• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So Obamacare is going well.

DeacMan said:
That script doesn't work for the obvious reason that I'll still have a bill if I'm not covered. I may not pay that bill. That's a different issue entirely. But I'll still have a bill.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If you are indigent, you never see a bill. The provider simply eats it.
 
not according to multiple conservative appellate judges. My bad, you know more than they do.
 
RJKarl said:
not according to multiple conservative appellate judges. My bad, you know more than they do.
Click to expand...

So when multiple conservative USSC justices find it unconstitutional will you accept that they know more than you and move on?

Someone may need to quote this so that RJ can actually see it.
 
"The problem, unfortunately, is devoid of constitutional merit."

By the mere fact that multiple judges, in multiple jurisdictions and on every level of the federal court system disagree with DeacMan's statement shows either he should be the only judge in America or that this is at least in a murky, gray area of a decision.

Of course it doesn't surprise anyone that DeacMan thinks he knows more than all of them and that only his side can be valid.
 
RJKarl said:
Not necessarily. If you are indigent, you never see a bill. The provider simply eats it.
Click to expand...


Absolutely incorrect on the first point. The provider eats the bill that you don't pay. It is not charitable (or written off) until it is not paid.
 
RJKarl said:
"The problem, unfortunately, is devoid of constitutional merit."

By the mere fact that multiple judges, in multiple jurisdictions and on every level of the federal court system disagree with DeacMan's statement shows either he should be the only judge in America or that this is at least in a murky, gray area of a decision.

Of course it doesn't surprise anyone that DeacMan thinks he knows more than all of them and that only his side can be valid.
Click to expand...

Of course I think my side is valid. So does anyone who has an opinion on the matter. And I'm not alone in thinking the mandate is unconstitutional. There are plenty of judges on my side of the issue. Not surprisingly there are also misguided souls who think the power of the Federal government should extend into forcing you to buy things. That power is not granted to the Federal government. Again, they could have structured this law differently and it would be o.k. - albeit with a worse result for many of us here on a practical level. But them's the breaks.
 
RJKarl said:
in 1974:

doctor's bill for his services was a flat $300 (if the delivery was normal)

the hospital bill was a little over $800 for a 5 day stay (This included the x-ray that was performed to determine if the baby was in the correct position, since I would be induced. Yes, they gave pregnant women x-rays in those days"

$1100 total


today "For these women, the costs of childbirth can be a significant financial pitfall. Data gathered from 2008 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality shows that the charge for an uncomplicated cesarean section is approximately $15,800, while an uncomplicated vaginal birth runs about $9,600.

that about 9X as much

Wake Forest costs more than 20X as much.

OOPS.....
Click to expand...

Sorry about seeing this late--I have to work so that others may fuck. What does the rise in the cost of Wake Forest have to do with anything here RJ? I maintain that health care was more affordable before the big intrusion of government. And you seem to being saying that is not true because the cost of Wake Forest has gone up more. So both of these things have been ruined by government interference. Is there some other connection between the two?
 
You are the one bringing up how much prices have gone up. I showed you that housing and costs for Wake Forest have one up as much or more than the cost of hing a baby.

I completely refuted your premise.
 
RJKarl said:
You are the one bringing up how much prices have gone up. I showed you that housing and costs for Wake Forest have one up as much or more than the cost of hing a baby.

I completely refuted your premise.
Click to expand...

Are you saying I am wrong because you can find some prices the government drove up even worse than they drove up health care? I have been saying that health care has become more unaffordable since it became free for a lot of people. I just showed with true cases that normal people used to be able to afford some of the health care things they can no longer afford. You just showed that normal people also cannot afford a house or a Wake Forest education. You did not refute anything. You just showed that government intervention can screw up other things. Government has not interferred nearly as much with computers and they are less expensive now than they used to be. Forty years ago the pediatrician charged a few dollars per visit, cash. Today the copay is $30. You can't really believe that health care is not more unaffordable.
 
Government intervention didn't have anything to do with price escalation of WF or housing.

Healthcare costs have also gone up. A lot of that is cost of doctors, hospital chains, marketing for insurance companies/other providers, exponentially higher costs for prescriptions, much higher construction and land costs for facilities.

I realize in your world ll. problems are caused by government, but in the real world there are many other issues.
 
DeacMan said:
Of course I think my side is valid. So does anyone who has an opinion on the matter. And I'm not alone in thinking the mandate is unconstitutional. There are plenty of judges on my side of the issue. Not surprisingly there are also misguided souls who think the power of the Federal government should extend into forcing you to buy things. That power is not granted to the Federal government. Again, they could have structured this law differently and it would be o.k. - albeit with a worse result for many of us here on a practical level. But them's the breaks.
Click to expand...

Not things, healthcare. The health care that's going to be given to you whether you have the money or insurance to cover it or not.
 
RJKarl said:
Government intervention didn't have anything to do with price escalation of WF or housing.

Healthcare costs have also gone up. A lot of that is cost of doctors, hospital chains, marketing for insurance companies/other providers, exponentially higher costs for prescriptions, much higher construction and land costs for facilities.

I realize in your world ll. problems are caused by government, but in the real world there are many other issues.
Click to expand...

This didn't really affect the cost of a hospital room for one day or a pediatrician's charge for an office visit. Clear thinkers can see the awful result of government force in health care. It didn't cause all of the trouble, but it did cause a lot of it.
 
And yes they do have that power. Fried was right, this is a canard driven by politics.
 
I think much of the divide relates to the level of trust you possess in the federal government. I vote left on more things than I vote right because I share similar social/foreign policy leanings, but I'm more federalist at heart and I am increasingly skeptical of consolidation of power in the fed. I think you look at someone like Kennedy who also shares strong federalist leanings, and he is worried that this is essentially stripping state sovereignty (scoff all you like, but I'm fairly certain this is a major concern of his) and I think you're going to see he invalidates it. Without Kennedy to provide cover, I see no way Roberts breaks off.

I think people who scoff at the broccoli example (and it's one I'm not entirely on board with) are afraid of what this allows going forward. While this obviously is politically driven in many regards, I don't think people who support the mandate should dismiss so readily the concern that some genuinely do have regarding precedential value (or the slippery slope as some on here derisively mock) this will provide. Perhaps I'm more cynical and distrusting than I should be, but I'm not so quick to adhere to the "oh the government will never do xyz, that's just silly" line of thought. Many times I err on the side of making sure they don't have the ammunition in the chamber in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top