Healthcare Reform Down In Flames?

[septimus]

@flickster

SS is certainly optional for the self-employed.

:smack:

I live overseas; all my earned income is from self-employment and excludable under Form 2555, and I still have to pay the SS self-emplyment tax on this foreign earned income!

(Or so, IRS informs me. Have they been cheating me? :D)

[DMC]

@Mr_Smashy

Read my post again. Happy with their healthcare.

I already took your “happy” claim and beat it up three ways to Sunday, including a link directly to the source material, and you are still spouting it? If I find a link by Limbaugh telling you that “happy” isn’t the correct adjective, would you be more likely to believe it than the source itself, and perhaps stop using it?

[Grumman]

@Damuri_Ajashi

How the hell is that possible? 15% of the public didn’t even have insurance. Are you saying that everyone with insurance was happy with their health care before Obamacare was passed? Do you have a cite?

Maybe they were happy because they didn’t have insurance. If the health insurance industry’s business plan involves ripping you off to subsidise other people, wouldn’t you be glad if the status quo means you aren’t forced to buy their overpriced service?

[Mr_Smashy]

@Grumman

Maybe they were happy because they didn’t have insurance. If the health insurance industry’s business plan involves ripping you off to subsidise other people, wouldn’t you be glad if the status quo means you aren’t forced to buy their overpriced service?

Damuri, check post 53 to see the Washington Post’s numbers, and the WaPo is hardly a conservative mouthpiece. They’re not as bad as the NYT, but the lean pretty far left.

And OK maybe ‘happy’ isn’t the right word, Run DMC. We’ll go with ‘satisfied enough that they don’t want the feds fucking around with a system that serves them pretty well, all things considered’.

I’ll leave it to GIGO to make that into one word.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr_Smashy

That’s not to say that they weren’t looking for reform. Just not the wholesale, baby-out-with-the-bathwater stuff that we got (again, from the eyes of the centrist American, which I understand is not the audience of this board).

“Baby with the bathwater”? Not sure about the centrist American, but your bias is so clear your posts almost read like a parody.

[RitterSport]

@Mr_Smashy

I’m just telling you what a conservative would think.

And I’d love to see some proof of your second statement, since it’s accepted as doctrine among so many on this board.

Well, this post was provided to you to show that 51% wanted a public option. Is that sufficient?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13240435&postcount=43

RS

[UltraVires]

@Simplicio

Kinda silly. We could just go ask Justice Kennedy now whether its constitutional or not and basically resolve the whole issue by next afternoon. Instead the things going to wind its way through the courts in 21 states taking multiple years, I can only imagine how many multiple millions of dollars, thousands of manhours in lawyer and judge time, finally make it to the SCOTUS, at which point the liberal justices will vote for the bills constitutionality, the four conservatives will vote against, and Justice Kennedy will decide the issue anyways.

Its gotta be some sort of record for inefficiency. Its like a Rube Goldberg machine for getting an old mans opinion.

Agreed. And before we leave, let’s ask him about SSM and DADT. Kill three birds with one stone.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Is there a legal challenge to DADT?

[MsWhatsit]

Polls that ask people how satisfied they are with their health care and insurance are useless, IMO. If you haven’t had a major medical problem, then you are likely to be pleased or at least neutral about your health care and insurance company. Oh, you might have a glitch here and there where the insurance company doesn’t pay what it’s supposed to and you have to call and work it out, but no big deal. It’s not until your kid’s in the hospital and you have a $80,000 bill which your insurance stiffs you with $8,000 of (when your yearly maximum was supposed to be $1500) that you realize, hey, this insurance company actually really sucks.

This was my personal experience, by the way. I would have said that I was quite pleased with my insurance company, until suddenly we were driven almost into bankruptcy by a bill that my insurance company should have been responsible for.

The polls are useless.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Is there a legal challenge to DADT?

Really? There have already been 2 rulings that it is unconstitutional.

[Kearsen]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I think the country would have been fine with single payer universal health care if Obama got the economy buzzing along. I think a lot of people were wondinering why Obama was fucking around with health care when unemployment was at 10%

Yep.

[Kearsen]

@MilTan

To this point, even this judge, who found the mandate unconstitutional, declined to overturn the rest of the law.

This has been asked a couple times but it needs asking again, without the mandate how does this thing get funded?

[Mr_Smashy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

“Baby with the bathwater”? Not sure about the centrist American, but your bias is so clear your posts almost read like a parody.

Hell, I’m the only centrist on this board.

[GIGObuster]

@Mr_Smashy

Hell, I’m the only centrist on this board.

As many conservatives and moderates in the SDMB can tell you I roast extremists from the right and the left, and after several years I can tell you that overall you are not really a centrist.

[Pierrot_Le_Fou]

I started another thread on whether there is an enforceable mandate regardless of this decision.

No Individual Health Care Mandate (regardless of court decisions) - Do you...

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Frank

In Michigan and in, of all places, Virginia, there have already been two decisions upholding the law. This makes it, to the best of my knowledge, 2-1 for. Odd that those decisions are not mentioned by the liberal media.

These decisions have been mentioned by the liberal media. They were mentioned at the time, and they get mentioned in the articles about the current decision.

But even the liberal media is in the business of reporting news. And this current decision will have a much bigger impact than either of the other decisions. Therefore it’s bigger news and gets more coverage.

[GIGObuster]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

These decisions have been mentioned by the liberal media. They were mentioned at the time, and they get mentioned in the articles about the current decision.

But even the liberal media is in the business of reporting news. And this current decision will have a much bigger impact than either of the other decisions. Therefore it’s bigger news and gets more coverage.

And that has been my point for several decades, even if one does call it a “liberal media” they do know who is paying the bills, so regardless of their ideological make up the mainstream does not give preference to news that go against the corporate grain.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@GIGObuster

And that has been my point for several decades, even if one does call it a “liberal media” they do know who is paying the bills, so regardless of their ideological make up the mainstream does not give preference to news that go against the corporate grain.

That’s not the same point. (Or true.)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@John_Mace

Really? There have already been 2 rulings that it is unconstitutional.

Yes, but neither is likely to make it to SCOTUS. Should have clarified.

@Kearsen

This has been asked a couple times but it needs asking again, without the mandate how does this thing get funded?

I disagree with his reasoning, but that’s not really the judge’s problem.

In any event, the individual mandate has little effect on funding; it’s there to increase the risk pool by ensuring that healthy, low-risk people also have to purchase insurance (thus reducing the cost for everyone else).

[Kearsen]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes, but neither is likely to make it to SCOTUS. Should have clarified.

I disagree with his reasoning, but that’s not really the judge’s problem.

In any event, the individual mandate has little effect on funding; it’s there to increase the risk pool by ensuring that healthy, low-risk people also have to purchase insurance (thus reducing the cost for everyone else).

Well yeah, but with that loss of revenue for the insurance company, do you feel they are just going to sit back and take it?

Insurance across the board is going to go up. How does Obama rationalize that?