.  

 

Sure though, some health care is too expensive and we do need to let people die if they can't pay.   Rationality must prevail.  

 

I just hate it when ideologues don't have the courage to admit  what they believe which is no money, no health care.  Period.

Edited December 16, 2018 by ricklev

[Jingthing]

50 minutes ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Please could someone point out where in the US Constitution does it give the power for the government to require that it's citizens purchase a particular product? And what's next on this slippery slope?

There isn't. Which is why the mandate was categorized as a tax but now the mandate is gone. But buying car insurance is required to operate a car but the loophole is you don't need to drive a car but in reality most adult Americans do need to operate a car to exist because of lack of public transportation. 

[bkkcanuck8]

55 minutes ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Please could someone point out where in the US Constitution does it give the power for the government to require that it's citizens purchase a particular product? And what's next on this slippery slope?

Yes, next the government will require you to buy the same cloths and socks - where will this requirement end?

 

I personally have never been a fan of the slippery slope argument (often used by the left and the right) since it presumes that no one can think for themselves on an issue by issue basis.

[pedro01]

I think the amusing thing in all this - no matter which side they sit - left or right - people continue to have the wrong discussion on this.

 

For those on the right - going on about how the "Free Market" will deliver the best care - that is nonsense. There never has been a free market in US medicine.

For those on the left thinking universal healthcare is the option - this is also nonsense.

 

Look - the issue is that this whole scheme in the US is delivering you care at massively inflated costs. The insurance companies, whose best interest is in low cost care, do nothing to seek low cost providers. In fact, they don't care. It's just a big chummy relationship of price-fixing amongst hospitals, drug and insurance companies.

 

The prices of drugs & the prices of care are astronomically inflated in the US. We've all head the stories of someone going in overnight and coming out the next day with a $10k bill - for very little care.

 

It does not matter if you have Obamacare, private insurance, single payer or universal. If the service being paid for is astronomically inflated, none of the options will ever be affordable. 

 

There is no free market in health care and never has been.

[Thakkar]

5 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

I favor Medicare for all. As for employer provided plans, nothing is stopping them from providing benefits over and above what a Medicare for all plan would provide. 

 

I don't see health care as a benefit, employer provided or otherwise. I see it as a right, having nothing to do with one's employment status, age, sex, income level, whatever.

 

Medicare for all is of course the ideal solution. But there’s no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The situation being what it was (powerful lobbyists, money in politics, powerful and influential vested interests, and, not least, the at best apathy and at worst opposition of individuals who were doing just fine, thank you), the ACA, with all its myriad and confusing compromises barely squeaked through. And when it did, was sabotaged at the state level by GOP governors and state houses, making an already flawed, compromised system worse.

 

Even with all of that, it managed to insure 30m previously uninsured, reduced the overall cost to the economy (by curbing the rate of increase), covered pre-existing conditions (a health and financial lifeline for hundreds of thousands of families), and reduced instances of medical cost-induced bankruptcies. Not too shabby. But certainly not perfect, so, according to some: FAIL!

 

It’s true that many relatively healthy and better off people ended up paying higher premiums. But the overall cost to the entire economy went down and this benefit would take time to filter down to everyone, and , even when it did would be hard to directly point to (as it would be economy-wide)and difficult to directly link to The ACA. Moreover people pay all the time for things they don’t directly (or ever) benefit from. Taxes from New Yorkers with nut allergies go towards subsidizing peanut farmers in Georgia. That’s how society works.

 

The Trump administration and the GOP majorities in both houses have been trying to kill The ACA from day one. That wouldn’t be so bad if they had an alternative, better (or any!) proposal to replace it with, but they don’t, never have and never cared to have. This legal move is just another attempt in that direction, and still without providing an alternative solution.

 

But, inadvertently, these shenanigans of theirs will hopefully usher in Medicare for All as more and more people realize that it is the solution to all the woes of Obamacare. Almost nobody’s talking about going back to the situation pre-2010.

 

So, I guess: thanks, Obama!

[NotYourBusiness]

Glad we are all in agreement that there is no provision in the US Constitution granting the government power to require its citizens to purchase any particular product. For the best possible healthcare at the best price, the government should get out of the healthcare business entirely. When governments get involved, things will always, ALWAYS, get a lot worse. But not at first. Remember, socialism always works in the beginning. I really love my $10 tooth extraction in Thailand.

[gk10002000]

You will rarely see people posting that Obamacare was good for them, or cheaper for them, or better by any objective measure.  Even some people that got coverage due to Obamacare, they only got minimal crap plans with huge deductibles, that few of them could pay.

[ricklev]

1 hour ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Glad we are all in agreement that there is no provision in the US Constitution granting the government power to require its citizens to purchase any particular product. For the best possible healthcare at the best price, the government should get out of the healthcare business entirely. When governments get involved, things will always, ALWAYS, get a lot worse. But not at first. Remember, socialism always works in the beginning. I really love my $10 tooth extraction in Thailand.

A simple, clean, honest, black and white solution to a complex problem leading to the best healthcare at the best price!  

Edited December 16, 2018 by ricklev

[jm91]

Another example of out of control conservative judicial activism. Radical rigjt wing. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:43 PM, lovelomsak said:

Checks and balances is what I think I often hear when judges make ruling concerning government actions.

  This time I think people will start to see the problem with judges having so much power. 

  It is nice to use against those you do not like but not so rosy with you get your fingers slapped.

This time I think people will start to see the problem with judges having so much power. 

 

The luvvies in Washington never had a problem when a federal judge went against anything Trump did. I guess they don't like it when it is against something they like.

[lannarebirth]

5 hours ago, jm91 said:

Another example of out of control conservative judicial activism. Radical rigjt wing. 

It was constitutional constructionism if anything, which is the opposite of judicial activism.

[samran]

14 hours ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Glad we are all in agreement that there is no provision in the US Constitution granting the government power to require its citizens to purchase any particular product. For the best possible healthcare at the best price, the government should get out of the healthcare business entirely. When governments get involved, things will always, ALWAYS, get a lot worse. But not at first. Remember, socialism always works in the beginning. I really love my $10 tooth extraction in Thailand.

Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about healthcare economics.

 

The US spends near DOUBLE on health care as a % of GDP than their OECD counterparts for worse outcomes. And it becuase ‘free markets’ aren’t so free when it comes to the provision of healthcare.

 

The provision and consumption of health care is like no other product. 

 

On the supply side: Doctors and health care providers are essentially oligopolies. Doctors take years to train, and if you need a specialist there isn’t generally too many of them about. 

 

Basic economics dictates that if you let oligopolies loose they will charge well more than ‘normal’ prices.

 

On the demand side, functioning free markets require choice on the consumer side for the product we are wanting to buy.

 

It isnt like buying a car where you have plethora of choice. 

 

Unfortunately, when we consume medical products, we don’t get to choose for if we are being treated for cancer or a broken bone. You don’t get to chose your ailments most of the time. And the need and timing of ‘consuming’ medical care is mostly out of your hands. 

 

 

On top of that, people tend to underinsure, underestimating the risk of getting sick. 

 

Add in the fact that the US insurance pool is less balanced with younger and healthier people not paying into it, you’ve got a recipe for expensive health outcomes.

 

Im very pro free market, not there is not a one piece of evidence it works on health care. But Americans have had 60 years of indoctrination that any single payer system means ‘socialism’, so like you, they poo their pants at the sound of it.

 

Oh, and by the way, your $10 tooth extraction is courtesy of the Thai government. Dental students are near fully subsidised so they don’t come out of school full of debt. 

 

So so you can thank ‘socialism’ for making that visit to the dentist cheaper for you..

Edited December 17, 2018 by samran

[thaibeachlovers]

34 minutes ago, samran said:

Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about healthcare economics.

 

The US spends near DOUBLE on health care as a % of GDP than their OECD counterparts for worse outcomes. And it becuase ‘free markets’ aren’t so free when it comes to the provision of healthcare.

 

The provision and consumption of health care is like no other product. 

 

On the supply side: Doctors and health care providers are essentially oligopolies. Doctors take years to train, and if you need a specialist there isn’t generally too many of them about. 

 

Basic economics dictates that if you let oligopolies loose they will charge well more than ‘normal’ prices.

 

On the demand side, functioning free markets require choice on the consumer side for the product we are wanting to buy.

 

It isnt like buying a car where you have plethora of choice. 

 

Unfortunately, when we consume medical products, we don’t get to choose for if we are being treated for cancer or a broken bone. You don’t get to chose your ailments most of the time. And the need and timing of ‘consuming’ medical care is mostly out of your hands. 

 

 

On top of that, people tend to underinsure, underestimating the risk of getting sick. 

 

Add in the fact that the US insurance pool is less balanced with younger and healthier people not paying into it, you’ve got a recipe for expensive health outcomes.

 

Im very pro free market, not there is not a one piece of evidence it works on health care. But Americans have had 60 years of indoctrination that any single payer system means ‘socialism’, so like you, they poo their pants at the sound of it.

 

Oh, and by the way, your $10 tooth extraction is courtesy of the Thai government. Dental students are near fully subsidised so they don’t come out of school full of debt. 

 

So so you can thank ‘socialism’ for making that visit to the dentist cheaper for you..

As someone that benefitted from the NHS, I fully support single payer. It's unfortunate that the US is so indoctrinated that it doesn't understand that health for profit is the worst possible way of gaining heath care at affordable prices.

Unfortunately, given the NHS is a government agency it is liable to meddling by politicians, which is not a good way to run an efficient system. Politicians have no idea how to run anything, let alone a health service, hence the NHS became a monster that considers it more important to have fancy buildings as monuments to government than have clean floors. I survived major surgery in the NHS, despite the filthy facilities.

I'm no longer in the UK, so I don't have free GP visits, which means that I can't afford to go to the Dr. Hospital care is free, but one has to be referred by a GP except in emergency, which means there is a 2 tier health system- a good one for rich people and sod all for poor people.

[bristolboy]

44 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

It was constitutional constructionism if anything, which is the opposite of judicial activism.

Nonsense. The vast majority of legal experts disagree with the judge's decision and expect it to be overturned on appeal. The reason being that when Congress changed the law, it did it in a very specific way and changed only that part. The consistent judicial rule is that when Congress changes a small part in any law and doesn't state that it has something to do with other parts of the law, then the law stands in its modified form. The very right wing judge in this case ignored that legal principle.

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. The vast majority of legal experts disagree with the judge's decision and expect it to be overturned on appeal. The reason being that when Congress changed the law, it did it in a very specific way and changed only that part. The consistent judicial rule is that when Congress changes a small part in any law and doesn't state that it has something to do with other parts of the law, then the law stands in its modified form. The very right wing judge in this case ignored that legal principle.

Yes but given the current composition of scotus, the ruling still might be upheld. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes but given the current composition of scotus, the ruling still might be upheld. 

I kind of doubt it. Roberts is too politically savvy to support it. He knows what upholding it would mean for Republicans politically.

[attrayant]

The five justices who voted to uphold the ACA in 2012 are all still on the bench.

[Jingthing]

But it's not even remotely impossible that they might strike it down. So don't act like this isn't a real threat. 

[bristolboy]

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

But it's not even remotely impossible that they might strike it down. So don't act like this isn't a real threat. 

It could happen. Even if the Supreme Court knocks down the judge's ruling down, but Gorsuch and/or Kavanagh vote to uphold it, that could make for an effective 2020 campaign talking point against Senators who voted for either of them.

Edited December 17, 2018 by bristolboy

[bkkcanuck8]

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

But it's not even remotely impossible that they might strike it down. So don't act like this isn't a real threat. 

It is a very very remote threat.  The court will most like be overturned by a Courts of Appeals since the Supreme Court has so freshly ruled on this bill.  If it is then appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will be very unlikely to even give that a hearing (it accepts maybe at most 2% of the cases that reach them for a hearing).  To be reheard, yet overturned -- they would have to show that the original law that was enacted had far reaching and unforeseeable consequences.  It will be unlikely to meet that high standard.  Everyone should hit the snooze button for now.