U.S. federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[samran]

1 hour ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Yes I agree that this was done before ACA. USA is the worst offender bar none. All the more reason to get government OUT of the healthcare business.

 

Generally, personal debts are not inheritable. Government debt will be carried forward endlessly until it is paid off, with interest. So YES, for government debt, your children WILL inherit your debt. They will want to ask you WHY you placed them in debt bondage without their consent, and what will you say?

My kids will be pleased that we have a system which looks after everyone where your access to care depends on having a Medicare card, and not a credit card. 

 

A story this evening from the Australian news on a new drug which has just been subsidised in Australia. The only immoral thing is not to help these kids.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/treatment-for-spinal-muscular-atrophy-proving-life/10632878

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.   The topic is about US health care.   Comparison to other countries is acceptable, but straying off into overall economic concerns in other countries is not.

[Nigel Garvie]

  Quote

The US spends near DOUBLE on health care as a % of GDP than their OECD counterparts for worse outcomes.

Right, But the big question is WHY?

 

This from an earlier part if the discussion. 

I agree WHY is a big question here, but a better question could be HOW do we improve. The "Free Market" has failed the US regarding healthcare. Many people think that being so obsessively attached to the Free Market, produces unwanted results, and many countries avoid private healthcare, private legal systems and prisons etc. Private isn't always better just because of competition, and though public can sometimes be an overpriced bureaucratic nightmare, even then it is nowhere remotely as costly as the US. Also no one is making a profit from another's misfortune. 

 

If you were in a competition and 19 others in the same competition kept getting better results than you, how long would it take you to think of copying them. The length of time it takes is inversely proportional to your intelligence or indeed your common sense. The standard European public model is essentially that:- you pay your tax, the government keeps control over healthcare spending so you are not ripped off, every one is treated equally. Clearly IMHO there are huge vested interests stopping the US going down this obvious and simple road. 

[direction BANGKOK]

32 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

  Quote

The US spends near DOUBLE on health care as a % of GDP than their OECD counterparts for worse outcomes.

Right, But the big question is WHY?

 

This from an earlier part if the discussion. 

I agree WHY is a big question here, but a better question could be HOW do we improve. The "Free Market" has failed the US regarding healthcare. Many people think that being so obsessively attached to the Free Market, produces unwanted results, and many countries avoid private healthcare, private legal systems and prisons etc. Private isn't always better just because of competition, and though public can sometimes be an overpriced bureaucratic nightmare, even then it is nowhere remotely as costly as the US. Also no one is making a profit from another's misfortune. 

 

If you were in a competition and 19 others in the same competition kept getting better results than you, how long would it take you to think of copying them. The length of time it takes is inversely proportional to your intelligence or indeed your common sense. The standard European public model is essentially that:- you pay your tax, the government keeps control over healthcare spending so you are not ripped off, every one is treated equally. Clearly IMHO there are huge vested interests stopping the US going down this obvious and simple road. 

Nice post. 

 

Yes, of course. You are answering your own question. What the USA is good at is permitting corporations to increase profit margins. 

 

I do not see why the "why" is such a big question. The corporations are giving out less, and profiting more, just as the system was designed to do. 

 

Anyway, forget all that. I have found this an endlessly frustrating topic over the years. I agree exactly, 100% with what you said about the "competition with 19 others...". That is the essnce of this "debate", and there is no debate. It is simply capitalism doing exactly what capitalism was designed to do - profit as much as you possibly can, to hell with everything else. 

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

  Quote

The US spends near DOUBLE on health care as a % of GDP than their OECD counterparts for worse outcomes.

Right, But the big question is WHY?

 

This from an earlier part if the discussion. 

I agree WHY is a big question here, but a better question could be HOW do we improve. The "Free Market" has failed the US regarding healthcare. Many people think that being so obsessively attached to the Free Market, produces unwanted results, and many countries avoid private healthcare, private legal systems and prisons etc. Private isn't always better just because of competition, and though public can sometimes be an overpriced bureaucratic nightmare, even then it is nowhere remotely as costly as the US. Also no one is making a profit from another's misfortune. 

 

If you were in a competition and 19 others in the same competition kept getting better results than you, how long would it take you to think of copying them. The length of time it takes is inversely proportional to your intelligence or indeed your common sense. The standard European public model is essentially that:- you pay your tax, the government keeps control over healthcare spending so you are not ripped off, every one is treated equally. Clearly IMHO there are huge vested interests stopping the US going down this obvious and simple road. 

Actually, until the Reagan era, prices for medical services in the USA tracked very closely with those in Europe. But Reagan's "free market" reforms for health care did just what you might expect. Considering how tightly regulated medical services were in every way but pricing, that was inevitable.

[Longcut]

On 12/15/2018 at 9:57 PM, Emdog said:

This would be ideal time for Trump to unveil his health care plan he bragged of during campaign: cover everyone better, be cheaper, etc etc. So let's see it ASAP

If you compare HC coverage, outcomes and cost across developed nations (plenty of data on that available) it is clear that Universal is cheaper, better etc outside USA by a large margin.

If American health care is so good, why do so many international health policies cover everywhere except the USA?

Because American hospitals are not required to give medical cost upfront before any treatment begins. Also, because it's not cheap.

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, Longcut said:

Because American hospitals are not required to give medical cost upfront before any treatment begins. Also, because it's not cheap.

Can any hospital say with certainty what the costs will be? Of individual procedures, sure. But doesn't the ultimate cost depend on what the diagnosis turns out to be. And in the case of an emergency how could a hospital even know in advance?

ANd of course the reason that international travel insurance has much higher rates for the US is because of astronomical costs. The important question is why?

[NotYourBusiness]

17 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

  Quote

The US spends near DOUBLE on health care as a % of GDP than their OECD counterparts for worse outcomes.

The "Free Market" has failed the US regarding healthcare. Many people think that being so obsessively attached to the Free Market, produces unwanted results, and many countries avoid private healthcare, private legal systems and prisons etc. Private isn't always better just because of competition, and though public can sometimes be an overpriced bureaucratic nightmare, even then it is nowhere remotely as costly as the US. Also no one is making a profit from another's misfortune. 

 

If you were in a competition and 19 others in the same competition kept getting better results than you, how long would it take you to think of copying them. The length of time it takes is inversely proportional to your intelligence or indeed your common sense. The standard European public model is essentially that:- you pay your tax, the government keeps control over healthcare spending so you are not ripped off, every one is treated equally. Clearly IMHO there are huge vested interests stopping the US going down this obvious and simple road. 

I say again, the USA has never tried a free market. Don't take my word for it. Study the history. You will be amazed. You know what they say about history, right?

 

The money is not "spent". It is "STOLEN".  Have a look at this pdf historical expose, the result of 40 years of investigation. Download it to your computer while you still can. If you can get through it without a overwhelming sense of disgust, I will be surprised.

 

By_Injection-Complete.pdf

 

Sample text - "Because of the outbreak of peace, which is always regarded with horror by the philanthropic foundations, new markets had to be found, and quickly, for these commodities." Love it.

 

This is the history of what your legislature has brought you. I believe that everyone on this thread truly has good intentions and wants to help solve the problem. But does anyone really think the legislature will ever bite the hand that feeds them? It's impossible. Please study the history, then we can finally have an intelligent discussion on how to fix the problem. One thing we can be sure of: anything the legislature promulgates will never fix it. ACA or any other plan can never fix it. We are debating the wrong thing lol. ALL the ideas presented in this thread are non-starters (have no chance of success). The pdf explains why. The deception is truly a masterpiece. Thanks guys.

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, NotYourBusiness said:

I say again, the USA has never tried a free market. Don't take my word for it. Study the history. You will be amazed. You know what they say about history, right?

 

The money is not "spent". It is "STOLEN".  Have a look at this pdf historical expose, the result of 40 years of investigation. Download it to your computer while you still can. If you can get through it without a overwhelming sense of disgust, I will be surprised.

 

By_Injection-Complete.pdf

 

Sample text - "Because of the outbreak of peace, which is always regarded with horror by the philanthropic foundations, new markets had to be found, and quickly, for these commodities." Love it.

 

This is the history of what your legislature has brought you. I believe that everyone on this thread truly has good intentions and wants to help solve the problem. But does anyone really think the legislature will ever bite the hand that feeds them? It's impossible. Please study the history, then we can finally have an intelligent discussion on how to fix the problem. One thing we can be sure of: anything the legislature promulgates will never fix it. ACA or any other plan can never fix it. We are debating the wrong thing lol. ALL the ideas presented in this thread are non-starters (have no chance of success). The pdf explains why. The deception is truly a masterpiece. Thanks guys.

The reason you're wrong is simple. Medical care keeps on getting more and more expensive. Sooner or later, most likely sooner, there's going to have to be a revolt against it. It was already a potent issue for the Democrats and it's only going to get more so.

ANd sometimes the legislature does bite that hand. The Medicaid portion of Obamacare was financed by a surtax on the wealthy.

[NotYourBusiness]

21 hours ago, samran said:

My kids will be pleased that we have a system which looks after everyone where your access to care depends on having a Medicare card, and not a credit card. 

 

A story this evening from the Australian news on a new drug which has just been subsidised in Australia. The only immoral thing is not to help these kids.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/treatment-for-spinal-muscular-atrophy-proving-life/10632878

OK thanks, but we are discussing US healthcare and paying for it. The annual deficits are approaching a trillion dollars, the total debt is way over twenty trillion (no one really knows the correct number).

 

People who should know better are saying deficits don't matter. I have some news for you: deficit always matter, they just haven't caused a crisis yet. There is general agreement that the debt will never be repaid, but that won't stop the banks from trying. We have borrowed this money to pay for our lifestyles today, mortgaged our children's future, without their consent. It will be painful, stagnation, much higher taxes, a lot of civil unrest (see Paris, coming soon to a town near you). Our children's standard of living will be MUCH lower, and their lives will be in debt servitude. It would be amazing to me if you are saying this is moral.

 

Let's say a large fast asteroid was headed our way which would cause an extinction level event. If would end all life on earth. And we could borrow from our children and pay for a system to deflect this asteroid. Is it moral to mortgage our children's future to pay for the deflection system?

 

And my answer is still no! We are borrowing the money from WHO? If our society agrees that this is a worthwhile and necessary project, why don't the people we are borrowing from also take a haircut and chip in the money. Why do we need to BORROW from someone, and pay it back, if it truly is for the collective good? It's ridiculous.

 

Now people do immoral things all the time. But the thought that we should fool ourselves and say it is moral is a very dangerous thought. There is NEVER a time when it is moral to mortgage our children's future without their consent. The US is doing it, but that doesn't make it moral. It's totally immoral.

 

Now, if the USA could pay for ACA or any other plan and not borrow, and the majority of the people want it, then who are we to say it is good or not good? Democracy means the people get the plan they want, right? As long as they are paying for it without debt, while I have my own feelings, I see no problem. Thanks guys.

[NotYourBusiness]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

The reason you're wrong is simple. Medical care keeps on getting more and more expensive. Sooner or later, most likely sooner, there's going to have to be a revolt against it. It was already a potent issue for the Democrats and it's only going to get more so.

ANd sometimes the legislature does bite that hand. The Medicaid portion of Obamacare was financed by a surtax on the wealthy.

lol I can see you didn't read the link lol. Take care.

[samran]

29 minutes ago, NotYourBusiness said:

I say again, the USA has never tried a free market. Don't take my word for it. Study the history. You will be amazed. You know what they say about history, right?

 

The money is not "spent". It is "STOLEN".  Have a look at this pdf historical expose, the result of 40 years of investigation. Download it to your computer while you still can. If you can get through it without a overwhelming sense of disgust, I will be surprised.

 

By_Injection-Complete.pdf

 

Sample text - "Because of the outbreak of peace, which is always regarded with horror by the philanthropic foundations, new markets had to be found, and quickly, for these commodities." Love it.

 

This is the history of what your legislature has brought you. I believe that everyone on this thread truly has good intentions and wants to help solve the problem. But does anyone really think the legislature will ever bite the hand that feeds them? It's impossible. Please study the history, then we can finally have an intelligent discussion on how to fix the problem. One thing we can be sure of: anything the legislature promulgates will never fix it. ACA or any other plan can never fix it. We are debating the wrong thing lol. ALL the ideas presented in this thread are non-starters (have no chance of success). The pdf explains why. The deception is truly a masterpiece. Thanks guys.

All these ideas are non starters? Except the 19 OECD countries where these systems have been working for 60 odd years. I’ll take that as proof.

 

Im not sure I’m going to be taking too seriously links like you’ve just shared, by an author who is quoted as being:

 

Eustace Clarence Mullins Jr. (March 9, 1923 – February 2, 2010)^[1] was an antisemiticAmerican writer, propagandist,^[2] Holocaust denier, and disciple of the poet Ezra Pound.^[3]His best-known book is The Secrets of The Federal Reserve, in which he alleged that several high-profile bankers had conspired to write the Federal Reserve Act for their own nefarious purposes, and then induced Congress to enact it into law.  David Randallcalled Mullins "one of the world's leading conspiracy theorists."^[4] The Southern Poverty Law Center described him as "a one-man organization of hate".^[5]

[NotYourBusiness]

11 minutes ago, samran said:

All these ideas are non starters? Except the 19 OECD countries where these systems have been working for 60 odd years. I’ll take that as proof.

 

Im not sure I’m going to be taking too seriously links like you’ve just shared, by an author who is quoted as being:

 

Eustace Clarence Mullins Jr. (March 9, 1923 – February 2, 2010)^[1] was an antisemiticAmerican writer, propagandist,^[2] Holocaust denier, and disciple of the poet Ezra Pound.^[3]His best-known book is The Secrets of The Federal Reserve, in which he alleged that several high-profile bankers had conspired to write the Federal Reserve Act for their own nefarious purposes, and then induced Congress to enact it into law.  David Randallcalled Mullins "one of the world's leading conspiracy theorists."^[4] The Southern Poverty Law Center described him as "a one-man organization of hate".^[5]

lol sorry to say Mr. Samran, you completely missed the point, which is that those system which appear to work will NEVER be able to be implemented in the USA. The link explains why. And if you are using SPLC for reference, lol never mind my friend. Take care now.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, NotYourBusiness said:

lol sorry to say Mr. Samran, you completely missed the point, which is that those system which appear to work will NEVER be able to be implemented in the USA. The link explains why. And if you are using SPLC for reference, lol never mind my friend. Take care now.

"He was cited in 1954 as a "neo-Fascist" by the House Un-American Activities Committee, which noted in particular his article "Adolph Hitler: An Appreciation", written in 1952, in which he compared Hitler to Jesus and described both as victims of Jews.^[2]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins}

[NotYourBusiness]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"He was cited in 1954 as a "neo-Fascist" by the House Un-American Activities Committee, which noted in particular his article "Adolph Hitler: An Appreciation", written in 1952, in which he compared Hitler to Jesus and described both as victims of Jews.^[2]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins}

Shameful. What about the pdf?  Take care now.

[bkkcanuck8]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"He was cited in 1954 as a "neo-Fascist" by the House Un-American Activities Committee, which noted in particular his article "Adolph Hitler: An Appreciation", written in 1952, in which he compared Hitler to Jesus and described both as victims of Jews.^[2]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins}

As Donald Trump would say - there are good people on both sides [of the Adolf Hitler appreciation (or not) divide]. ????

[NotYourBusiness]

3 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

As Donald Trump would say - there are good people on both sides [of the Adolf Hitler appreciation (or not) divide]. ????

Appreciate the injection of a little humor thanks man haha

Edited December 19, 2018 by NotYourBusiness

[NotYourBusiness]

The admins will lock this thread, let's keep it civil guys thanks ????

We are discussing ACA and court ruling and alternatives in the USA.