Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Veni vidi vici

Upheld

Recommended Posts

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1

 

Victory for Obama, Democrats and America.

Discuss.

 

~Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i'm happy it was upheld I just wish they would go Medicaid for all and be done with it. We have the system in place. Just get rid of the eligibility restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victory for Obama, Democrats and America.

Victory for America? Not all Americans believe that public healthcare is the way to go, and I think the majority of people are/were against it (I have no polls to back me up though).

 

This was sort of surprising to me. I'm not against the little parts of the bill I know (basically I'm not an expert on it) but I felt like most people believed that the bill would be torpedoed. I thought the Supreme Court would pull a "you can't force people to buy this" card but they did not.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how the Chief Justice and the President have interacted in the past, this ruling did surprise me somewhat. I was expecting it to get struck down. I'm still of a split mind on the individual mandate, because having everyone insured does reduce costs, but there's the whole freedom argument too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts wrote an opinion backhanding the President at every possible turn.

 

Furthermore given the popularity of the law among the public right now I highly doubt this will be a victory for Obama or the Democrats.

 

Really, the upholding of the law is the worst thing that could have happened to the Obama administration at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare is good but not good enough. A single payer model - everyone is covered by health insurance and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers - would be a far better option. Regardless, this is a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare is good but not good enough. A single payer model - everyone is covered by health insurance and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers - would be a far better option. Regardless, this is a step in the right direction.

No. This would make us like every other first world country, and gosh darnit the republicans will not let that happen to preserve the integrity of some blah blah blah, and would violate their blah blah blah, and gosh darnit the government has too much blah blah blah and obama is a socialist muslim who is going to take away our guns and blah blah blah.

 

Sorry. In short: Several American idiots will not allow that type of common sense to be applied in our nation.

 

~Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For single-payer healthcare to work we would have to roll out massive, and I mean massive reforms to our health insurance industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victory to the health insurance companies is more like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare is good but not good enough. A single payer model - everyone is covered by health insurance and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers - would be a far better option. Regardless, this is a step in the right direction.

 

At first glance this would seem an excellent plan, but the diet and lack of exercise for most Americans would mean an excessively high tax rate for the average citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the US, the biggest spender per capita in the world on health care but with the health care rating of a third world country...

 

and then instead of holding a real discussion about this issue and the gigantous waste of money they are fighting each other in court using some law shenenigans which are so far fetched that it is simply completely rediculous and totally besides the point

 

bah...

way to go politics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the US, the biggest spender per capita in the world on health care but with the health care rating of a third world country...

Haha what.

 

The US is ranked 17th in the world in healthcare quality. While it's not optimal it's hardly majority-world status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the US, the biggest spender per capita in the world on health care but with the health care rating of a third world country...

Haha what.

 

The US is ranked 17th in the world in healthcare quality. While it's not optimal it's hardly majority-world status.

considering that it is the biggest spender in total and per capita, being 17th is quite very very very bad

 

 

edit: it's actually 37th

 

link to World Health Organisation list

 

(although I don't really trust this source 100%, the list might be outdated but there isn't one on the official who site)

Edited by Egghebrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare is good but not good enough. A single payer model - everyone is covered by health insurance and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers - would be a far better option. Regardless, this is a step in the right direction.

 

At first glance this would seem an excellent plan, but the diet and lack of exercise for most Americans would mean an excessively high tax rate for the average citizen.

Ha, you know what they say; socialism is the devil and getting decent college education or getting sick should financially cripple you for the rest of your life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the US, the biggest spender per capita in the world on health care but with the health care rating of a third world country...

Haha what.

 

The US is ranked 17th in the world in healthcare quality. While it's not optimal it's hardly majority-world status.

 

It gets better than that regionally. Places like Boston are ranked in the top 3 in terms of doctors, equipment and general care.

 

There will be debate on both sides considering the intent of the bill. There are some things that are important in here, that should stick regardless. No HI denial if you've had a previous illness, and HI companies being faithful to their end of the agreement if things do end up going to shizzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the US, the biggest spender per capita in the world on health care but with the health care rating of a third world country...

Haha what.

 

The US is ranked 17th in the world in healthcare quality. While it's not optimal it's hardly majority-world status.

 

It gets better than that regionally. Places like Boston are ranked in the top 3 in terms of doctors, equipment and general care.

 

There will be debate on both sides considering the intent of the bill. There are some things that are important in here, that should stick regardless. No HI denial if you've had a previous illness, and HI companies being faithful to their end of the agreement if things do end up going to shizzle.

 

Not to mention that healthcare rankings are mainly based on the availability and distribution to the general public not the quality of the care itself. US healthcare is the some of the best in the world. It's just damn expensive to obtain.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this public stuff would be necessary if they just fixed the private healthcare system.already. But of course that's unlikely to happen because, then, the insurance companies would have to actually *gasp* COMPETE for their customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upper class Canadians often come to the US for healthcare.

at the hospital close to where my parents live there are also always lots of (rich) foreigners

think it's mainly a thing of looking for the big specialists (which you have in the US) and the thing of "the grass always being better at the other side of the hill"

 

and in this it is of no consequence at all

it's not where they can offer the best service for one guy but where they offer the best service in general for the whole population

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the US, the biggest spender per capita in the world on health care but with the health care rating of a third world country...

Haha what.

 

The US is ranked 17th in the world in healthcare quality. While it's not optimal it's hardly majority-world status.

 

It gets better than that regionally. Places like Boston are ranked in the top 3 in terms of doctors, equipment and general care.

 

There will be debate on both sides considering the intent of the bill. There are some things that are important in here, that should stick regardless. No HI denial if you've had a previous illness, and HI companies being faithful to their end of the agreement if things do end up going to shizzle.

 

Not to mention that healthcare rankings are mainly based on the availability and distribution to the general public not the quality of the care itself. US healthcare is the some of the best in the world. It's just damn expensive to obtain.

Upper class Canadians often come to the US for healthcare.

I would imagine that is because you have very skilled specialists that will benefit these people, mostly because they have the economy to support it. If you look at healthcare as a whole for every citizen, I would imagine that the US fares worse than Canada (although I am hardly knowledgeable in this subject at all, to be fair).

 

I am not going to discuss much because this is way outside my comfort zone in terms of sharing knowledge to exchange opinions, but I must say this: I really do find it odd that the US is so strongly against such a healthcare system. I do realize there will be controversy no matter what, but does the US politicians truly not see the benefit in this for the nation? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that healthcare rankings are mainly based on the availability and distribution to the general public not the quality of the care itself. US healthcare is the some of the best in the world. It's just damn expensive to obtain.

Upper class Canadians often come to the US for healthcare.

I would imagine that is because you have very skilled specialists that will benefit these people, mostly because they have the economy to support it. If you look at healthcare as a whole for every citizen, I would imagine that the US fares worse than Canada (although I am hardly knowledgeable in this subject at all, to be fair).

 

I am not going to discuss much because this is way outside my comfort zone in terms of sharing knowledge to exchange opinions, but I must say this: I really do find it odd that the US is so strongly against such a healthcare system. I do realize there will be controversy no matter what, but does the US politicians truly not see the benefit in this for the nation? :unsure:

I had the opportunity to talk to one doctor about this while I was shadowing him on an overnight ER shift. He firmly believes socialized medicine prevents the development of highly skilled specialists, instead resulting in mass numbers of medicore doctors. He also claims that this is an inavoidable and determintal outcome of fully public healthcare- determintal to the point he actively lobbys against it. He's an accomplished invidiual so I'm inclined to believe him on grounds of experience.

 

that would only be the case if they would all be payed similarly really

which really ain't the case except in 'real' communist systems

 

we have big experts here too, in fact one of those really really really big ones saved my life last year because he finally noticed that my appendix was totally gone instead of just hard to see

 

the only difference is just the one who pays the bill, here that is one of the non profit insurance organizations instead of the patient himself

the bill remains pretty much the same (although there is a limit somewhere)

the most money for them is made from foreigners coming here for treatment from said specialist

 

it's just takes a small check to all those recent european breakthroughs in medicine to see that that argument frankly is simply fiddlesticks :/

 

I am not going to discuss much because this is way outside my comfort zone in terms of sharing knowledge to exchange opinions, but I must say this: I really do find it odd that the US is so strongly against such a healthcare system. I do realize there will be controversy no matter what, but does the US politicians truly not see the benefit in this for the nation? :unsure:

i don't get it either...

i really don't understand how they can not see this, I really can't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that healthcare rankings are mainly based on the availability and distribution to the general public not the quality of the care itself. US healthcare is the some of the best in the world. It's just damn expensive to obtain.

Upper class Canadians often come to the US for healthcare.

I would imagine that is because you have very skilled specialists that will benefit these people, mostly because they have the economy to support it. If you look at healthcare as a whole for every citizen, I would imagine that the US fares worse than Canada (although I am hardly knowledgeable in this subject at all, to be fair).

 

I am not going to discuss much because this is way outside my comfort zone in terms of sharing knowledge to exchange opinions, but I must say this: I really do find it odd that the US is so strongly against such a healthcare system. I do realize there will be controversy no matter what, but does the US politicians truly not see the benefit in this for the nation? :unsure:

I had the opportunity to talk to one doctor about this while I was shadowing him on an overnight ER shift. He firmly believes socialized medicine prevents the development of highly skilled specialists, instead resulting in mass numbers of medicore doctors. He also claims that this is an inavoidable and determintal outcome of fully public healthcare- determintal to the point he actively lobbys against it. He's an accomplished invidiual so I'm inclined to believe him on grounds of experience.

 

that would only be the case if they would all be payed similarly really

which really ain't the case except in 'real' communist systems

 

we have big experts here too, in fact one of those really really really big ones saved my life last year because he finally noticed that my appendix was totally gone instead of just hard to see

 

the only difference is just the one who pays the bill, here that is one of the non profit insurance organizations instead of the patient himself

the bill remains pretty much the same (although there is a limit somewhere)

the most money for them is made from foreigners coming here for treatment from said specialist

 

it's just takes a small check to all those recent european breakthroughs in medicine to see that that argument frankly is simply fiddlesticks :/

 

I am not going to discuss much because this is way outside my comfort zone in terms of sharing knowledge to exchange opinions, but I must say this: I really do find it odd that the US is so strongly against such a healthcare system. I do realize there will be controversy no matter what, but does the US politicians truly not see the benefit in this for the nation? :unsure:

i don't get it either...

i really don't understand how they can not see this, I really can't...

 

The main issue that remains unsolved even with UHC systems is rising healthcare costs. Especially for countries that have decent sized populations. UK, Germany, Japan, etc.

 

This is a problem that needs to be solved without a solution UHC will eventually become unsustainable.

 

I'm in support of UHC, but this is a valid concern for larger countries.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue that remains unsolved even with UHC systems is rising healthcare costs. Especially for countries that have decent sized populations. UK, Germany, Japan, etc.

 

This is a problem that needs to be solved without a solution UHC will eventually become unsustainable.

 

I'm in support of UHC, but this is a valid concern for larger countries.

 

absolutely, it was (and still is) a mayor issue in Belgium

 

one of the big breakthoughs here is the "kiwi model" (based on the principle used in new Zealand)

under that model the apothecary has to give you the the cheapest variant of your prescribe medicine, this usually is the generic equivalent

in practice this means that the doctor shoudl prescribe you the chemical compound instead of the brand name

 

this was met with a mot of dissaproval from the doctors because, as you all know, the pharmaceutical lobby is quite powerfull and pays doctors well with free courses and congresses in far away countries in order to prescribe their product.

 

note that the doctor can still prescribe a specific brand but it is monitored that they don't do this excessively, the reason for this is that even when the active part is the same one brand might contain certain compounds which might cause an allergic reaction in some etc while another doesn't

 

all in all a good step forward but only one of the many that are needed to keep it up, especially now with the strongly aging population and the huge costs that come with our long lifespans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority side in this instance made a very big mistake, if they wanted further legislation like PPACA in the future.

 

American legal precedent will not see the majority opinion, written by Justice Roberts, for what it approved, but rather what it did not approve. Namely, the individual mandate. Roberts spent several pages of the majority opinion lambasting the individual mandate as unconstitutional while lamenting his inability to make it unconstitutional because the penalty was assessed as a tax. Were the penalty to be assessed on January 1, the outcome of this case would have been very different.

 

Oddly enough, I think this works more in the favor of the Republicans in this regard. PPACA is not a popular piece of legislation, and Roberts urged the public to vote in lawmakers who would repeal PPACA. Furthermore, Obama's hands are tied now. He will not be able to pass similar legislation forcing Americans to do this or that—now that we know Kennedy's stance on the idea of forced commerce and given that Roberts will not have anymore patience for it, any future attempts to force people to buy some kind of health insurance or healthcare will likely get thrown out the window. The legal precedent now exists against it, all because Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority side in this instance made a very big mistake, if they wanted further legislation like PPACA in the future.

 

American legal precedent will not see the majority opinion, written by Justice Roberts, for what it approved, but rather what it did not approve. Namely, the individual mandate. Roberts spent several pages of the majority opinion lambasting the individual mandate as unconstitutional while lamenting his inability to make it unconstitutional because the penalty was assessed as a tax. Were the penalty to be assessed on January 1, the outcome of this case would have been very different.

 

Oddly enough, I think this works more in the favor of the Republicans in this regard. PPACA is not a popular piece of legislation, and Roberts urged the public to vote in lawmakers who would repeal PPACA. Furthermore, Obama's hands are tied now. He will not be able to pass similar legislation forcing Americans to do this or that—now that we know Kennedy's stance on the idea of forced commerce and given that Roberts will not have anymore patience for it, any future attempts to force people to buy some kind of health insurance or healthcare will likely get thrown out the window. The legal precedent now exists against it, all because Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

 

PPACA as a whole isn't popular legislation, but small parts of the law are extremely popular. These alone will be enough to keep support for the main law.

 

Removing unlimited coverage, wider medicaid eligibility, and extension of child coverage to 27 will be met with severe opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not where they can offer the best service for one guy but where they offer the best service in general for the whole population

My family isn't very remarkable in terms of income and the private medical service we have is far superior to anything we had while living in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.