babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
All my Republican co-workers are acting like it's the end of the world...LOL
I know one person who I play an online game with (yep geek alert) who was so depressed at the decision that he drank some scotch (which he apparently never does) to drown his sorrow, talked about moving and then couldn't play because he couldn't stand that the other American gamers either didn't care about the country destroying disaster or were happy about it. It was pretty funny. Probably didn't help that the conversation went into a discussion about where he could move and all of the countries he could remotely see himself in all have some form of socialism!!! in their HC systems.
I listened to Romney's speech right after the decision came down, and it's clear the GOP are making this SCOTUS decision the centre plank of their platform for November. It's going to get very, very nasty from here on in - this is an extremely divisive subject in America. The GOP/Tea Party/Sarah Palin are all fucking nuts so this is going to get very very bad.
I listened to Romney's speech right after the decision came down, and it's clear the GOP are making this SCOTUS decision the centre plank of their platform for November. It's going to get very, very nasty from here on in - this is an extremely divisive subject in America. The GOP/Tea Party/Sarah Palin are all fucking nuts so this is going to get very very bad.
Yep already some pretty crazy reactions. I stopped paying close attention or even caring much about US politics over a year ago in order to lower my blood pressure. Now I play cursory attention to whats going on with the occasional dip into 'what are people saying and doing' when something major happens. Looking at it more like watching some weird pseudo reality show up there with the likes of Jersey Shore. If I don't treat it as entertainment and laugh at it's sheer absurdity I'll just cry. I have no problem admiting that this is a defensive mechinism but you do what yah gotta do.
I have spent a lot of time talking about this with some American friends though most are of the mind expressed by some in this thread that context is key. They understand and think that politics is their country is a mess and polarized to the extreme and at this point will take what they can get. They think a Canadian type system would be a utopia. At least three who don't have health insurance because they fall into the 'pre-existing condition' category and either can't get insurance or would have to spend the majority of their work pay to get it. One guy says that he would be better off being unemployed because at least he might qualify for medicare. It's absolutely a ridiculous and in my mind abhorrant situation that is being addressed. You want health insurance in case you get sick? Well sure, just make sure you're not actually sick..... It's just pathetic that a gov't has to pass a law saying it's not right.
Anyways regardless of my opinion on the stinkiness of the act in general I'm happy that these few people I actually know are going to benefit. It's really not fun having real time (voice chat) discussions with people who are sick with things like strep or bad stomach pains about whether or not they are sick enough (like potentially on their way to being hospitalized sick) to go get looked at because it's going to cost money and they're not sure how they're going to pay for it. I've had more discussions about 'home remedies' and self diagnosis with American friends then I have with Canadian ones.
From the Keith Olbermann Fan Page on Facebook: This is why republicans are against Obamacare, come 2014.........Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. Let's call out the republicans on this matter. They hate the idea that they will be in the same pool w/everyone else. Of course they'll never say that. So it's up to us to do it for them.
Citation: Page 81, sec. 1312 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of the original documents
ETA: Oops! Keith may have his argument wrong. From a Facebook friend: This makes no sense. The standards of Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) is the basis on which ACA is built. I cannot imagine that FEHB is not an approved insurance under the ACA. Oh, and FEHB is what all non-military federal employees have available to them.
extending existing federal standards to everyone -- universal coverage -- is the achievement here for Obama's policy
Quote:
Millions of poor people could still be left without medical insurance under the national health care law if states take an option granted by the Supreme Court and decide not to expand their Medicaid programs, state officials and health policy experts said Friday.
Republican officials in more than a half-dozen states said they opposed expanding Medicaid or had serious doubts about it, even though the federal government would pick up all the costs in the first few years and at least 90 percent of the expenses after that.
Does the US Supreme Court ever issue 9-0 rulings anymore?
They dont do that. By convention at least one of them has to write a dissenting opinion
Issues that would be 9 to 0 would not be heard on an appeal to the Supreme Court. If the US is anything like the SCC they just refuse those kinds of applications for leave to appeal with no reasons. If you have a dissent in the lower Appeal Court of you will get an appeal in Canada but not if the BC Court of Appeal for instance was unanimous. The idea with the Supreme Court is it only hears the tough cases not easy ones that all judges can agree on.
ETA: See #43 below for the real stats. My above statement is out to lunch. Proof again that anecdotal evidence is not data.
Thank you for pointing that out, unionist. People here should not be getting excited, as this is not progressive legislation - not in the least.
Practically speaking, this was the best they were going to get at this point, and they barely got it as it is. Weighing points of principle in the balance with the status quo - people losing their houses and livelihood, living untreated and in misery, and dying, I would call this a progressive start.
As for criticising the fact that this is still feeding private insurance and medicine, I'll reserve that for using against the Republicans who are still trying to kill it.
And by chance, I was in the states the morning this was announced, and have been treated to all the minutae of the Republican arguments. I don't think actual health care was mentioned once. It was all about the personal liberty to not be forced to buy insurance by the federal government. And of course claims that Obama lied about it not being a tax.
If this is truly the trojan horse this editorial writer believes it to be, why aren't right-wing commentators going after this? Given the degree to which they have stretched the truth, I don't think complaining about investor profits is that much of a leap.
I will always remember the notice I saw posted to a community billboard in Long Island, basically begging for money to be able to care long-term for a family member with a chronic disease
I know one person who I play an online game with (yep geek alert) who was so depressed at the decision that he drank some scotch (which he apparently never does) to drown his sorrow, talked about moving and then couldn't play because he couldn't stand that the other American gamers either didn't care about the country destroying disaster or were happy about it. It was pretty funny. Probably didn't help that the conversation went into a discussion about where he could move and all of the countries he could remotely see himself in all have some form of socialism!!! in their HC systems.
Poor guy.
I listened to Romney's speech right after the decision came down, and it's clear the GOP are making this SCOTUS decision the centre plank of their platform for November. It's going to get very, very nasty from here on in - this is an extremely divisive subject in America. The GOP/Tea Party/Sarah Palin are all fucking nuts so this is going to get very very bad.
Rush predictably has also gone crazy:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/28/the_court_rules_obamacare_i...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/28/freedom_of_choice_meets_its...
Yep already some pretty crazy reactions. I stopped paying close attention or even caring much about US politics over a year ago in order to lower my blood pressure. Now I play cursory attention to whats going on with the occasional dip into 'what are people saying and doing' when something major happens. Looking at it more like watching some weird pseudo reality show up there with the likes of Jersey Shore. If I don't treat it as entertainment and laugh at it's sheer absurdity I'll just cry. I have no problem admiting that this is a defensive mechinism but you do what yah gotta do.
I have spent a lot of time talking about this with some American friends though most are of the mind expressed by some in this thread that context is key. They understand and think that politics is their country is a mess and polarized to the extreme and at this point will take what they can get. They think a Canadian type system would be a utopia. At least three who don't have health insurance because they fall into the 'pre-existing condition' category and either can't get insurance or would have to spend the majority of their work pay to get it. One guy says that he would be better off being unemployed because at least he might qualify for medicare. It's absolutely a ridiculous and in my mind abhorrant situation that is being addressed. You want health insurance in case you get sick? Well sure, just make sure you're not actually sick..... It's just pathetic that a gov't has to pass a law saying it's not right.
Anyways regardless of my opinion on the stinkiness of the act in general I'm happy that these few people I actually know are going to benefit. It's really not fun having real time (voice chat) discussions with people who are sick with things like strep or bad stomach pains about whether or not they are sick enough (like potentially on their way to being hospitalized sick) to go get looked at because it's going to cost money and they're not sure how they're going to pay for it. I've had more discussions about 'home remedies' and self diagnosis with American friends then I have with Canadian ones.
ha ha So much truth... Gotta love FB politics.
From the Keith Olbermann Fan Page on Facebook: This is why republicans are against Obamacare, come 2014.........Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
Let's call out the republicans on this matter. They hate the idea that they will be in the same pool w/everyone else. Of course they'll never say that. So it's up to us to do it for them.
Citation: Page 81, sec. 1312 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of the original documents
ETA: Oops! Keith may have his argument wrong. From a Facebook friend: This makes no sense. The standards of Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) is the basis on which ACA is built. I cannot imagine that FEHB is not an approved insurance under the ACA. Oh, and FEHB is what all non-military federal employees have available to them.
good point...
extending existing federal standards to everyone -- universal coverage -- is the achievement here for Obama's policy
They dont do that. By convention at least one of them has to write a dissenting opinion
[threadhijack] ElizaQ, so great to see you! I'm dying to know how your outdoor kitchen is going from this thread... [/threadhijack]
Issues that would be 9 to 0 would not be heard on an appeal to the Supreme Court. If the US is anything like the SCC they just refuse those kinds of applications for leave to appeal with no reasons. If you have a dissent in the lower Appeal Court of you will get an appeal in Canada but not if the BC Court of Appeal for instance was unanimous. The idea with the Supreme Court is it only hears the tough cases not easy ones that all judges can agree on.
ETA: See #43 below for the real stats. My above statement is out to lunch. Proof again that anecdotal evidence is not data.
In fact it is also way more common in Canada than I thought and I read a lot of decisions from the SCC.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/stat/html/cat4-eng.asp
Practically speaking, this was the best they were going to get at this point, and they barely got it as it is. Weighing points of principle in the balance with the status quo - people losing their houses and livelihood, living untreated and in misery, and dying, I would call this a progressive start.
As for criticising the fact that this is still feeding private insurance and medicine, I'll reserve that for using against the Republicans who are still trying to kill it.
And by chance, I was in the states the morning this was announced, and have been treated to all the minutae of the Republican arguments. I don't think actual health care was mentioned once. It was all about the personal liberty to not be forced to buy insurance by the federal government. And of course claims that Obama lied about it not being a tax.
Check this out:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obam...
If this is truly the trojan horse this editorial writer believes it to be, why aren't right-wing commentators going after this? Given the degree to which they have stretched the truth, I don't think complaining about investor profits is that much of a leap.
"... only outlaws will have pre-existing conditions"
I will always remember the notice I saw posted to a community billboard in Long Island, basically begging for money to be able to care long-term for a family member with a chronic disease