The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Tero]

Funny how the founding fathers would know that in 2018 repealing the ”individual mandate” repeals the entirety of an existing law. Cause it’s constitutional, judge says.

[Seabass]

Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"

Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...

[Tero]

If you are anyone but 42 or a libertarian of any sort, you want Obamacare to stay until better coverage is planned:
Medicare

Obamacare has meant lower premiums, deductibles and cost-sharing for the roughly 60 million senior citizens and disabled Americans enrolled in the program.
The health reform law made many changes to Medicare. It slowed the growth of payment rates to hospitals and other providers, reduced payments to Medicare Advantage plans and improved benefits for enrollees. The Obama administration estimated that the typical Medicare beneficiary pays about $700 less in premiums and cost sharing thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

Under Obamacare, Medicare enrollees also receive free preventative benefits, such as screenings for breast and colorectal cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
And Obamacare helped close the gap in Medicare's drug coverage and was on track to completely eliminate it by 2020. Senior citizens have to pay more for drugs while they are in the donut hole, which lies between the initial coverage and catastrophic coverage phases. (The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
But Obamacare does mean higher costs for more affluent beneficiaries. The law froze the threshold for the Medicare premium surcharge at $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples, so more people have become subject to it. The Affordable Care Act also added a premium surcharge on drug coverage for higher-income enrollees.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/15/politics ... index.html

[Tero]

Don't panic. The ruling, issued late on Friday and only one day before the end of the law’s annual open enrollment period, is not a model of constitutional or statutory analysis. It’s instead a predictable exercise in motivated reasoning — drafted by a jurist with a history of ruling against policies and laws advanced by President Barack Obama.

The reason the judge, Reed O’Connor, gets these cases isn’t a mystery: Texas and its allied states know the game and shop these lawsuits right into Judge O’Connor’s courtroom.

Another thing that isn’t a mystery? The genesis of this latest attack on Obamacare. Disenchanted that a Republican-controlled federal government wouldn’t repeal every word of the law, Texas and a coalition of states tried a sleight of hand: They leaned on President Trump’s 2017 tax bill, known officially as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — which zeroed out the tax penalty of the health care law’s individual mandate — and argued that the mandate itself was unconstitutional.
Except the tax bill did not invalidate the Affordable Care Act — it did away only with the penalty for not being insured. Congress left the rest of the law intact.

...Instead of respecting that legislative choice, Judge O’Connor proceeded to find all the operative provisions of the A.C.A. “inseverable” from the hollowed-out individual mandate. The whole law must fall. He gave the Texas-led challengers precisely what they wanted.

This partisan, activist ruling cannot stand. If it’s not reversed by the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, then it’s off to the Supreme Court, where all five justices who, in 2012, already determined that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional will still be there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/opin ... judge.html

[Forty Two]

Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"

Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...

Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.

[Forty Two]

Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"

Hmm, if a recent poll is any indication the majority of Americans do. Idiots.

Like half of Americans think the Earth was created 10,000 years ago, too.

'Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll'

A vast majority — 70 percent — of Americans in a new poll supports "Medicare for all," also known as a single-payer health-care system.

The majority of Americans don't know how Medicare works. I'd love to see how many think it means that all your healthcare is free. That must be why my elderly parents pay premiums to Medicare. Bait and switch, folks.

[laklak]

Apparently the author doesn't know how it works either, because it sure as hell ain't single payer.

[Forty Two]

Apparently the author doesn't know how it works either, because it sure as hell ain't single payer.

Indeed.

[Seabass]

Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"

Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...

Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.

If you support Trump, you're a climate denier.
If you support the GOP, you're a climate denier.
If you call those of us who believe the scientific consensus on climate change "climate alarmists", you're a climate denier.
If you're more afraid of SJWs than climate change, you're climate denier.
If you're more afraid of caravans than climate change, you're a climate denier.

Just because you don't think you're a climate denier, doesn't mean you're not a climate denier. You also think you're not conservative, which is fucking preposterous. The far-right's war on truth has really done a number on you.

[Tero]

If you think cow farts cause climate change, not burning coal...

[Forty Two]

Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"

Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...

Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.

If you support Trump, you're a climate denier.

Obviously, not. That's ridiculous. By that logic, if you don't agree with some positions or statements of a candidate you voted for, then you must subscribe to their wrong view. I am responsible for my own views, which I have expressed here. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 - were people that voted for him "marriage deniers?" Of course not.

If you support the GOP, you're a climate denier.

Not accurate. First, I've supported Democrats and Republicans. I'm not one of those idiots who think one side are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys. There are a wide array of views on climate change in the GOP, which is from Trump to Schwarzenegger to Bob Ingliss and many different takes on it in between.

And, Democrats are not uniform on it, either.

Further, really, the dispute is not as much about whether climate change is occurring - it's about (a) the kind of policies proposed to combat it, and (b) who proposes the policies. Here's a New York Times piece illustrating that for BOTH -- BOTH - democrats and republicans - if a policy is proposed by their side, they tend to support it, and if the other side proposes it, they are either neutral on it or tend to oppose it. That's politics, my friend. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opin ... hange.html

If you call those of us who believe the scientific consensus on climate change "climate alarmists", you're a climate denier.

I don't believe that everyone who "believes" (lol) in a "scientific consensus" on climate change are climate alarmists. However, there are, in the world, some people who are climate alarmists. People who go beyond the scientific consensus, and into the realm of hysterics and chicken-little positions which are not actually part of the climate consensus.

The consensus is, as I understand it, that the climate is warming, and that the recent warming is most likely in some part or in large part due to human activity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) has stated it succinctly in its fourth assessment report (I think that's from 2013) and states the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.

I accept that as the scientific consensus. I'm not idiotic enough to "believe" in it, though, other than as a synonym for understand it and accept it as the best science we have today.

If you're more afraid of SJWs than climate change, you're climate denier.

Well, I'm not afraid of either, so, that's on you. If you're "afraid" of SJW's or climate change, then go see a psychologist. I am amused and bemused by SJWs, and I have an understanding a concern about climate change. The former is entertainment mostly (except where the first amendment is concerned, then I take them seriously where they have power), and the latter is a scientific issue.

If you're more afraid of caravans than climate change, you're a climate denier.

I am neither afraid of caravans, nor climate change, and if you are then go see a psychologist or psychiatrist. Caravans are political, legal, and cultural issue, and they are as important as many other issues of the day - current events, politics, economics, public policy, etc. -- they aren't irrelevant. Climate change is also important. One need not be a one-trick pony, and focus on one issue.

If one is afraid of pro-Lifers more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of capitalists more than climate change, how do you judge them? If one is afraid of the Russians posting facebook ads and otherwise trying to "sow discord" in our 2016 election, more than climate change, how do you judge them? Are those folks able to comment and post about those issues without being climate deniers? They'd best get their act together, right? Focus on climate change, because that's the only issue that matters.

And, don't go to the movies or out for drinks on Friday and Saturday night, right? If you really thought climate change was going to destroy our society and country and the world, then you'd be out there every day, campaigning against all unnecessary activities. Bars and movie theaters - concerts - race tracks - sports stadiums and events - county fairs -- state fairs - festivals -- restaurants - all unnecessary travel - private jets - all air travel except where absolutely necessary -- Christmas trees - the entire christmas and halloween decoration industries -- the like - if you're not boycotting them and urging others to refrain from all such unnecessary greenhouse gas activities, you are a climate denier!

Don't you believe we have to take "urgent action" immediately? And, doesn't every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions help? You should be against all meat eating, right? No omnivorousness for humans, because that impacts climate change. The entire jewelry industry must go, too, because that's unnecessary and has negative impact on the environment. And, the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry and the marijuana industry - all must go.

Just because you don't think you're a climate denier, doesn't mean you're not a climate denier.

Ummm. I think that if one agrees with the IPCC statement of the consensus on climate change - that it's happening and that mankind has a significant contribution to it -- one is not a climate denier. You think I can accept the consensus, but be a denier anyway?

You also think you're not conservative, which is fucking preposterous. The far-right's war on truth has really done a number on you.

That depends on your definition, I guess, but under the common English usage today, whether in the UK or in the US, I am not conservative on most issues. You likely aren't particularly educated, from the sound of it, and from the emotion-driven arguments you make, laden with judgment and scorn, you're rather immature as a person. You like to finger point, rather than talk. You moralize, rather than understand and discuss.

The only way I'm conservative is if conservatives by and large hold the following issues:

Pro-Choice on abortion;
Against the death penalty in all circumstances;
Against military intervention in foreign countries unless the US is attacked, or there is other justification under international law for doing so.
Against free trade where working conditions and wages in particular foreign countries are such that it will harm US workers and allow companies to work laborers in foreign countries in a manner that would be considered abusive in the US.
I have been pro-legalization of same sex marriage for at least 30 years (back then it was thought a very weird stance to have, at least 25 years before Obama and Hillary supported it)
I am in favor of same sex parenting and adoption, and liberal adoption rules in general
I support laws prohibiting invidious discrimination in the workplace and in places of public accommodations.
I support many reasonable gun laws, background checks, magazine limits, safety regulations, and restrictions on certain types of guns, etc. - some European gun laws are acceptable to me - Norway has an interesting system.
I support marijuana and other illicit drug legalization and regulation (decriminalization and diversion of criminal law efforts to psychological and other support efforts for drug abusers and users).
I am against mandatory military service.
I am in favor of police wearing body cameras
I am in favor of the right to record police by video and audio at all times
I am in favor of most convicted criminals having the right to vote
I am against solitary confinement of prisoners
I am in favor of a wholesale re-structuring of our criminal justice system to eliminate jail and incarceration for most if not all non-violent offenses.
I am in favor the government spending money on "science and the useful arts." That would include embryonic stem cell research.
I am all for vaccines and vaccination
I am in favor of a properly structured Universal Basic Income.
I am against most of the Patriot Act and would support its repeal (although there are pieces that I would support, so it's not completely black and white).
I am against "three strikes you're out laws"
I am against "mandatory minimum sentencing" laws
I am in favor of the separation of church and state
I support legalized physician assisted suicide.
I am an atheist
I oppose funding of religious institutions by the government
I oppose governmental entities discriminating against or in favor of atheists,agnostics or religious organizations.
I support a strong right to privacy, and restrictions on police and government surveillance, search and seizure, and other such things.

When I take the political compass test - and I've done so several times over the last few years - I always wind up either right about on the vertical center line, and about half way from the center to the bottom of the chart.

So,, I would best be described as moderate libertarian and opposing all forms of authoritarianism. If you consider that "conservative" then you don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word.

[Jason]

Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"

Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...

Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.

If you support Trump, you're a climate denier.
If you support the GOP, you're a climate denier.
If you call those of us who believe the scientific consensus on climate change "climate alarmists", you're a climate denier.
If you're more afraid of SJWs than climate change, you're climate denier.
If you're more afraid of caravans than climate change, you're a climate denier.

Just because you don't think you're a climate denier, doesn't mean you're not a climate denier. You also think you're not conservative, which is fucking preposterous. The far-right's war on truth has really done a number on you.

When brought before the Inquisition, one can only confess.

[Jason]

If you think cow farts cause climate change, not burning coal...

If you think temperatures in the Arctic have been stable since 1955...

[Forty Two]

If you think cow farts cause climate change, not burning coal...

Both do.

Rearing cattle causes more greenhouse gases than driving cars, says the United Nations reports which reflect the "scientific consensus" on the issue: https://news.un.org/en/story/2006/11/20 ... port-warns - Little did you know, Tero, that you were a secret denier! How DARE you reject the "scientific consensus" on the large/significant impact on climate change that cattle have! You're as bad as a Nazi, dontchaknow! There is a consensus! Under no circumstances are you to question it, much less belittle it!

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates the livestock sector as a whole contributes 14.5 percent of total man-made greenhouse gas emissions – beef and milk production make up the majority of this. Most of those emissions (42 percent) come from enteric fermentation, with an additional 23 percent from manure application and management (from both methane and nitrous oxide).

The livestock sector is the world’s largest user of agricultural land, through grazing and the use of feed crops.

It also plays a major role in climate change, management of land and water, and biodiversity.

http://www.fao.org/livestock-environment/en/

So, scoff all you want - you denier you - but the scientific consensus is that cattle play MAJOR role in climate change.

Do you deny that?

[Forty Two]

Good! What idiot wants "Medicare for All?"

Climate deniers probably shouldn't call other people idiots. Just a suggestion...

Who's a climate denier? Me?

I'll expect you can find a post where I deny climate change, or admit that you're wrong on this.

If you support Trump, you're a climate denier.
If you support the GOP, you're a climate denier.
If you call those of us who believe the scientific consensus on climate change "climate alarmists", you're a climate denier.
If you're more afraid of SJWs than climate change, you're climate denier.
If you're more afraid of caravans than climate change, you're a climate denier.

Just because you don't think you're a climate denier, doesn't mean you're not a climate denier. You also think you're not conservative, which is fucking preposterous. The far-right's war on truth has really done a number on you.

When brought before the Inquisition, one can only confess.

Being a conservative has nothing, apparently, to do with the political beliefs one holds. LOL.