Obama Care Shattered, near end of Great Recession!

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Okay, for everyone who has been suffering, unable to find more than part time work during the Obama-Pelosi Great Depression, some good news, the hounds of hell have been restrained.
foxnews.com/politics/2014/07 … to-health/

This is going to open up alot of employment opportunities. Consider it a People Who Vote Unconstitutionally Tax, akin to Peter’s Bad Employer Tax. His state is fucking doomed financially… not like it wasn’t before then, but now…

The sooner this fucking hunk of a despotic leviathan collapses, the quicker Americans can get back up on their feet again. I keep thinking of the bombardment scene in Amistad, when they were destroying the slave forts in Africa.

This is only the uprising on the ship, against our blood sucking slave masters. Fuck you. Fuck all of you, now we are free. That’s the power of the constitution.

2

It still has to go through appeals. Look at the controlling party in that court. Lets not count chickens til they are hatched and healthy. :slight_smile: :wink:

3

You know, even with insurance, with all the doctors just billing and not treating people, it wasn’t affordable anyway.

Imagine paying 3k in premiums, then getting sick twice in a year and it costing you another 2k in copays and shit? When you and I both know you can take a 200 dollar cruise to mexico and come back with a stack of antibiotics and pain killers for under a few hundred. I get 3 albuterol inhalers in mexico for 45 bucks. That’s the copay for 1 here after my insurance pays the rest. The problem with healthcare? The profit motive taken to an extreme. Hydrocodone and antibiotics cost nearly nothing once you strip away all the extra money that these guys think they’re supposed to make off the sick.

4

If you want a new law or to establish authority over something, you have to “create a market” for your new authority. You have to insidiously cause people to need your service, your law. During that time, whatever currently exists has to be made bad or at least made to appear bad (higher prices, bad service, whatever).

Going to a doctor used to be something that a person could trust. But that was before the new authority was being established (total authoritarian rule). Why establish a new law, a new order of things, if the old one is still working? They have to MAKE the old one fail and at least look really bad before they can expect you to favor their new dominance.

If they want socialized medicine, they have to make private medicine not work (raise insurance on doctors, new red tape, new diseases, expensive drugs, expensive equipment, new hospital regulations, poor education of doctors, new regulation of treatments,…).

It is what the Christians called “the Devil”.

5

i like how the best they could do is try to argue that only people obtaining insurance through state run exchanges are eligible for subsidies, according to the language of the law that they are contesting (in yet another not so subtle Right Wing partisan political offensive against the President). The ruling seriously has nothing - absolutely NOTHING - to do with the legality or Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act as, for instance, the OP and every other Republican spin doctor would have us believe.

6

For those of you against obamacare, I just can’t tell if you are psychopaths or sociopaths.
One of the great burdens of living in the modern age is the outrageous cost of medical care
and financially how many people have been destroyed by one illness. Last year, I spent a total of
one month in a hospital (over a 4 month period) and had three surgeries and my total hospital bill
was well over 300,000 dollars. If we did not have insurance, we would have been bankrupt and completely
destroyed. None of you seem to care about the millions of people who face this situation every year.
Once again, I point out a civilization is judged by how good care its citizens get.
A civilization that doesn’t care about its citizens, doesn’t want its citizens to prosper,
doesn’t want its citizens to live, that civilization deserves to collapse. Why is the failure of
its citizens so needed, so necessary and so important to those in the right. Why do you cheer
when your fellow citizens are unable to feed themselves, unable to clothe themselves, unable to
financially survive in this modern world? WHY does it make you feel so good? And thus I freely ask
if you are psychopaths or sociopaths? The burdens of our fellow citizens are our burdens whither
you believe that or not. Am I my brother’s keeper? yes, because we travel this path together, whether
you believe it or not. You, who cheer when your fellow man suffers, this mean you are either a psychopath
or a sociopath? You are so self involved/lacking empathy that you can’t even see the importance of
your fellow citizens, of how your fellow citizens are the ones keeping you alive. You believe you are a world
unto yourself, free from all ties to your fellow man and yet you fool yourself because you only exist because
of your fellow man. You exist in a thousand different ways with your fellow man, because the roads you travel
on are cared for by your fellow man. The doctor who treats you was trained by hundreds of different people,
your schooling was done by hundreds of your fellow man who were trained by hundreds of others and those
trained by hundreds of others. the grocery store you shop at is tended by hundreds of people who are supported
by hundreds of more people. We do not exist in isolation. You are fooling yourself if you truly believe, I created myself.
You had hundreds if not thousands of people who made it possible for you to survive to this day. This internet, the communication
grid we function with, is staffed by thousands if not millions of people. You would not survive one week without
the constant 24/7/365 days of the year help of literally millions of people.

so you cheer the distress of your fellow man at your peril because if they go away, you go away. simple as that.
You need them, your fellow man and you need them to succeed because if they fail to succeed, you don’t succeed.

And if you cheer their failure, you are either psychopath or a sociopath.

Kropotkin

7

Democratic Far Left = “Democratic Socialism to unite the World”.
Republican Far Right = “Republican Socialism to unite the World”.
Libertarian = “Constitutionalism to protect from a World of Socialism”.

Yeah, but we can tell which one you are. :confused:

Created so as to establish a need for World Socialistic tyranny. Thank you, Godwannabes.

Because some of us care about what comes next. It is called “forethought” and knowing your adversary, tyranny.

For his sake, I hope not.

Yeah, capitalists, all.

Yeah…
… I need for them to not be slaves to a monarchy.

And what are you by cheering their enslavement to sociopaths?

8

The fact that it must be one or the other to you, is why you are so bad at this.

9

I must admit I am not surprised at the basic failure of people around here to understand
what it means to be a human being. You think as if you exist on a deserted island existing only
by yourself, only for yourself. The truth is we exist together, like it or not for us to succeed,
we need those around us to succeed. It is like a baseball team, where if the center fielder fails,
we playing second base fail and the team fails. Every team needs all 25 players working together and
succeeding for a team to succeed. Its as simple as that. Now some of you seem to focused on
the government being some sort of tyranny and yet you miss the basic fact, that corporations
are the real source of tyranny today. Our government is being bought and sold by multinational
corporations. You fear tyranny so much and yet you run to these corporations like the Saviour has
come back. All of your fears of a governmental tyranny exist in these corporations, indeed they are a
greater danger because they are multinational and exist across many lands. You cannot back your bag
and travel to another country to escape this tyranny because it exists wherever you go. Ford for example,
exists in a hundred countries as does Microsoft and exxon. Why doesn’t this tyranny scare you as much
as governmental tyranny is beyond me because governmental tyranny can be fought but how do you fight
corporate tyranny when it exists in a hundred countries? I admit it scares me a little that none of you can even
SEE the corporate tyranny but somehow you see tyranny in government that doesn’t even exist. I would rather
face governmental tyranny 100 times out of 100 instead of corporate tyranny because there is no escape from
corporate tyranny. We have entered a new age and you are still fighting the battles of the last age.
Watching the young kids at work and my daughter who is 29, I must say, adaptation is not really your strong
suit. learning to adapt to new conditions is a key trait to survival and few of you have it.
Unlike you, I do not intend to stick my head in the sand and muttering platitudes about governmental tyranny
when the real fear, the real danger is corporate tyranny. Recall I am a anarchist of 30 years and even I think
that governmental tyranny is less of a danger then corporate tyranny. You are fighting the wrong battle
and by the time you realize it, it may be too late.

Kropotkin

10

You are showing your inability to clearly recognize your enemy and that the corporations and the government are the same entity.

Repeat that in front of a mirror until you recognize who you are talking to.

11

PK,

There is nothing wrong in helping those who actually need help. That is the first and foremost duty of the government.
But, there are more practical and less complicated ways of doing it. And, Obamacare is certainly not one of those.

The govenment need not to insure people from any decease by provinding them insurance. That creates middlemen in the form of insurance companies, who will took away the the most of the subsidy that is intended for needy persons.

There is no need to waste subsidy in insurance. The ultimate aim is to provide good and affordable treatment to citizens, not merely insurance. Why rely on insurance companies and give them huge business and profit too? Why should the government not spend that money directly to improve the free medical facilities?

[b]The less complicated and more effective way to help needy deceased persons is to raise the numbers and facilities in the govenment hospitals. Though, the ideal situation will be to eliminate private medical profession completely.

Three sectors, education, healthcare and legal advocacy, must be nationalized and free, open and the same to all, irrespective of their status. There is no need of private schools and private hospitals. The govenment should provide these two necessary facilities to all citizens, no matter how much money it requires[/b].
And, there is no need of private lawers either. The judge should find the truth on his own on the basis of the reports of investigating (not prosecuting) agency.

But, Obamacare is not the proper way to do it. It serves corporate sector more than actual needy persons.

A street sweeper should get the same medical treatment what Obama himself will get. And, sweeper’s children should study in the same school where Obama’s children use to study.
But, no political party, whether republicans or democrates, will ever propose or do that.

Education, medical and legal advocacy sector should not be allowed to run as private profit making businesses.

with love,
sanjay

12

The more a government steps in to lives. The more humans are made into sheep. No one forces a person to work a wal mart or any other place. If you can’t live on the pay get another job or figure something else out. We need minimum wage but, for crying out loud what the hell happened to working, thinking, and trying hard. When the govt steps in to support you, you become dependent on the govt. A tool for the government. Screw that. My ancestors would roll over in their graves.

13

Not to argue for or against your post Sanjay, but you might wanna look up the meaning of deceased, and study the actual meaning of what you just wrote.

My state Had/Has the free clinic movement Patch Adams (google the movie) started. It would be psychotic of me to support Obamacare, while rejecting a deeply impoverished state from economic opportunities… real ones that come from a self sufficient economy, not this government stranglehold on every industry here.

Do you know how many homeless I see pass through this nexus hub per week? How many families destroyed and homes lost, how many people are just barely surviving.

Have you ever visited any of the Obamavilles? These kinds of recessions don’t happen in capitalistic societies, only half assed ran Keynesian socialist states. How many more suicides of lost and destroyed men? How many have face splattered all so you can feel good about yourself.

What kind of anarchist backs the largest government expansion in his countries history? Your supporting the most extreme, backwards and inefficient debter in the history of the world. Get a hold of yourself… Anarchist.

14

Kropotkin, I’d suggest you check your premises. Hint: they’re flawed.

It is vitally important to keep in mind the distinction between healthcare and health insurance. Mandating that everybody must have health insurance does absolutely nothing to control the cost of providing health care. At best, it shifts the total costs. At worst, it both shifts and increases total costs. Those costs will be borne by somebody; there is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, a lot of people just think that “the rich” should pay for everybody’s health care, or that those greedy pharmaceutical companies should just make everything affordable and forget the whole profit motive. Those people don’t understand basic economics.

Taking the US as an example, do you have any idea how expensive and time-consuming it is to get a drug/therapy/device approved by the FDA? Do you have any idea of what percentage of those drugs/therapies/devices actually get approval?

No, of course you don’t. Easier to just ignore economic reality and bleat about feel-good, economically ignorant crap.

15

Of course it does. Mandating that everybody must have health insurance makes the cost of providing healthcare go up, thus allowing you to argue for a single payer solution. That IS the point of Obamacare, after all.

16

The better thing to do, is to have all people in the world have the basic things of life - at least.

If more privatisation [esp of healthcare] can achieve that [which it hasn’t yet] then good luck to the capitalists.

socialism =
the cost of care equals only that.
Everyone has the same rights to care. Everything in life is situational, so you cannot justify some people getting better health care upon the basis of wealth.

Capitalist [‘right wing’] = the cost of care plus the cost of profits. People who pay for better care, get better care. Resources are directed towards and from them downwards.

Neither will matter when universal care at all levels is fully automated, and the ‘machine’ can produce enough for everyone.

When it comes down to it, humanity has the ability to look after itself well, no?

17

Kris,

I never support extreme positons as they generally lead into problems. That is why i am neither conservative nor liberal. I would support either that suits the circumstances.

Neither conservaism nor liberalism is the ultimate aim but only the betterment of the people. Those are merely means not the actual goal. Blind supporters of both consider their idelogies as actual goal and needlessly argue for that but tend to miss the actual issue.

Like, i do not support the concept of minimum wages or even any kind of unemployment allowence. They do not serve much.

But, free education, medical and legal facility is the must ingredient for the survival of real capitilism.

Education shapes the capacity, knowledge and future of the next generation and society too. Thus, it is necessary to make sure that children should not suffer/privileged for the imcompetence/competence of their parents.

with love,
sanjay

18

CN,

I think that you should read my reply to Kris, before forming an opinion about me.
Secondly, i am neither anarchist nor the supporter of Nietzsche.
Thirdly, if you live in captilism, you must be prepare of recessions. There is no escape as development and recession are just the two side of the same coin.

Recession is necessary as it is nothing but the filter that helps in discerning and removing anamolies that tends to tiptoe duing the good phase of economy.

with love,
sanjay

19

Yes.

I am surprised why people confuse healthcare with heath insurance!

And, i do not have any doubt in my mind that the day the government would nationalize the medical profession, the number of deceases would be decreased almost by half by the next morning, for the simple reason that pharma companies also manufacture deceases beseides medicines.

with love,
sanjay

20

Sanjay, noooooo… the only part of that hugh block you just quoted, only my recommendation you look up the definition of deceased applied to you, rest other people. You clearly didn’t do it. Only medication the deceased need is formaldehyde.

Deceased = Dead. We ain’t spending shit on the dead, be it insurance or single payer. Insurance companies that cater to the dead will require cash up front, in advance before acceptance of whatever silly policy they could get. Injuries arising from rigor mortis and decomposition, water and insect damage is not included.

Though I wouldn’t be surprised one damn bit if Obama changes that in a effort to take the food away from the last homeless person still independent in America. New twist on death taxes.