Obamacare upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court

[damngrumpy]

Listening to the discussion of TV I cannot believe that over three hundred
million people are thinking about going back to the dark ages. They would
rather support the big drug companies than their fellow citizens.

 

[Tonington]

What he's saying appears to be true. The original bill from the House was HR-3962, which was abandoned in favour of the Senate bill 3590, HR or no HR.

Hmmm.

Anyway, g'night.

That's incorrect. HR-3590 was a bill that started in the House of Representatives. The bill sponsor was Rep. Charles Rangel, introduced on 9/17/2009. HR or no HR...HR means it's a bill that originates in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

The last link I gave you even showed the legislative history. It started in the House, before it ever reached the Senate.

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.R.3590 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Just the Facts]

OK I think I see what they did, they took a Mars Bar, put it in a Toblerone Box and said here's your Toblerone America. Hope and Change.


HR-3590 was a bill to modify the first-time homebuyers credit, which the Senate took, "Amended" (read gutted and rewrote as Obamacare) then sent back to the house where it was deemed.


Transparency.

 

[Tonington]

OK I think I see what they did, they took a Mars Bar, put it in a Toblerone Box and said here's your Toblerone America. Hope and Change.


HR-3590 was a bill to modify the first-time homebuyers credit, which the Senate took, "Amended" (read gutted and rewrote as Obamacare) then sent back to the house where it was deemed.


Transparency.

Yep. Now you've got it. Like I said earlier, the Senate can take bills that have passed through the House of Representatives, and add text. It is completely kosher as far as the Constitution is concerned.

 

[jjaycee98]

"""Eagle Smack""

""But they are going to have to pay for it... or else the government will make what you are calling poor people pay make them pay with fines. Just another bill that the so called poor will have to burden... while the REAL POOR gets a free ride as they always have.""


But what happens if they really can't pay for it even if the govt. says they can afford it?? Obviously it they can't pay the freight, they can't pay a fine.

Jail??

Holy crap!! Don't tell Herr Harper about this.8O

As a "Conservative" government "apposed" to many types of "welfare", in Alberta Seniors do not pay a Health Care premium (no one does) but they also have a "Blue Cross" card which takes care of Prescriptions, except for a small amount-maximum $25 on something really expensive. There is also Dental, Eye care and Hearing.

I wonder if the USA will not have a system where those who cannot afford the health Premiums will have those paid for by the Welfare system. I look for some type of means test that will create a graduated fee structure.

 

[JLM]

Off topic a bit, but I'll air it here. A couple of days ago I got a Zostavax shot to protect me from shingles...............$179..............umm....did I get ripped off?

 

[gore0bsessed]

I don't understand why the US just couldn't adopt a public health care system.

socialist

 

[Niflmir]

The poorest citizens are already covered.

Man oh man.

This may be one of those phyrric victories. We shall see.

It is not a victory at all, you are just obstinately refusing to accept a definition of poor which includes people who are not on welfare.

Off topic a bit, but I'll air it here. A couple of days ago I got a Zostavax shot to protect me from shingles...............$179..............umm....did I get ripped off?

That depends, did you have chicken pox when you were younger? Shingles is quite rare, in any case. Also, why don't people give their children vaccines for chicken pox in Canada? I really wish I had got a vaccination instead of chicken pox directly; at least I had a TB vaccination.

 

[Locutus]

Initially presenting the potential problems of our current healthcare environment, the creator of 'the bears that explained Quantitative Easing' provides much food for thought on the unintended consequences of Obamacare (in all its 2700 page glory). For everything you need to know about how it devolved to this ("To understand healthcare in America, you have to think about bananas") and how to think about the new tax's potential implications (e.g. lower quality of service, capped hiring rates among employers), seven minutes well spent.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/dummy-bears-guide-healthcare


Healthcare Explained - YouTube

 

[JLM]

That depends, did you have chicken pox when you were younger? Shingles is quite rare, in any case. Also, why don't people give their children vaccines for chicken pox in Canada? I really wish I had got a vaccination instead of chicken pox directly; at least I had a TB vaccination.

I got the shot for two reasons, I had chicken pox when I was 12 and my mother suffered terribly with shingles shortly before she died. YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET THAT DISEASE!

 

[Tonington]

I got the shot for two reasons, I had chicken pox when I was 12 and my mother suffered terribly with shingles shortly before she died. YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET THAT DISEASE!

No, nobody would want that disease. The vaccine will reduce your risk of getting shingles. I wonder why you would ask about getting ripped off? You must have thought the reduced risk was worth the cost. Nobody can really decide if it was worth it for you to get, except you.

 

[JLM]

No, nobody would want that disease. The vaccine will reduce your risk of getting shingles. I wonder why you would ask about getting ripped off? You must have thought the reduced risk was worth the cost. Nobody can really decide if it was worth it for you to get, except you.

People pay ransomes too!

 

[Tonington]

People pay ransomes too!

Yeah, but I don't see much of a comparison between a ransom and a vaccine. Presumably you wanted protection against coming down with shingles. Purchasing the vaccine will do that. The clinical trials with that vaccine reduced the incidence of shingles by 51.3%, and reduced the symptoms by 61.1%. That's pretty good risk reduction.
A Vaccine to Prevent Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in Older Adults

If you purchased the vaccine thinking it meant you will not get the illness, then you were misinformed. Vaccines aid in protection, but are not a complete mitigation.

 

[JLM]

Yeah, but I don't see much of a comparison between a ransom and a vaccine. Presumably you wanted protection against coming down with shingles. Purchasing the vaccine will do that. The clinical trials with that vaccine reduced the incidence of shingles by 51.3%, and reduced the symptoms by 61.1%. That's pretty good risk reduction.
A Vaccine to Prevent Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia in Older Adults

If you purchased the vaccine thinking it meant you will not get the illness, then you were misinformed. Vaccines aid in protection, but are not a complete mitigation.

That was more or less what the doctor told me, but I got the impression from the druggist I was pretty well 100% protected. He was telling me the tests are still ongoing and the results are looking better all time. Years ago it was only recommend for people 60+, but now they are starting to recommend it for younger people.

Ton- Are you aware the attachment is 7 years old?

 

[Tonington]

That was more or less what the doctor told me, but I got the impression from the druggist I was pretty well 100% protected.

That's not true. There is no vaccine on the market for any indication that provides 100% protection. Someone who is immuno-compromised even with the vaccine will still be at a higher risk due to whatever it is that is depressing their immune system. Some people just have weaker immune systems as well. Whether it's due to past illnesses, or genetic predispositions. Certainly you have better protection with the vaccine than without.

Ton- Are you aware the attachment is 7 years old?

Yes. The vaccine has been on the market for some time, since 2006. It's unlikely that the product would work any better now than it did then. Most pharmaceutical companies don't go through the expense of large stage 3 clinical trials once the product has received market approval from the regulators. At work we run post-marketing (stage 4) trials, as product stewardship for our customers. Mostly comparing efficacy against competitor products. But it's not nearly as expensive to run these trials as it is for a human product. So the clinical data for marketed human products is often only as contemporary as the length of time the product has been approved for sale on the market.

 

[JLM]

That's not true. There is no vaccine on the market for any indication that provides 100% protection. Someone who is immuno-compromised even with the vaccine will still be at a higher risk due to whatever it is that is depressing their immune system. Some people just have weaker immune systems as well. Whether it's due to past illnesses, or genetic predispositions. Certainly you have better protection with the vaccine than without.



Yes. The vaccine has been on the market for some time, since 2006. It's unlikely that the product would work any better now than it did then. Most pharmaceutical companies don't go through the expense of large stage 3 clinical trials once the product has received market approval from the regulators. At work we run post-marketing (stage 4) trials, as product stewardship for our customers. Mostly comparing efficacy against competitor products. But it's not nearly as expensive to run these trials as it is for a human product. So the clinical data for marketed human products is often only as contemporary as the length of time the product has been approved for sale on the market.

Well, I'm a pretty tough old codger, so I'm keeping a positive attitude and I think with even the worst case scenario I'd do better than I would without it. :smile:

 

[Tonington]

Well, I'm a pretty tough old codger, so I'm keeping a positive attitude and I think with even the worst case scenario I'd do better than I would without it. :smile:

Definitely better than without, provided you aren't allergic to any of the components in the vaccine of course.

 

[JLM]

Definitely better than without, provided you aren't allergic to any of the components in the vaccine of course.

Well it's been 48 hours and no outbreaks yet!

 

[gopher]

Hey Dumb azz... Did you read the article?

Here is a an exerpt...

"That the famous study by the Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance has been a reliable Democrat talking point for months. But its estimate that 44,789 "excess deaths" are associated with lack of health insurance annually is rarely questioned by the media. They should be."

Suck on that BIG TIME FAIL!

Did you actually read it? It proves that it is your mythology that sucks it big time, buddy.

 

[EagleSmack]

Not at all. I will admit that I am both amused and saddened that the poor and middle class of the country that considers itself the greatest nation on the planet have to go to foreign nations in order to afford decent medical care. Canadians are a generous people. We are always happy to help out our destitute cousins. Need any more bridges built?

Considering you need a Canadian Health Card to get free health care in Canada. If they do get health care in Canada they will be billed.


Sorry but you should not let emotions get in the way of facts.

Did you actually read it? It proves that it is your mythology that sucks it big time, buddy.

You FAILED Gopher. I made you look like a fool once again. Moving the goal post will not help you.

Better luck next time.