Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: If the supreme court kills the health care bill... 79

Journal by damn_registrars
Would that mean that my health insurance company would no longer have an excuse to not offer the plan I was on last year? The greedy bastards used the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 as an excuse to stop offering a plan that cost me less from every angle than the one I have through them now.

However, for the court to force them to do so, after repealing the greatest corporate handout in the history of government, would be unprecedented. Even more so, it would be counter to the other great handouts that the SCOTUS has given to corporations in the past several years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If the supreme court kills the health care bill... More

If the supreme court kills the health care bill...

Comments Filter:

  • You were dumb enough to vote for Obama twice. You got what you deserved, and what you wanted. So there ya go. Live with it, and know that your belly aching makes you look like an idiot.

  • ...that the last thing the insurance companies want is to be deprived of all of those new customers they recently acquired.

    Look at it from their point of view. People have to buy their product, and if necessary the government will help them to pay for it before it lets them not buy it.

    • The bill - the largest corporate handout in the history of government - was the insurance industry collecting on their investment in the government. Notice that every "alternative" bill that has been proposed by a republican so far still has the insurance mandate in it, just worded differently to appear to be different from this one.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by unitron ( 5733 )

        They have to find a way to remove all the Obama cooties from it, in a way that lets them brag on themselves and vilify him, without actually getting anyone angry enough at them to get out and vote for someone else, and they have to keep their corporate masters happy at the same time.

        • The only Obama aspect of the bill is the timing. It was written by republicans, based on a bill that was passed by a republican governor years before. The GOP then walked away from it in the hopes of being able to prevent Obama from being able to sign a health care bill into law while president.

          All they have to do in order to remove the Obama aspects from it is write the same bill and pass it under a different president. They clearly realize that, considering every "alternative" bill proposed so far ha

          • Indeed either way congress will pay their masters.

            Indeed you will reelect them over and over. Who's your master (daddy)?

            • Oh don't give us this self-righteous shit when you don't even bother to participate in elections. The last election you're willing to tell us you participated in, you claim to have voted for Nader. By your own logic, your vote for Nader was a vote in support of the Iraq War that GWB started as president. Can you defend that massive clusterfuck?

    • He just likes to complain. He voted for the people who passed and signed the bill, twice. It is the standard operating procedure of the average voter to point the blame away from themselves. Denial is their middle name.

      • Hey at least he participated, instead of standing on the sidelines jerking himself off and thinking that makes him clever.

        • And you think I don't participate? Shame on you! Oh, wait, so sorry, I forgot, in some peoples' books 'participating' means just playing along in the deluded, dimwitted lesser evil gag and never accepting personal responsibility for my vote. Well, I guess you're right then. But then,I have a slightly different view of what participation means. A tiny part is making sure my words match my actions, but that's totally irrelevant with what I am dealing with here in the blame game, in fact, it's points against m

          • Nader

            Hahahahahahahahahaha
          • You are trying to suggest that you may have voted in one presidential election in the past couple decades. That is not exactly participation, especially when the one election you claim to have participated in was that long ago. As the Captain said, you are sitting on the sideline jerking off and bragging about your ideas being superior just because it brings attention to you.

            • Yes, swallow all of it. That's what you are good at. You are still a conservative prohibitionist. And your 'participation' is what put us where we are today. So go be a good little doggy. Your master calls..

    • The problem with all that is that the long term game is that the insurance companies get replaced by some single payer system.

      So yeah, you might get some short term profits... and then the government comes in an annihilates you.

      Part of the point is to inflate prices by making it impossible for the insurance companies to control costs by doing anything besides raising prices on everyone.

      Prior to this they could control prices by saying the would and would not cover certain things. They really have no control

      • The problem with all that is that the long term game is that the insurance companies get replaced by some single payer system.

        A lot of people try to make that argument, but none can support it. There is absolutely no way in hell that a single payer system would pass at the federal level in the next decade, and that is being optimistic. The insurance industry is just too powerful; we currently have a POTUS who campaigned in support of single payer, and we ended up with a bill about as far from that as you can get. We had a slim chance back in 2009/2010 to try to make it happen but the insurance industry flexed their muscle and

        • https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          If "no one" has been able to answer those questions then it is because you haven't been listening.

          If you stand your ground here, I will happily eat you alive screaming.

          • You posted a link to a conspiracy theory based on what one disconnected individual said that was taken and spun by your fellow conservatives. Tell me, what elected offices has Gruber ever hold? What gives him the ability to make any of that happen? Just because you have been led to believe that he wants to see the for-profit insurance system collapse doesn't mean he has any way to make it happen.

            The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - what you call "Obamacare", which in reality is the lar

            • So CNN is pushing a conspiracy theory?

              Which organization do you trust so I can use a link from that source.

              Give me a quick list... three or four sources you trust right now. Otherwise your complaint is going to be registered as someone just rejecting reality when their cognitive dissonance flares up.

              • The political garbage on youtube is just that ... political garbage. I'm surprised you didn't link to a ron paul video, as that is the political garbage that slashdot users link to most often.

                But go ahead. Keep moving the goalposts and telling yourself that strategy will make you a winner. We've seen that work so very, very, well in the past couple decades.

                The fact remains regardless that you are pushing a conspiracy that is rooted neither in present reality nor in a person who could bring about

                • It was an uncut clip from CNN.

                  You failed to offer a source you'd accept. So that means you're going to reject anything from any source that contradicts your position.

                  this means citing information is pointless with you.

                  So your complaint about a source is negated.

                  Do you have a comment on the issue that is not about a source? Any further comment you make about sources will be ignored as further irrationality.

                  You can either try to make a point or you can make stupid insults and like the troll you can't help but

                  • You failed to offer a source you'd accept.

                    No, I refuse to play along with your game of Move the Goalposts. Just because it is a favorite pastime of your political party doesn't mean I care for it.

                    You have not attempted to cite any sources beyond a crappy youtube video. Give me a print transcript from a decent source and I'll consider reading it. Conspiracy videos aren't worth my time, I can read faster than they can talk.

                    Do you have a comment on the issue that is not about a source?

                    I gave you many comments in my first reply to your first comment here [slashdot.org]. Rather unsurprisingly you did not respond to any o

                    • I didn't move goal posts. I made it impossible for you to move them.

                      By requiring that you state a source you'll accept, I am making it impossible for you to reject information.

                      If I had played YOUR game of simply continuing to cite things without asking which source you'd accept, you'd just reject everything.

                      what I did by asking YOU to tell me a source you'd accept is I nailed you down so you couldn't play stupid games.

                      It was very easy for you to pass the test. All you had to do was cite a source you'd accep

                    • There are few people I have met so far who have been so proud of their illiteracy. Why slashdot attracts them at such a magnitude I'm not sure.

                    • Your lack of substantiation for your claims undermines the legitimacy of your insults.

                    • There was no insult there, just an observation that you are proud to not read material here on slashdot. You have supported that observation repeatedly.

                      Would you like to actually talk about the health care bill now, or would you rather just keep insulting me? The choice is yours.

                    • Without substantiation the comment has no value.

                      You keep trying to do this... To insert "givens" into a discussion. As if you can say "X=22" and then base a whole position on that premise. You can't do that without exposing your initial premise to examination.

                    • Without substantiation the comment has no value.

                      I can't solve that problem for you. I have substantiated my claims many times before; you brought yourself into the discussion very recently and promptly put your ignorance on display for us to see. Maybe you should try using a search tool to look this stuff up or something? Besides you don't seem inclined to click links I provide so what hope would there be in my providing sources to you?

                      You keep trying to do this... To insert "givens" into a discussion.

                      That is just as strange of an assumption as the rest of the ones your entire argument has been so far based on. I

                    • Cite your substantiation if it exists. Easy to do if you just did it. Just go to the previous post and quote yourself.

                      If you don't, then you didn't... and you just lied about it.

                    • Again, you brag about your intentional illiteracy. You aren't making a case for yourself when you do that.

                      Furthermore the way that you repeatedly don't read what I write demonstrates that there is no reason for me to provide any additional sources for you, as you won't read them. Every thing you have tried to claim so far has been complete bullshit; nothing you have done has come even vaguely close to correcting for that.

                    • So you did make that up and lie about it.

                      As I thought.

                      Are you done debasing yourself or do you have further to fall?

                    • So you did make that up and lie about it.

                      Make what up?

                      I don't think we're even in the same conversation any more. I started a discussion here about what a giant corporate give-away the health care bill of 2010 is. I went on to ponder whether or not the insurance companies, if they were "relieved" of said bill, would stick to their words on plans that they canceled in its wake and make them available (as there would be no reason for them not to offer popular plans again).

                      You then came along on Sunday and spewed every absurd lie you could re [slashdot.org]

                    • As yes, you're the Gruber denier.

                      Gruber exists. Get over it.

                    • Here is what actually happened, as anyone who bothers to read this discussion can see. Your opinion differs because you disapprove of reality and expect to be able to change it by that fact alone, but the fact remains that this is what happened:

                    • Denying Gruber exists while saying other people have a problem with reality is a little like denying the Sun exists and then saying anyone that contradicts you has a problem with reality.

                      Gruber exists. You can either accept that or be treated like a fruitcake.

                      Your choice.

                    • Again you are trying to insert your wishes into my statements because you can't handle discussing actual facts. I never said your guy was fictitious; I merely pointed out the fact that he is in no way currently, previously, or in any foreseeable future empowered to bring about the health care changes that you claim he is rubbing his hands in preparation for. Try discussing facts for a change and you might get somewhere; discussing paranoia doesn't help your cause - especially when it requires you to fully

                    • The fact is that Gruber exists... and you personally can't handle it. And until you can, you don't get claim you have facts on your side.

                      End of discussion.

                    • He has no power to bring about the changes that you swear so incessantly that he is about to bring about. Just because he's your favorite boogey man doesn't mean he is the dark lord of the sith.

                      Really, try presenting an argument based on fact some time instead of one just based on conspiracy.

                    • I never said Gruber personally had the power to do anything.

                      I said he inadvertently blew the whistle on your bullshit.

                      You have this guy personally being involved in the planning of the system. Nancy Pelosi personally said he was a big help in setting it up. And then when those videos of Gruber outting the whole thing went viral, Pelosi said she had no idea who he was.

                      Liar liar pants on fire.

          • Single payer covers more people for less money. Heck, the latest study recommends that Canadians will save around $8 billion a year from savings realized by better leverage negotiating drug prices and keeping people who now can't afford to take their med out of the hospital ERs.
            • Shhhh... I'm familiar with this kind of critter. If you counter them with too much reality, they might run away.

              • Says the guy denying Gruber exists. Where do you get off, cupcake?

                You're like some foaming at the mouth loony that thinks 1+1=4 and you presume to say that anyone that contradicts you doesn't understand basic mathematics.

                Well... maybe we don't live in your world. Maybe this slashdot post is tunnel into a parallel universe where you're not a fruitcake.

                or maybe you're a fruitcake.

                it is one of the two.

                I actually hope it is a trans-dimensional tunnel... that would be neato.

                • Hmm. You came into the JE discussion with a post full of lies. You then brought up a conspiracy theory that has no connection to reality. Now you are slinging insults rapid-fire and trying to claim that I'm off base here?

                  If you don't have anything to add to this discussion - and you certainly haven't yet - you could just go back to your echo chamber and talk to the rest of the slashdot conservatives that overrun the rest of this site. They'd love to talk conspiracy with you and don't require facts t

                  • Does Gruber exist or not?

                    Yes or no?

                    • What is that question supposed to mean? I never said your boogey man didn't exist as a living, breathing, human being. I have pointed out numerous times that he does not have currently, never had previously, and by no reasonable projection ever will in the future, the power to bring about the changes that you swear he is going to make.

                      In other words your conspiracy is pure fantasy with no connection to reality. You tried to use it to back up a whole pack of lies as well, which doesn't add credibility

                    • Yes you did. He doesn't exist according to you and you won't admit his relevance.

                      And until you do and deal with the rather obvious things he says... you're just a little crazy.

                      Here's thing, sport... nothing Gruber said was actually that much of a surprise. It was really sort of obvious.

                      I know you guys think your opposition is stupid, but we're not.

                      What was amazing about Gruber was that he was so brazen about it. He just laid the whole thing out beautifully.

                      Your position largely relies on denying the obvious

                    • But I'm neither stupid nor lazy.

                      You almost had a chance at making that argument with your first comment here. I asked you to give some factual basis for the claims you laid out, but you instead walked away from them and reached for a cheap conspiracy that you cannot back up with facts either. Furthermore you now are routinely slinging insults at me without reading what I write.

                      I could point out again here that no matter what, your side wins the health care issue as we won't get single payer any time in the next several decades - at

                    • In regards to facts, I actually challenged YOU to tell me a source you'd accept.

                      See, I'm not going to bother showing you facts if you're just going to arbitarily reject them.

                      You tell me a source you'll accept for facts and then I'll deliver them. And you'll lose.

                      You know that. You know there is no source you can cite that will either not make you sound absurd because you'll say something like "whitehouse.gov" or if you open it up to the media then you know I'll find a link that will contradict you.

                      So you're

                    • you're denying Gruber exists

                      Your insistence on repeating this lie endlessly shows how desperate you have become. This is reinforced by your repeated use of conspiracies, bullshit, and utter lies in place of anything resembling facts. But go on, keep calling me names and lying about me. It hasn't helped your cause so far but repetition must be the key here, right?

            • That's fine. Then propose your medical reform as single payer. Don't lie about your intentions.

              When you do that, you're a liar... and then subsequent statements are taken with increasingly less trust. You lie once... we assume you'll lie again.

              I understand your position on single payer and that is fine. You have that position but your position is not justification for forcing me to join your position and it is not justification for you try and trick people into your position by lying about it.

              I'm sorry... b

              • First of all, there is no path from the 2010 health care bill to single payer. You keep pretending that one exists, but it does not. You need to join reality and talk about what the bill actually does, rather than what you fear it does.

                Second, Barbara is Canadian.

                • From what I can see, the Affordable Care Act guarantees insurance companies a larger client pool, without removing the problems of what is and what isn't covered - it depends on what plan you buy, which is limited by how much you can afford to spend.

                  The enrollment dates period doesn't make sense. People have to make their decisions with the Christmas holidays coming up.

                  Half of the states [kff.org] have banned insurers from offering any form of insurance that included abortion, and no plan anywhere is allowed to c

                • Gruber disagrees.

              • We've had single-payer up here in Kanuckistan for decades (49 years) and the sky hasn't fallen in. In fact, we spend less per capita to cover everyone than the US spends to cover only a portion of the population, and people live longer.

                My province enacted universal pharmacare as well almost 20 years ago. Again, the sky didn't fall - to the contrary, people were more likely to finish the full course of a drug rather than "save some for later just in case" or skipping it because it costs too much.

                It's not p

                • I never said the sky would fall in. I said they lied about the program they sold to the American people.

                  That's all.

                  End of discussion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Close