NewYork版 - 赞Justice Roberts抛弃政治派别，作出正确的决定 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
r*******t
发帖数: 8550 | 1 能抛弃政治派别，作出正确的决定，挽救最高法院的声望。因为最高法院在过去几年里
，也成了两党政治斗争的工具，是否能*独立*作决定受到公众的质疑。
Justice Roberts 2005年被小布什提名时，Obama是反对这项提名的。这次Justice
Roberts能摆脱两党政治斗争，独立作出与其政治身份相反，但是符合宪法的决定，实
在令公众刮目相看。
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-ju
Justice Roberts explained his vision of the Supreme Court during his 2005
confirmation hearings.
"Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them,"
said Roberts at the time. "The role of an umpire and a judge is critical.
They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role.
Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire." | r*******t
发帖数: 8550 | 2 According to a 16-page financial disclosure form Roberts submitted to the
Senate Judiciary Committee prior to his Supreme Court confirmation hearings,
his net worth was more than $6 million, including $1.6 million in stock
holdings.
At the time Roberts left private practice to join the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in 2003, he took a pay cut from $1 million a year to $171,800; as
Chief Justice his salary is $217,400. | m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 3 judges are politicians in priest's robe. | r*******t
发帖数: 8550 | 4 看起来律师挣钱不多，能够成为最高法院大法官的人，在私人机构也就挣$1 million
不过，像Roberts这样能辞去1 million年薪，来做$171,800政府工的人，确实需要有服
务大众的心愿才会这样做。 | m*****5
发帖数: 23482 | 5 穷人才天天想着富人一天可以吃几个窝窝头
人如果钱不是问题的话，就会追求社会影响力了 | a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 6 那是美国最高法院的最高法官，律师的最高境界，可以说是当律师的都想做。就算总统
提名，还要国会投票才能通过。还有，那是终身制，不受任何党派游说影响。
三权分立，一个克制一个。。不是一个人或一小部分人说了就执行。
如果这样说，那前高盛的CEO 辞掉去当 treasury secretary 岂不是有更大的服务大众
心愿。。
【在 r*******t 的大作中提到】
: 看起来律师挣钱不多，能够成为最高法院大法官的人，在私人机构也就挣$1 million
: 不过，像Roberts这样能辞去1 million年薪，来做$171,800政府工的人，确实需要有服
: 务大众的心愿才会这样做。
| r*******t
发帖数: 8550 | 7 是呀。不过这家伙暗地里有没有提供消息拿巨额金钱，就不好说了
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 那是美国最高法院的最高法官，律师的最高境界，可以说是当律师的都想做。就算总统
: 提名，还要国会投票才能通过。还有，那是终身制，不受任何党派游说影响。
: 三权分立，一个克制一个。。不是一个人或一小部分人说了就执行。
: 如果这样说，那前高盛的CEO 辞掉去当 treasury secretary 岂不是有更大的服务大众
: 心愿。。
| c***a
发帖数: 942 | 8 但是roberts让企业无限制的政治捐款非常让我耿耿于怀。supreme court还是偏右从
arizona移民法一类的投票来看。 | a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 9 这家伙钱够多了，不太贪不被发现就太平。。
【在 r*******t 的大作中提到】
: 是呀。不过这家伙暗地里有没有提供消息拿巨额金钱，就不好说了
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 10 他本来就是右派的，小 Bush 提名的。。这医疗保险让右派大跌眼镜了。
【在 c***a 的大作中提到】
: 但是roberts让企业无限制的政治捐款非常让我耿耿于怀。supreme court还是偏右从
: arizona移民法一类的投票来看。
| | | m*****5
发帖数: 23482 | 11
右派早就分化成先富和待富了
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 他本来就是右派的，小 Bush 提名的。。这医疗保险让右派大跌眼镜了。
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 12 说说那个 tea party 怎么回事？
【在 m*****5 的大作中提到】
:
: 右派早就分化成先富和待富了
| t********1
发帖数: 1855 | 13 赚得再多的律师，法官可以对你吆五喝六的，把你当个小三子。 虽然这些律师在背地
里很不服气，特别是法官好几年没有涨薪水的时候。 | m*****5
发帖数: 23482 | 14
右派里的待富
就好像占街是左派里面的待富
两拨人都觉得政府里面的先富代表不了自己·，但待富之间也会为钱以外的事情掐起来
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 说说那个 tea party 怎么回事？
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 15 解释得不错。。哈哈。。
什么党党内都会出现分裂，不同政见。
所以有时候当共产党发布新闻说，党里非常团结一致，心里就想，又在说大话了。
【在 m*****5 的大作中提到】
:
: 右派里的待富
: 就好像占街是左派里面的待富
: 两拨人都觉得政府里面的先富代表不了自己·，但待富之间也会为钱以外的事情掐起来
| m*****5
发帖数: 23482 | 16
那叫大局为重，哈哈
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: 解释得不错。。哈哈。。
: 什么党党内都会出现分裂，不同政见。
: 所以有时候当共产党发布新闻说，党里非常团结一致，心里就想，又在说大话了。
| c***a
发帖数: 942 | 17 觉得这里有些猫腻，从三月roberts的提问来看，他是竭力反对obamacare的。是不是被
obama抓住什么把柄了。
【在 m*****5 的大作中提到】
:
: 那叫大局为重，哈哈
| m*****5
发帖数: 23482 | 18
人在江湖走，哪有屁股不沾屎，说这个对我们屁民的福祉没多大意义啊
【在 c***a 的大作中提到】
: 觉得这里有些猫腻，从三月roberts的提问来看，他是竭力反对obamacare的。是不是被
: obama抓住什么把柄了。
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 19 No, his questions are targeted against "whether individual mandate can be
justified under congressional power to regulate commerce", which he actually
followed through in the decision by saying the power to regulate commerce
doesn't include the power to create commerce. He didn't say anything at the
hearing against
the notion that the mandate was covered under the congressional power to
tax, though; which was exactly his position in the decision.
Speculations and theories are all fine and dandy, but you need to read the
opinion first.
【在 c***a 的大作中提到】
: 觉得这里有些猫腻，从三月roberts的提问来看，他是竭力反对obamacare的。是不是被
: obama抓住什么把柄了。
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 20 Seriously though, anyone who had gone to law school should know this act was
constitutional beyond a shadow of doubt. The decision really should have
been at least 6-3, with roberts and kennedy joining the lib wing. Remember
how in the beginning almost all the law profs were saying how the law would
definitely be constitutional?
merits of the law aside, its constitutionality was very clear. I was
actually surprised that it had to settle on tax power grounds. I was even
more surprised that the justices actually included analysis of the "commerce
clause" section in there, because the case can be resolved without touching
that issue at all, which is exactly what courts should do-not a single
thing unless it's needed. The whole commerce clause analysis is just a 5-
justice dicta, and it looks really bad. | | | m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 21 i was amazed when i was asking some lawyers about their views on obamacare
ystd. their angle just totally different from everyone else. would plumber
joe care about if this is constitutional ? no, he only cares about how much
extra he has to pay for begger joe's medicine.
was
would
commerce
touching
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Seriously though, anyone who had gone to law school should know this act was
: constitutional beyond a shadow of doubt. The decision really should have
: been at least 6-3, with roberts and kennedy joining the lib wing. Remember
: how in the beginning almost all the law profs were saying how the law would
: definitely be constitutional?
: merits of the law aside, its constitutionality was very clear. I was
: actually surprised that it had to settle on tax power grounds. I was even
: more surprised that the justices actually included analysis of the "commerce
: clause" section in there, because the case can be resolved without touching
: that issue at all, which is exactly what courts should do-not a single
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 22 Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
If repubs get their way in the nov. election by winning House+Senate+Pres,
they can throw out the bill via a simple majority. Dems can't even use
filibuster because it was a tax issue. So if people really don't like the
law, they can just vote dems out of office in the fall.
with regards to its merits, i doubt the plumber joe knows exactly what deal
he's getting from the ACA. ACA actually has some pretty popular policies in
there. It provided for a lot of consumer protection mechanisms against the
worst practices from the insurance industry, all but eliminated Hospital's
write-offs for non-paying patients, so the only guy getting pinched is the
insurance industry, which i doubt joe the plumber has much sympathy for
anyway.
Well, technically, young people are getting screwed too. But young people
have always been screwed. That's just life, bro.
much
【在 m*******y 的大作中提到】
: i was amazed when i was asking some lawyers about their views on obamacare
: ystd. their angle just totally different from everyone else. would plumber
: joe care about if this is constitutional ? no, he only cares about how much
: extra he has to pay for begger joe's medicine.
:
: was
: would
: commerce
: touching
| j**4
发帖数: 10425 | 23 but u know, the obama administration specifically said that it is NOT a tax,
yet the supreme court basically justified Obama care on the basis of the
taxation power of the goverment.
actually
the
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: No, his questions are targeted against "whether individual mandate can be
: justified under congressional power to regulate commerce", which he actually
: followed through in the decision by saying the power to regulate commerce
: doesn't include the power to create commerce. He didn't say anything at the
: hearing against
: the notion that the mandate was covered under the congressional power to
: tax, though; which was exactly his position in the decision.
: Speculations and theories are all fine and dandy, but you need to read the
: opinion first.
| m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 24 hear hear. young people are getting screwed anyways.
deal
in
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
: decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
: merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
: If repubs get their way in the nov. election by winning House+Senate+Pres,
: they can throw out the bill via a simple majority. Dems can't even use
: filibuster because it was a tax issue. So if people really don't like the
: law, they can just vote dems out of office in the fall.
: with regards to its merits, i doubt the plumber joe knows exactly what deal
: he's getting from the ACA. ACA actually has some pretty popular policies in
: there. It provided for a lot of consumer protection mechanisms against the
| j**4
发帖数: 10425 | 25 only guy getting pinched is the
insurance industry
maybe the only guy getting pinched is the customers of the insurance
industry..
deal
in
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
: decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
: merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
: If repubs get their way in the nov. election by winning House+Senate+Pres,
: they can throw out the bill via a simple majority. Dems can't even use
: filibuster because it was a tax issue. So if people really don't like the
: law, they can just vote dems out of office in the fall.
: with regards to its merits, i doubt the plumber joe knows exactly what deal
: he's getting from the ACA. ACA actually has some pretty popular policies in
: there. It provided for a lot of consumer protection mechanisms against the
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 26 Actually, it's a technicality. OBM said the bill "is a tax but we are not
CALLING it a tax." There has been court precedents (about a patent case i
think) where the supreme court said "well even if you don't call it a tax,
it can still fall under the POWER to tax, and you don't have to exercsie a
tax by calling it a tax." That was also the position taken by the AG on
hearing. When I heard it I remember thinking "wow that's some inventive
legal acrobatics, i'm not sure the court would buy it"
OBM didn't want to call it a tax because of the political ramifications
about raising taxes, but justified its position on paper because "calling it
a penalty is more effective in changing people's behavior". This created a
problem on the appeal because a tax (if you call it a tax) cannot be
challenged until it's being levied, which could derail the whole case. I
actually don't understand why AG was so intent on maintaining that they didn
't call it a tax, he took a big risk there for no apparent gain. Maybe he
just wanted to get it over so he doesn't have to do this again. But what
matters in the end is, it paid off.
When I read the
tax,
【在 j**4 的大作中提到】
: but u know, the obama administration specifically said that it is NOT a tax,
: yet the supreme court basically justified Obama care on the basis of the
: taxation power of the goverment.
:
: actually
: the
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 27 actually the effect is not immediately clear.
Pros and Cons really.
Pros:
A lot of tricks that the insurance company used to pull on you to deny your
claim, they can't do that anymore.
Hospitals do not have to discharge bills that patients don't pay, so their
operating cost is lower, which might help them lower the price they charge.
Cons:
The Act also prohibited a lot of insurance company's ability to discriminate
between people's condition, so that the risk of some people are passed on
to the pool, which creates an adverse selection problem; so essentially it
screws with the premiums of the young and healthy people. which sucks.
Nothing you can do about it though, boomers will always get their way no
matter which party's in power and screw the youngs at every turn. lol
【在 j**4 的大作中提到】
: only guy getting pinched is the
: insurance industry
: maybe the only guy getting pinched is the customers of the insurance
: industry..
:
: deal
: in
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 28 For those of you that thinks only insurance company will pay for this, here
is a news flash, who do you think pays the insurance company?
Hint, it ain't Uncle Sam, the super rich, nor the poor folks without jobs.
羊毛来自羊身上!
For you to think this is right, you are probably much more rich than we can
imagine.
Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
If repubs get their way in the nov. election by winning House+Senate+Pres,
they can throw out the bill via a simple majority. Dems can't even use
filibuster because it was a tax issue. So if people really don't like the
law, they can just vote dems out of office in the fall.
with regards to its merits, i doubt the plumber joe knows exactly what deal
he's getting from the ACA. ACA actually has some pretty popular policies in
there. It provided for a lot of consumer protection mechanisms against the
worst practices from the insurance industry, all but eliminated Hospital's
write-offs for non-paying patients, so the only guy getting pinched is the
insurance industry, which i doubt joe the plumber has much sympathy for
anyway.
Well, technically, young people are getting screwed too. But young people
have always been screwed. That's just life, bro.
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
: decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
: merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
: If repubs get their way in the nov. election by winning House+Senate+Pres,
: they can throw out the bill via a simple majority. Dems can't even use
: filibuster because it was a tax issue. So if people really don't like the
: law, they can just vote dems out of office in the fall.
: with regards to its merits, i doubt the plumber joe knows exactly what deal
: he's getting from the ACA. ACA actually has some pretty popular policies in
: there. It provided for a lot of consumer protection mechanisms against the
| m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 29 see, you dont get it. the ruling, is about if this is constitutional. not
about if we will do it for sure. if you dont like it, dont vote for obama
next turn.
here
can
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: For those of you that thinks only insurance company will pay for this, here
: is a news flash, who do you think pays the insurance company?
: Hint, it ain't Uncle Sam, the super rich, nor the poor folks without jobs.
: 羊毛来自羊身上!
: For you to think this is right, you are probably much more rich than we can
: imagine.
:
: Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
: decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
: merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
| c***a
发帖数: 942 | 30 The money will be from young people who is not buying insurance, the extra
profit from insurance company and uncle Sam. No one know exactly how much
each will be paying.
But i think it is right. I have seen too many people around me got insurance
denied because of the chronical disease , lose insurance because of
unemployment. Any of us can be one of them one day. What will you do if you
are really sick and without a job? Any one who is having a job and paying
tax should help those people.
here
can
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: For those of you that thinks only insurance company will pay for this, here
: is a news flash, who do you think pays the insurance company?
: Hint, it ain't Uncle Sam, the super rich, nor the poor folks without jobs.
: 羊毛来自羊身上!
: For you to think this is right, you are probably much more rich than we can
: imagine.
:
: Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
: decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
: merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
| | | i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 31 It has been ruled constitutional for congress to levy tax a couple of
hundred years ago; it was a dumb challenge on that ground.
Hopefully the next congress will be smart enough to throw this out and start
a real health care reform.
For all money that O has wasted in the past 3.5 years, you think I would
vote for him???
【在 m*******y 的大作中提到】
: see, you dont get it. the ruling, is about if this is constitutional. not
: about if we will do it for sure. if you dont like it, dont vote for obama
: next turn.
:
: here
: can
| m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 32 talking about reform, just legalize drugs and prostitution, we should be
good.
start
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: It has been ruled constitutional for congress to levy tax a couple of
: hundred years ago; it was a dumb challenge on that ground.
: Hopefully the next congress will be smart enough to throw this out and start
: a real health care reform.
: For all money that O has wasted in the past 3.5 years, you think I would
: vote for him???
| c********e
发帖数: 6158 | 33 文盲不懂吓问一下：为什么你觉得 hospitals/doctors may lower the price they
charge? If u are in the monopoly power, would u give up ur power? Most of
them are not running for non-profit , right?
your
discriminate
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: actually the effect is not immediately clear.
: Pros and Cons really.
: Pros:
: A lot of tricks that the insurance company used to pull on you to deny your
: claim, they can't do that anymore.
: Hospitals do not have to discharge bills that patients don't pay, so their
: operating cost is lower, which might help them lower the price they charge.
: Cons:
: The Act also prohibited a lot of insurance company's ability to discriminate
: between people's condition, so that the risk of some people are passed on
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 34 This is right. 羊毛来自羊身上!
The capitalist country is turning into a socialist country. Taxation is a
lawful way to transform social imbalance. Taking money out from the riches
and giving to the poors legally. Every law is taking advantage of one group
at the expense of another group. You support it or not depending on which
group you are belonging to. If the insurance companies can't make money,
they will be shut down. But they are still around, it means they are still
making money, but the profits will be affected. What products price increase
each year as high has the health insurance industry, 15-30% each year? Once
the law was drafted, they had already prepared for the outcome. There are
always new products come out and get around the new law, like those hedge
fund industries getting away from taxes.
here
can
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: For those of you that thinks only insurance company will pay for this, here
: is a news flash, who do you think pays the insurance company?
: Hint, it ain't Uncle Sam, the super rich, nor the poor folks without jobs.
: 羊毛来自羊身上!
: For you to think this is right, you are probably much more rich than we can
: imagine.
:
: Yeah, because plumber joe doesn't understand that the court is trying to
: decide whether the law is legal, not whether it's a sound decision. The
: merits of the law should be addressed via his vote, not the supreme court.
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 35 first, a lot of them ARE running as charity, and they have to run according
to certain requirements to maintain that status.
second, when did they get monopoly power? sure, the medical industry enjoys
its monopoly power by setting up tough barriers to entry (med school + board
exams + residency), but hospitals are actually in competition with each
other. It's not exactly a seller's market because most people pay via
insurance, which is much harder to bully than individual patients.
But again, this is all theoretical. Due to the law change, hospitals may
need to hire additional case managers and social workers to keep up with
compliance with the new rules, not to mention the drastic reforms they'd
have to go through, which means it might end up costing more. Which is why i
used the word "may".
【在 c********e 的大作中提到】
: 文盲不懂吓问一下：为什么你觉得 hospitals/doctors may lower the price they
: charge? If u are in the monopoly power, would u give up ur power? Most of
: them are not running for non-profit , right?
:
: your
: discriminate
| J******r
发帖数: 2806 | | i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 37 The problems is that it is not the super rich that are paying the taxes (at
least not at the proportional rate) nor for this health insurance.
The insurance companies will just increase the premium until the cost
balances out, or they will stop offering health insurance if they only lose
money on it.
Until there is tort reform, the health care issue is only going to get worse.
However, who do you think already have O in their pocket? They are call
malpractice lawyers.
group
increase
Once
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: This is right. 羊毛来自羊身上!
: The capitalist country is turning into a socialist country. Taxation is a
: lawful way to transform social imbalance. Taking money out from the riches
: and giving to the poors legally. Every law is taking advantage of one group
: at the expense of another group. You support it or not depending on which
: group you are belonging to. If the insurance companies can't make money,
: they will be shut down. But they are still around, it means they are still
: making money, but the profits will be affected. What products price increase
: each year as high has the health insurance industry, 15-30% each year? Once
: the law was drafted, they had already prepared for the outcome. There are
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 38 Non-for profit hospitals make more money than for profit hospitals.
The difference is also TAX, property tax. exempted vs non exempted.
Don't be confused with the word non-for profit. This law 100% benefits
doctors/hospitals. They won't be worried not getting paid. No more bills
sent to collecting agencies. The only thing is that you have to pay your
health insurance premium, ill or no ill. Also the demands for actuaries will
be higher, study MATH.
【在 c********e 的大作中提到】
: 文盲不懂吓问一下：为什么你觉得 hospitals/doctors may lower the price they
: charge? If u are in the monopoly power, would u give up ur power? Most of
: them are not running for non-profit , right?
:
: your
: discriminate
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 39 You are correct in pointing out that people will be biased w/r/t a certain
tax depending on where they stand, so judging a tax shouldn't be based
purely on what people say.
That said, when it comes to wealth redistribution, there's actually a simple
test to determine whether it's valid. Some clever prof in economics came up
with "reincarnation" the concept that, you need to imagine yourself as a
random soul, ready to be stuffed into a baby about to be born into this
country. The chance of you landing in a rich or poor family is entirely
random, so you don't know where you will be. And then, from THAT perspective
, you judge whether you want the tax or not. Obviously you don't want
drastic differences between the rich and the poor, because you might not be
so lucky; but on the other hand you don't want everything to be exactly even
, so that you (and others) have no incentive to work hard.
I'd say, from that perspective, as health care is one of the most important
things a person needs, universal coverage is actually pretty credited (as
long as we can afford it), from an objective standpoint. Even though it
hurts me, as I am a young guy.
By the way, you are saying "羊毛来自羊身上". you do realize what the "
individual mandate tax" is for right? right? Do you know where your interest
is? and how this law affects it?
group
increase
Once
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: This is right. 羊毛来自羊身上!
: The capitalist country is turning into a socialist country. Taxation is a
: lawful way to transform social imbalance. Taking money out from the riches
: and giving to the poors legally. Every law is taking advantage of one group
: at the expense of another group. You support it or not depending on which
: group you are belonging to. If the insurance companies can't make money,
: they will be shut down. But they are still around, it means they are still
: making money, but the profits will be affected. What products price increase
: each year as high has the health insurance industry, 15-30% each year? Once
: the law was drafted, they had already prepared for the outcome. There are
| m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 40 what happend is tom and katie divorced...
【在 J******r 的大作中提到】
: 谁能简介一下发生了什么？
| | | j**4
发帖数: 10425 | 41 divorcing! dont get too excited
【在 m*******y 的大作中提到】
: what happend is tom and katie divorced...
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 42 Let's put it this way, you are in the highest tax bracket, and your taxed
money is paying for the rent/food and health care premium for the very low
tax payer few blocks away. When a bill comes out saying that they need to
increase your tax to cover the deficit of those few blocks away. Are you
going to stand up for the increase?
That's the same as in the universal health care, the insurance companies
charge higher premium from young and healthy people to pay other people's
bills. That's what I meant 羊毛来自羊身上! Your health care premium will be
skyrocketed, if you are paying from your pocket. Well, you can argue that
the government can borrow from China until they reach the point where the
Greece now is.
These might be good to explain what's individual mandate tax, from others:
"
Federal Broccoli Act of 2013: Eat your broccoli, else pay the IRS $1,000.
"
simple
up
perspective
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: You are correct in pointing out that people will be biased w/r/t a certain
: tax depending on where they stand, so judging a tax shouldn't be based
: purely on what people say.
: That said, when it comes to wealth redistribution, there's actually a simple
: test to determine whether it's valid. Some clever prof in economics came up
: with "reincarnation" the concept that, you need to imagine yourself as a
: random soul, ready to be stuffed into a baby about to be born into this
: country. The chance of you landing in a rich or poor family is entirely
: random, so you don't know where you will be. And then, from THAT perspective
: , you judge whether you want the tax or not. Obviously you don't want
| c********e
发帖数: 6158 | 43 How much is a lot? Are they enough to cover all poors? If they are, then we
would not have this issue at the beginning. Yes, there are insurance
companies, but I heard that insurance companies are regulated? And there are
tighter regulations nowadays. I also heard that there are association for
doctors which the only thing they do is setting the barrier to allow more
people to get in this prestigus career. Each time when I sit in the waiting
room for more than 2 hours and still do not have a clue when the doctor may
be able to see me even through I made the appointment before the visiting, I
always wondering how the competition realized in this industry/area? The
insufficiency of supply is an issue, is not it?
according
enjoys
board
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: first, a lot of them ARE running as charity, and they have to run according
: to certain requirements to maintain that status.
: second, when did they get monopoly power? sure, the medical industry enjoys
: its monopoly power by setting up tough barriers to entry (med school + board
: exams + residency), but hospitals are actually in competition with each
: other. It's not exactly a seller's market because most people pay via
: insurance, which is much harder to bully than individual patients.
: But again, this is all theoretical. Due to the law change, hospitals may
: need to hire additional case managers and social workers to keep up with
: compliance with the new rules, not to mention the drastic reforms they'd
| j**4
发帖数: 10425 | 44 these professors need to be shot!
again, this is another bad effects of communist crazy obama. pitting the
poor against the rich. just because i am born into a poor family, why hate
on the rich ppl? why try to make it "leveled" by making the rich to be pay
more? dont hate on the rich. work hard, and then u will become a middle
class, and maybe ur kids will become 1%...
just because u r poor, doesn't mean other ppl can't be rich
I agree that government need to do more to help those poor ppl, in terms
given them better education, that's why i actually support affirmative
action.
but what Obama has done is to pit the "poor" against the "rich", and try to
incense the public into punishing the rich.
simple
up
perspective
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: You are correct in pointing out that people will be biased w/r/t a certain
: tax depending on where they stand, so judging a tax shouldn't be based
: purely on what people say.
: That said, when it comes to wealth redistribution, there's actually a simple
: test to determine whether it's valid. Some clever prof in economics came up
: with "reincarnation" the concept that, you need to imagine yourself as a
: random soul, ready to be stuffed into a baby about to be born into this
: country. The chance of you landing in a rich or poor family is entirely
: random, so you don't know where you will be. And then, from THAT perspective
: , you judge whether you want the tax or not. Obviously you don't want
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 45 The middle class is the new rich?
Sadly, with the way O is going, we will end with the super rich and 99.9%
poor.
pay
【在 j**4 的大作中提到】
: these professors need to be shot!
: again, this is another bad effects of communist crazy obama. pitting the
: poor against the rich. just because i am born into a poor family, why hate
: on the rich ppl? why try to make it "leveled" by making the rich to be pay
: more? dont hate on the rich. work hard, and then u will become a middle
: class, and maybe ur kids will become 1%...
: just because u r poor, doesn't mean other ppl can't be rich
: I agree that government need to do more to help those poor ppl, in terms
: given them better education, that's why i actually support affirmative
: action.
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 46 because tom doesn't want to pay the health care premium for katie.
【在 m*******y 的大作中提到】
: what happend is tom and katie divorced...
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 47 The first example doesn't work so well because Rich people typically don't
become poor (unless something happens). But you, like everyone else, will
stop being young and healthy. Slowly but surely.
The brocolli analogy is ill-fitted because, people are already going to
hospitals, and not paying their bills. That's what the individual mandate is
designed to avoid. The proper analogy would be, there are people who's
eating brocollis for FREE. instead of paying a monthly bill to eat brocolli
whenever he wants to, he chooses not to pay, but still eats it whenever he
wants to, without paying. and the Supermarket have to give it to them, by
law. So in the ends it drives up the price of YOUR brocolli because you are
also paying for someone elses.
So I guess the question is, are YOU eating brocolli for free?
be
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: Let's put it this way, you are in the highest tax bracket, and your taxed
: money is paying for the rent/food and health care premium for the very low
: tax payer few blocks away. When a bill comes out saying that they need to
: increase your tax to cover the deficit of those few blocks away. Are you
: going to stand up for the increase?
: That's the same as in the universal health care, the insurance companies
: charge higher premium from young and healthy people to pay other people's
: bills. That's what I meant 羊毛来自羊身上! Your health care premium will be
: skyrocketed, if you are paying from your pocket. Well, you can argue that
: the government can borrow from China until they reach the point where the
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 48 If you studied anything about tax or economics, you should understand the
importance of the progressive tax system: from a societal standpoint, as you
earn more, you should give up higher percentage of your income as tax,
because it's economically efficient (theory of marginal utility). The
problem now is the high income persons actually pay at a lower tax rate on
their income than the middle class, which is absurd. With more power comes
more responsibilities; it's not hate, it's just demanding that the rich pay
up their share.
But if that's too hard for you to stomach, consider this alternative
explanations instead: the rich needs to pay the poors to prevent them from
taking his money by force. On an individual basis, it's called crime rate.
On a collective basis, it's called a revolution. Like it or not, if the rich
does not give away part of their wealth, they'll live with a lot of poor
people. A lot of unhappy poor people. Are you sure that's what you want?
pay
【在 j**4 的大作中提到】
: these professors need to be shot!
: again, this is another bad effects of communist crazy obama. pitting the
: poor against the rich. just because i am born into a poor family, why hate
: on the rich ppl? why try to make it "leveled" by making the rich to be pay
: more? dont hate on the rich. work hard, and then u will become a middle
: class, and maybe ur kids will become 1%...
: just because u r poor, doesn't mean other ppl can't be rich
: I agree that government need to do more to help those poor ppl, in terms
: given them better education, that's why i actually support affirmative
: action.
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 49 What makes you think that the rich (relative to the middle class) will take
a bigger burden as a result of this?
you
pay
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: If you studied anything about tax or economics, you should understand the
: importance of the progressive tax system: from a societal standpoint, as you
: earn more, you should give up higher percentage of your income as tax,
: because it's economically efficient (theory of marginal utility). The
: problem now is the high income persons actually pay at a lower tax rate on
: their income than the middle class, which is absurd. With more power comes
: more responsibilities; it's not hate, it's just demanding that the rich pay
: up their share.
: But if that's too hard for you to stomach, consider this alternative
: explanations instead: the rich needs to pay the poors to prevent them from
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 50 Sure thing, old, illness and death are all part of everyone's life. No one
can escape that.
If the person doesn't pay the hospital's bills, and the collecting agencies
can't either. Do you think the IRS can go after them and get their money?
This tax thing targets the general public rather than this group of people.
It's an indirectly way to increase your tax rate and collect a lot more
money from the generate public. You are healthy and you are young, you don't
have a health insurance, hey...pay the IRS more will solve the problem?
Well, that doesn't help.
Econ 101: There is no free lunch!! no free brocolli either. If you don't
buy your lunch, someone has to buy it for you.
is
brocolli
are
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: The first example doesn't work so well because Rich people typically don't
: become poor (unless something happens). But you, like everyone else, will
: stop being young and healthy. Slowly but surely.
: The brocolli analogy is ill-fitted because, people are already going to
: hospitals, and not paying their bills. That's what the individual mandate is
: designed to avoid. The proper analogy would be, there are people who's
: eating brocollis for FREE. instead of paying a monthly bill to eat brocolli
: whenever he wants to, he chooses not to pay, but still eats it whenever he
: wants to, without paying. and the Supermarket have to give it to them, by
: law. So in the ends it drives up the price of YOUR brocolli because you are
| | | H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 51 What? The tax is only directed at people who don't have health insurance (
and ACA said youngs can stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26)!
If you have been paying your medical insurance, the law doesn't affect you
a single bit!
But if you have no insurance, and can't pay for the hospital bills when you
incur them, but expects to use medical services when you need to, um, why
CAN'T the gov't require to pay some money on it upfront?
agencies
.
't
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: Sure thing, old, illness and death are all part of everyone's life. No one
: can escape that.
: If the person doesn't pay the hospital's bills, and the collecting agencies
: can't either. Do you think the IRS can go after them and get their money?
: This tax thing targets the general public rather than this group of people.
: It's an indirectly way to increase your tax rate and collect a lot more
: money from the generate public. You are healthy and you are young, you don't
: have a health insurance, hey...pay the IRS more will solve the problem?
: Well, that doesn't help.
: Econ 101: There is no free lunch!! no free brocolli either. If you don't
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 52 I don't. I was responding to her rant. not w/r/t this bill in particular.
This bill asks poor people to pay their medical bills in forms of insurance.
Rich people aren't really affected because they already have med insurance.
Tough, but fair, in my opinion. Pay your bills. Nothing wrong with that.
Life is a bitch and then you die. Suck it up and get a helmet.
take
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: What makes you think that the rich (relative to the middle class) will take
: a bigger burden as a result of this?
:
: you
: pay
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 53 hey like to play wording game. The white house insists that it’s NOT tax
but penalty, but the supreme court interprets it as tax. Well, whatever
that means, it's all your money.
"
“For those who can afford health insurance but choose to remain uninsured,
forcing the rest of us to pay for their care, a penalty is administered as
part of the Affordable Care Act,”
"
that's what the penalty targets.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/white-house-sticks
)!
you
you
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: What? The tax is only directed at people who don't have health insurance (
: and ACA said youngs can stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26)!
: If you have been paying your medical insurance, the law doesn't affect you
: a single bit!
: But if you have no insurance, and can't pay for the hospital bills when you
: incur them, but expects to use medical services when you need to, um, why
: CAN'T the gov't require to pay some money on it upfront?
:
: agencies
: .
| m*******y
发帖数: 14292 | 54 just outsource pharmaceutical, and admit more kids to med school. they are
overbilling anyways. reform. reshape. however you call it.
agencies
.
't
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: Sure thing, old, illness and death are all part of everyone's life. No one
: can escape that.
: If the person doesn't pay the hospital's bills, and the collecting agencies
: can't either. Do you think the IRS can go after them and get their money?
: This tax thing targets the general public rather than this group of people.
: It's an indirectly way to increase your tax rate and collect a lot more
: money from the generate public. You are healthy and you are young, you don't
: have a health insurance, hey...pay the IRS more will solve the problem?
: Well, that doesn't help.
: Econ 101: There is no free lunch!! no free brocolli either. If you don't
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 55 If you are in NY, most likely you are either insured from your work or from
the agencies run by the state government. There are a lot of state run
health insurance agencies already. Correct me if I am wrong. It doesn't
affect people who already have health insurance, BUT the difference is that
the law affects the PREMIUM. Just like the supply is fix, and suddenly there
is a huge demand.
insurance.
insurance.
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: I don't. I was responding to her rant. not w/r/t this bill in particular.
: This bill asks poor people to pay their medical bills in forms of insurance.
: Rich people aren't really affected because they already have med insurance.
: Tough, but fair, in my opinion. Pay your bills. Nothing wrong with that.
: Life is a bitch and then you die. Suck it up and get a helmet.
:
: take
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 56 Admitting more kids to med school does not necessary increase the number of
good doctors.
Right now, it is the cost & time of the school/residency compare to the
doctors salary that is keeping a lot of bright kids going for a finance or
something easier instead.
Contrary to common belief, new doctors don't make that much money especially
compared to the WS types.
【在 m*******y 的大作中提到】
: just outsource pharmaceutical, and admit more kids to med school. they are
: overbilling anyways. reform. reshape. however you call it.
:
: agencies
: .
: 't
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 57 correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought this bill will REDUCE your premium?
The insurance premium is determined ultimately by the hospital bill, not how
many people uses the insurance. Insurance is not a "product", it's a "
method of payment". The real product is health care.
When it comes to health care, people are going to get medical services no
matter what, the demand is not exactly very elastic. Currently there are a
lot of people who's using medical services who aren't paying (no insurance),
and hospitals have to write the loss off and make it up by charging normal
people more. Now there's a tax that says PAY UP and no more freebies, which
means the freeloaders have to pay up for their bills, so hospitals can get
their money, so they don't have to raise their price on everyone, which
means your premium should go DOWN, at least not go up. You are using the law
of supply and demand wrong: when there are people who's not paying, it's
essentially taking supply out of the system (because they are not paid for),
while not reducing demand. That's the theory anyway.
On the other hand, the law MIGHT increase YOUR premium though, because it
makes you (young and healthy) share the price of a lot of risks that other
people may have (like pre-existing condition, etc). But I suppose that's not
too bad because you won't stay young forever, and you'll get its benefit
one day.
from
that
there
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: If you are in NY, most likely you are either insured from your work or from
: the agencies run by the state government. There are a lot of state run
: health insurance agencies already. Correct me if I am wrong. It doesn't
: affect people who already have health insurance, BUT the difference is that
: the law affects the PREMIUM. Just like the supply is fix, and suddenly there
: is a huge demand.
:
: insurance.
: insurance.
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 58 Outsource pharmaceutical? Where would they get their researchers? Where
would they get their grant money from? India? Cambodia?
Oh i like your idea of admitting more kids to med school. It's gonna be med
malpractice lawyers' heaven after that! models and bottles, baby!
【在 m*******y 的大作中提到】
: just outsource pharmaceutical, and admit more kids to med school. they are
: overbilling anyways. reform. reshape. however you call it.
:
: agencies
: .
: 't
| i**********o
发帖数: 5993 | | c***a
发帖数: 942 | 60 health reform是对大家都有好处的事情，真不明白为啥这么多人反对。任何改革总有
不好的地方，当你没有更好的办法的时候，开始改革是必须的。republican只会指出改
革中不好的地方，但是他们完全完全没有一个更好的方案。因为这个改革本来就是他们
自己的方案。现在所有的反对意见都是为了政治的需要。 | | | a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 61 If it reduces the current health care holders' premium, I don't know why so
many people are protesting and against this law. It's like the broccoli's
price drops and you are going to the supermarket and protest?
Health insurance, like interest rate, is a product, and there is a huge
market for health insurance. And the supply of health insurance is kind of
oligopoly, they set their prices, and almost identical across the country.
If you want health insurance, you have no choice but paying more if they ask
for more. Period.
The point of arguing freebies, who pays for their premiums? if they can't
pay by themselves? The point of lowering existing health care holders'
premiums doesn't stand. It's like when interest rates go up, and homeowners
going to refinance their houses? Of course not. The law is forcing
EVERYONE to have health care premium, like every family has to buy a car. I
don't know why that affects how many cars Toyota or GM makes.
how
),
normal
which
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought this bill will REDUCE your premium?
: The insurance premium is determined ultimately by the hospital bill, not how
: many people uses the insurance. Insurance is not a "product", it's a "
: method of payment". The real product is health care.
: When it comes to health care, people are going to get medical services no
: matter what, the demand is not exactly very elastic. Currently there are a
: lot of people who's using medical services who aren't paying (no insurance),
: and hospitals have to write the loss off and make it up by charging normal
: people more. Now there's a tax that says PAY UP and no more freebies, which
: means the freeloaders have to pay up for their bills, so hospitals can get
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 62 No wonder, with this law, your further is brighter. Doctor's malpractice
insurance is not cheap. America is run by Lawyers.
med
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Outsource pharmaceutical? Where would they get their researchers? Where
: would they get their grant money from? India? Cambodia?
: Oh i like your idea of admitting more kids to med school. It's gonna be med
: malpractice lawyers' heaven after that! models and bottles, baby!
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 63 "当你没有更好的办法的时候" - just because the good ideas on health reform
got kill by special interest groups does not mean they don't exist.
We are complaining because we, the middle class, are picking up the bill
again with no benefit to us. More importantly, these so call "reforms" will
probably add more cost to the system and don't reduce the overall health
cost.
【在 c***a 的大作中提到】
: health reform是对大家都有好处的事情，真不明白为啥这么多人反对。任何改革总有
: 不好的地方，当你没有更好的办法的时候，开始改革是必须的。republican只会指出改
: 革中不好的地方，但是他们完全完全没有一个更好的方案。因为这个改革本来就是他们
: 自己的方案。现在所有的反对意见都是为了政治的需要。
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 64 People are against this law 1. for political reasons-anything obama does we
will oppose-overlooking the fact that the bill was originally a republican
bill proposed by none other than the bastion of conservative politics: the
heritage foundation. 2. Some people are annoyed because the law essentially
requires them to purchase some private product, which they fear that once
the precedent is set, the government can force them to buy anything.
Insurance is how you get health care, itself is not a normal product.
Insurance always provide securities against something else. In fact, when
you have less people buying it, the premium will naturally be higher due to
higher variance in risk calculation.
Let me put it this way: You have 10 guys eating from a pot of rice in a
restaurant. Originally they all just pay for their own rice: if they don't
have the money, they don't get rice. This happened until someone said, hey,
there are times when i'm rich and when I'm poor, and others while rich and
poor. If we pool our resources together, and just pay something per month,
we'd all get rice when we are hungry, so no risk of going hungry. The
restaurant owner thought, okay, sounds like a good deal, I do want to feed
them, and I get my money. This is insurance.
Problem comes: one day the sheriff walked in and said to the restaurant
owner, well, if people are about to starve to death, regardless of whether
he has rice insurance, you must feed him. And then in walks this guy who's
about to starve to death. And he's there ever since. Restauarnt owner says
damn, he's killing my business, it can't go on like this, I have to make
money! So what do you think happens to the price of the rice? The price of
rice insurance? Of course it goes up. Because the 10 paying guys are now
paying for 11 servings of rice.
So eventually finally the 10 guys couldn't take it anymore and take it up
with the sheriff and say hey, that guy can't just eat for free! he needs to
pay up! Sheriff says okay, he'll start paying. If he doesn't pay the
insurance, he'll start paying me. So that's the individual mandate. Do you
think the price of rice will go up now there's an additional guy that's
paying? The rice insurance premium?
The freeloaders now have to pay. That's the whole point. It's now a tax, and
they can't avoid the IRS like they avoided the debt collection agency. They
pay. You stop paying for them. Get it? You HAVE BEEN PAYING FOR THEM, and
now THEY START PAYING. | H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 65 What? that had nothing to do with the Act! Neither does my job has anything
to do with the Act. Oh by the way i'm not in medical malpractice. Do you
even know how low that is on the tier of lawyers? The notion that medical
malpractice lawyers have any political sway is simply laughable.
Would you rather a society run by engineers and scientists? It has been done
, and it's called technocracy, China has it, brilliant design for a planned
(not market) economy.
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: No wonder, with this law, your further is brighter. Doctor's malpractice
: insurance is not cheap. America is run by Lawyers.
:
: med
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 66 OK, the next will be life insurance?
Do you think it's necessary? Especially for those have no ones around but
him/herself.
we
essentially
to
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: People are against this law 1. for political reasons-anything obama does we
: will oppose-overlooking the fact that the bill was originally a republican
: bill proposed by none other than the bastion of conservative politics: the
: heritage foundation. 2. Some people are annoyed because the law essentially
: requires them to purchase some private product, which they fear that once
: the precedent is set, the government can force them to buy anything.
: Insurance is how you get health care, itself is not a normal product.
: Insurance always provide securities against something else. In fact, when
: you have less people buying it, the premium will naturally be higher due to
: higher variance in risk calculation.
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 67 Don't be so naive. Special interest groups exists, and that's a fact. You
can't get around it. You can't say, well, I'm going to drive from US to
China, and I can just pretend the ocean doesn't exist. You cannot simply act
like economists and "assume" everything away.
Remember, it's not a problem unless you have a solution.
As a politician, any decision you make, you MUST make it knowing how things
are, good or bad. Reforms sometimes succeed, and sometimes fail. But Reforms
that overlooks the status quo will always fail, without question.
So the only question is, with the special interest groups in your way, is
this the best option?
will
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: "当你没有更好的办法的时候" - just because the good ideas on health reform
: got kill by special interest groups does not mean they don't exist.
: We are complaining because we, the middle class, are picking up the bill
: again with no benefit to us. More importantly, these so call "reforms" will
: probably add more cost to the system and don't reduce the overall health
: cost.
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 68 Look, the law has been passed, everyone has health insurance, EVERYONE will
go to the doctor because they have health insurance, right? The more people
go to doctor, what's the likelihood of the doctor makes a mistake? Don't
tell me it's less chance like your premium analysis. So, the more doctors
make mistake, more patients sue them, and you, the future medical
malpractice lawyer of course earn a lot more.
anything
done
planned
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: What? that had nothing to do with the Act! Neither does my job has anything
: to do with the Act. Oh by the way i'm not in medical malpractice. Do you
: even know how low that is on the tier of lawyers? The notion that medical
: malpractice lawyers have any political sway is simply laughable.
: Would you rather a society run by engineers and scientists? It has been done
: , and it's called technocracy, China has it, brilliant design for a planned
: (not market) economy.
| d*****9
发帖数: 3459 | 69 what a brilliant brain
will
people
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: Look, the law has been passed, everyone has health insurance, EVERYONE will
: go to the doctor because they have health insurance, right? The more people
: go to doctor, what's the likelihood of the doctor makes a mistake? Don't
: tell me it's less chance like your premium analysis. So, the more doctors
: make mistake, more patients sue them, and you, the future medical
: malpractice lawyer of course earn a lot more.
:
: anything
: done
: planned
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 70 Explain to me why would life insurance be necessary? Why the same logic
would apply? there's no one freeriding on other people's life insurance. If
you don't have life insurance when you die, your wife and kids simply don't
get anything. There's no law saying that some entity MUST give you money
when you die, even if you didn't have life insurance! Health insurance is
different because hospital MUST give treatment, even when the person has no
money!
There's no chance that there will be a mandate on that! Why would there be?
What justification can the government possibly come up with to justify a
mandate like that? No politician with half a brain would go anywhere near
that thing!
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: OK, the next will be life insurance?
: Do you think it's necessary? Especially for those have no ones around but
: him/herself.
:
: we
: essentially
: to
| | | H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 71 What? the problem is people are ALREADY going to the doctors! Even when they
can't pay for it! Why don't you understand that? I said it many times
already.
will
people
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: Look, the law has been passed, everyone has health insurance, EVERYONE will
: go to the doctor because they have health insurance, right? The more people
: go to doctor, what's the likelihood of the doctor makes a mistake? Don't
: tell me it's less chance like your premium analysis. So, the more doctors
: make mistake, more patients sue them, and you, the future medical
: malpractice lawyer of course earn a lot more.
:
: anything
: done
: planned
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 72 For a small group of people, if they are single, they don't have any
relatives, families here. Once they die. Who takes care of the funeral home
bills? Do you think they are all charities?
It's not a good thing to say, but that's fact.
If
t
no
?
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Explain to me why would life insurance be necessary? Why the same logic
: would apply? there's no one freeriding on other people's life insurance. If
: you don't have life insurance when you die, your wife and kids simply don't
: get anything. There's no law saying that some entity MUST give you money
: when you die, even if you didn't have life insurance! Health insurance is
: different because hospital MUST give treatment, even when the person has no
: money!
: There's no chance that there will be a mandate on that! Why would there be?
: What justification can the government possibly come up with to justify a
: mandate like that? No politician with half a brain would go anywhere near
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 73 That's burial insurance, not life insurance.
But I agree, that's a valid point. You are a very logical guy. But I have
thought about this on the day of hearing, as I think one of the justices
brought it up.
Unlike Health care, funeral is a ONE TIME DEAL. The government take cares of
it once per person, and it's DONE. And the cost is almost negligible,
because currently states are just collecting their remains and depose of
them. Do you actually think the government is giving them a funeral? For
what? There's no burial cost, It's a "cleaning" cost. Less than 1k per
person i'm sure. Less than 1k per 70 years per person. Seriously. There's no
real $ burden on the society. Which is why it's not a "public good" like
health insurance, and that is why it doesn't need to be taxed to pay like
the health insurance.
home
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: For a small group of people, if they are single, they don't have any
: relatives, families here. Once they die. Who takes care of the funeral home
: bills? Do you think they are all charities?
: It's not a good thing to say, but that's fact.
:
: If
: t
: no
: ?
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 74 Please read the post that I was replying to first.
When you have the option of taking a plane to China and now end up driving a
car and taking a boat trip because of the auto special interest group don't
want people using airplane, would you be happy?
By the way, just because you don't have a solution, does not mean you don't
have a problem. That is just digging you head in the sand.
Having a few band aids patch on a cancer tumor/lump would only delays the
actual care that is needed.
act
things
Reforms
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Don't be so naive. Special interest groups exists, and that's a fact. You
: can't get around it. You can't say, well, I'm going to drive from US to
: China, and I can just pretend the ocean doesn't exist. You cannot simply act
: like economists and "assume" everything away.
: Remember, it's not a problem unless you have a solution.
: As a politician, any decision you make, you MUST make it knowing how things
: are, good or bad. Reforms sometimes succeed, and sometimes fail. But Reforms
: that overlooks the status quo will always fail, without question.
: So the only question is, with the special interest groups in your way, is
: this the best option?
| a*o
发帖数: 25262 | 75 Very insightful. I hope you will be a good lawyer who can help people find
justice. A lot of lawyers these days are just money driven.
of
no
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: That's burial insurance, not life insurance.
: But I agree, that's a valid point. You are a very logical guy. But I have
: thought about this on the day of hearing, as I think one of the justices
: brought it up.
: Unlike Health care, funeral is a ONE TIME DEAL. The government take cares of
: it once per person, and it's DONE. And the cost is almost negligible,
: because currently states are just collecting their remains and depose of
: them. Do you actually think the government is giving them a funeral? For
: what? There's no burial cost, It's a "cleaning" cost. Less than 1k per
: person i'm sure. Less than 1k per 70 years per person. Seriously. There's no
| c***a
发帖数: 942 | 76 Remember Insurance company is the one who go all the way against the health
reform. They are the special interest group who is not willing to give the
fact that they are making too much money and the current reform will stop
them from doing that.
so
ask
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: If it reduces the current health care holders' premium, I don't know why so
: many people are protesting and against this law. It's like the broccoli's
: price drops and you are going to the supermarket and protest?
: Health insurance, like interest rate, is a product, and there is a huge
: market for health insurance. And the supply of health insurance is kind of
: oligopoly, they set their prices, and almost identical across the country.
: If you want health insurance, you have no choice but paying more if they ask
: for more. Period.
: The point of arguing freebies, who pays for their premiums? if they can't
: pay by themselves? The point of lowering existing health care holders'
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 77 Sure, but don't forget, the airline industry have their special interest
group, too. Everything that exists exists for a reason. everyone belongs to
some form of special interest group. That's how capitalism works. It works
because everyone else also gets to form their own group and influence the
lawmakers too. Whether you win in the end depends on whether your group
truly has more value than others. Sometimes that's harsh, but that's how it
works. Don't idealize united states for something it's not. It's not
personal. It's business.
Your band-aid tumor analogy isn't a good one. A better analogy would be to
putting a piece of paper in your nose for nose bleed that's caused by cancer
. Sure, you want to cure the cancer, but that doesn't prohibit you from
putting the paper in first, right? because the cancer is going to take a
long time to cure, and you dont' want your blood everywhere, no?
I agree with you that ACA doesn't go far enough. That said, with the current
economy and political climate, I don't think US can handle a much larger
reform. And you know what happens when leaders want to do something the
society is not ready for. Look at the "great leap forward" in china. Look at
Europe.
Everything takes time, my friend. Be patient. Don't throw away progress
simply because it doesn't go as far as you want it to.
a
't
t
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: Please read the post that I was replying to first.
: When you have the option of taking a plane to China and now end up driving a
: car and taking a boat trip because of the auto special interest group don't
: want people using airplane, would you be happy?
: By the way, just because you don't have a solution, does not mean you don't
: have a problem. That is just digging you head in the sand.
: Having a few band aids patch on a cancer tumor/lump would only delays the
: actual care that is needed.
:
: act
| c***a
发帖数: 942 | 78 支持republican的一般都是那些容易被keyword迷惑的人，譬如说“death panel","
socialism"...
For every person who is having insurance, we are paying $1017 extra a year
for those people who do not have their insurance. I am not sure whether
people know that as a fact. | H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 79 Thanks. Actually I really want to work for China and help the people there.
只叹小生才疏学浅，报国无门耳。。。
【在 a*o 的大作中提到】
: Very insightful. I hope you will be a good lawyer who can help people find
: justice. A lot of lawyers these days are just money driven.
:
: of
: no
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 80 What if your doctor gives you that piece of paper to wipe you nose and tells
you that is the best care you can have?
Anyway, here is a very good article why ACA (Obamacare) is a mistake:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-fol
to
it
cancer
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: Sure, but don't forget, the airline industry have their special interest
: group, too. Everything that exists exists for a reason. everyone belongs to
: some form of special interest group. That's how capitalism works. It works
: because everyone else also gets to form their own group and influence the
: lawmakers too. Whether you win in the end depends on whether your group
: truly has more value than others. Sometimes that's harsh, but that's how it
: works. Don't idealize united states for something it's not. It's not
: personal. It's business.
: Your band-aid tumor analogy isn't a good one. A better analogy would be to
: putting a piece of paper in your nose for nose bleed that's caused by cancer
| | | H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 81 Well, is it the best care you can afford? I want my private jet, but if I am
poor and have to stick to metro, not much i can do. Jets are expensive for
a reason. Our society can't handle giving everyone a private jet. Same thing
with healthcare. Everyone wants to live forever, no one has ever done it
yet. (that we know of, anyway).
tells
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: What if your doctor gives you that piece of paper to wipe you nose and tells
: you that is the best care you can have?
: Anyway, here is a very good article why ACA (Obamacare) is a mistake:
: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-fol
:
: to
: it
: cancer
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 82 You might want to check your facts or stop making them up.
Goldman has the top 4 health insurers projected at 6.7% margin with ACA vs.
7.2% without it in 2014.
health
【在 c***a 的大作中提到】
: Remember Insurance company is the one who go all the way against the health
: reform. They are the special interest group who is not willing to give the
: fact that they are making too much money and the current reform will stop
: them from doing that.
:
: so
: ask
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 83 I read the article. Actually the points are made not on whether it makes
health care worse. the points are actually talking about how it might
negatively impact the economy. That's another problem all on its own, and
the economic speculations (because that's what it is, a guess, albeit an
educated guess) might not actually come into fruition at all. Remember the
old adage w/r/t economics? "Any prediction on economics longer than a 6-
month term is worthless". So I really don't see how the article lends to
your argument.
tells
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: What if your doctor gives you that piece of paper to wipe you nose and tells
: you that is the best care you can have?
: Anyway, here is a very good article why ACA (Obamacare) is a mistake:
: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-fol
:
: to
: it
: cancer
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 84 How much do think we would be paying with ACA?
In case you didn't know, the penalty/tax is government subsidized (read -
tax payers like you & me) until it reach $90K for a household of 4. Whether
in form of insurance premium or tax, you are still paying for it.
【在 c***a 的大作中提到】
: 支持republican的一般都是那些容易被keyword迷惑的人，譬如说“death panel","
: socialism"...
: For every person who is having insurance, we are paying $1017 extra a year
: for those people who do not have their insurance. I am not sure whether
: people know that as a fact.
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 85 "Cost control should have been Obama’s priority."
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: I read the article. Actually the points are made not on whether it makes
: health care worse. the points are actually talking about how it might
: negatively impact the economy. That's another problem all on its own, and
: the economic speculations (because that's what it is, a guess, albeit an
: educated guess) might not actually come into fruition at all. Remember the
: old adage w/r/t economics? "Any prediction on economics longer than a 6-
: month term is worthless". So I really don't see how the article lends to
: your argument.
:
: tells
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 86 um actually, you are only paying for your income tax to the feds, and it's
dependent ONLY upon your income. your tax won't change just because gov't is
spending more. Where do you think deficits come from? And before you ask
where the money would come from, let me ask you where do you think the
defense budget cuts are going towards?
Whether
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: How much do think we would be paying with ACA?
: In case you didn't know, the penalty/tax is government subsidized (read -
: tax payers like you & me) until it reach $90K for a household of 4. Whether
: in form of insurance premium or tax, you are still paying for it.
| H*******s
发帖数: 793 | 87 That's his opinion, because he's focused only on the economy (a big issue,
to be sure). But if you can cut the budget from somewhere else (i.e. defense
, wars are ending anyway), then you are somewhat freer in handling the
healthcare issue, no?
【在 i*****g 的大作中提到】
: "Cost control should have been Obama’s priority."
| i*****g
发帖数: 2564 | 88 medical cost is referring to control of unnecessary medical treatments and
tort reforms.
Again, instead of find more affordable health care, O just shift the cost to
the "rich". Sadly, his definition of "rich" is someone with a decent job or
a few cents.
defense
【在 H*******s 的大作中提到】
: That's his opinion, because he's focused only on the economy (a big issue,
: to be sure). But if you can cut the budget from somewhere else (i.e. defense
: , wars are ending anyway), then you are somewhat freer in handling the
: healthcare issue, no?
| J*****n
发帖数: 4859 | | e*********n
发帖数: 4599 | 90 majority of "middle class" already have company sponsored health insurance,
which doesn't pay the tax penalty
most opponents are saying i am healthy NOW, i don't want to help others,
my question to you: how long can you stay in perfect health?
from humanity stand point, it's cruel to just leave sick people dying
unlike some other things, no one wants to be sick in the first place.
will | | | Z*****l
发帖数: 14069 | 91 显然是错误的决定，确实刮目相看。
【在 r*******t 的大作中提到】
: 能抛弃政治派别，作出正确的决定，挽救最高法院的声望。因为最高法院在过去几年里
: ，也成了两党政治斗争的工具，是否能*独立*作决定受到公众的质疑。
: Justice Roberts 2005年被小布什提名时，Obama是反对这项提名的。这次Justice
: Roberts能摆脱两党政治斗争，独立作出与其政治身份相反，但是符合宪法的决定，实
: 在令公众刮目相看。
: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-ju
: Justice Roberts explained his vision of the Supreme Court during his 2005
: confirmation hearings.
: "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them,"
: said Roberts at the time. "The role of an umpire and a judge is critical.
| r*h
发帖数: 374 | | Z*****l
发帖数: 14069 | 93 如果奥巴马能变出钱来，当然应该免费支持这种伟大光荣正确的乌托邦政策，可惜他不
能。
,
【在 e*********n 的大作中提到】
: majority of "middle class" already have company sponsored health insurance,
: which doesn't pay the tax penalty
: most opponents are saying i am healthy NOW, i don't want to help others,
: my question to you: how long can you stay in perfect health?
: from humanity stand point, it's cruel to just leave sick people dying
: unlike some other things, no one wants to be sick in the first place.
: will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
