SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reuters reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled 6 - 3 in favor of the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the President. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, who added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in January 2017.
Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia, referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law (SCOTUS is the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States).
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 25 2015, @04:43PM
That is what's wrong with the whole thing. Few people can afford Obamacare, so the government is subsidizing it. Let's not even consider that government never gets anything right. Let's only consider what happens when government subsidizes anything at all.
Vendors know that Uncle is paying. Those vendors know that Uncle has deep pockets - after all, Uncle and the Fed decide to print a few gazillion dollars, and they are fat, fat, fat. No one else can do that. Just print a few thousand, and go to prison for half of forever. So, anyway, the vendors know Uncle is rich, so they jack up their prices to cash in.
So, where were we? Oh yeah - a lot of people didn't have insurance because they couldn't afford it. Uncle makes a rule that EVERYONE MUST HAVE insurance. Vendors increase their prices, Uncle prints of many truckloads of money with which to subsidize those prices. Vendors see that they've gotten one over on Uncle, they increase prices again, Uncle prints more truckloads of currency. Vendors see that they have one hell of a good thing going, they raise prices again, but Uncle knows that everyone is hooked, and he doesn't NEED to print truckloads of money.
Oh, wow. Suddenly, only the wealthy can afford Obamacare. But, the law says you MUST HAVE Obamacare, or face penalties. So . . . now what?
The IRS penalizes you by taking everything you own? Your home, your cars, your leg and your left nut? And, you're left homeless, without insurance.
Then what?
Subsidies. If you're taking Uncle's money, you owe Uncle. And, you bet your ass that Uncle is going to collect.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @04:47PM
> Let's not even consider that government never gets anything right.
How about we do consider that? The country is in lawless ruins, even worse off than Somalia. Obviously you know your stuff.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:09PM
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:15PM
Libertarianism is like Communism. It looks good on paper, but it fails when you try to apply it in the real world. And when you point out those failures, some true believer will always pipe up and say "That's because they're not doing it right!".
I've seen those examples for Communism. What failed Libertarian state are you referring to?
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:48PM
> What failed Libertarian state are you referring to?
Name one successful libertarian state.
Hell, name one libertarian state.
Are they unicorns because nobody is doing it right? Or is it because they are so inherently unstable that they can't even get to the starting line?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @08:29PM
Somalia and Honduras are two good examples.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @11:48PM
Honduras Is Sold as a Libertarian Paradise--I Went, and Discovered a Capitalist Nightmare [alternet.org]
Hurrah for Libertarianism!
-- gewg_
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @11:51PM
Why is an article about healthcare and taxation being posted on a tech news site? If it was about "your rights online", fine, that's related to what I can do with my PC. But this?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:33PM
The country is in lawless ruins, even worse off than Somalia.
There is a lot of failure in a great nation like we had here. Patience, Somalia is coming. We don't yet have anything as horrible as Mogadishu but we have Detroit and Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, DC and the trend lines all point to collapse.
Just look at the topic of this thread. The SCOTUS is unquestionably lawless. Totally and utterly lawless, they know what the clear letter of the law was, they knew it was very intentionally written the way it was to coerce the States and yet when the States stood and refused to be coerced they now just rewrite it. They claim the power to legislate and nobody is going to say a Goddamned thing to stop them. They will howl for the cameras, to show the folks back home how outraged they are and all, but when it counts they will say and do absolutely nothing.
They should introduce Articles of Impeachment for every Justice who voted for this ruling. It should be short and direct:
"For the offense of attempting to Usurp the legitimate powers of this Legislature and a long history of generally being opposed to our very Form of Government, the following are hereby relieved of their seat on the Supreme Court and dismissed from our councils in Dishonor. No ruling previously entered is voided but no ruling bearing the signature of any of those being so Dishonored shall be considered to form a binding precedent for future cases."
No it couldn't pass but the vote should be recorded and used against them on election day. Make the enemy start paying a price for their lawlessness. And who knows, if the vote ended up close it just might shock them into laying low for a few years. Heck, just a bare majority would cause plenty of soiled undergarments. Make them fear US for a change.
(Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:58PM
Make them fear US for a change.
Put down the Confederate Battle Flag, jmorris! Who is the "us" and the "they" in your insane delirium? I do not think they are who you think they are.
The SCOTUS is unquestionably lawless.
Yes, your legal acumen is truly without compare! Literally.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:19PM
Yes, your legal acumen is truly without compare!
No legal expertise required, only fluency in the English language and rudimentary reading comprehension skills suffice. The SCOTUS itself, in their majority opinion, concedes the point that the plain language of the law compelled the opposite decision, they simply ruled the other way anyway.
They no longer care what we think. They now rule, we must now decide whether we will meekly obey or do the American thing and rebel against unjust and lawless tyrants. America was a Revolutionary country once, it can be again. There remains a brief window of opportunity to peacefully overthrow this tyranny from within the ruins of the old system, after that the other means will remain.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:26PM
No legal expertise required, only fluency in the English language and rudimentary reading comprehension skills suffice.
And as the great legal scholar, Yoda, said: "This is why you fail!"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:32PM
No legal expertise required, only fluency in the English language and rudimentary reading comprehension skills suffice. The SCOTUS itself, in their majority opinion, concedes the point that the plain language of the law compelled the opposite decision, they simply ruled the other way anyway.
Apparently you lack that fluency too since that is categorically not what the SCOTUS said in their majority opinion. Right there on page 3 they explicitly say that the language is not plain: "When read in context, the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it could also refer to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—for purposes of the tax credits."
Only a total fruitloop would read the word "ambiguous" as meaning "plain language."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:20PM
Nice cherry pick. But NO, that is not what it said. It was referring to the State Government, NOT the Federal Government.
Maybe instead of making wild assertions, you might actually read what 42 U. S. C. §18031 actually SAYS.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18031 [cornell.edu]
There is no way you can substitute the Federal Government for a State Government in that section and stay within the law.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:24PM
> Maybe instead of making wild assertions, you might actually read what 42 U. S. C. §18031 actually SAYS.
You are accusing the scotus of making wild assertions? I guess that puts you in the fruitloop category too.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:38PM
> Maybe instead of making wild assertions, you might actually read what 42 U. S. C. §18031 actually SAYS.
You are accusing the scotus of making wild assertions? I guess that puts you in the fruitloop category too.
Now, now, let's just cut to the chase. The legislature passed an bill that is inconsistent on this minor point, if it were to be read literally. This means one of two things. If Congress meant the law to be taken literally, it means they intended to destroy the ACA. But Congress has had some fifty votes to repeal the act, and all of them have failed, so clearly that cannot be the legislative intent. On the other hand, the legislature meant to say the "state", rather than "State", and the intent was that ACA would be workable. Since one of these interpretations is clearly false, the other must be the case, and the Court has so found. Letter of the law is a typo, it is the spirit of the law that matters. Why do I suspect that we have some disingenious Constitutional Literalists here on SoylentNews? SoylentNews is not literal language, SoylentNews is people!
And Justice Roberts quotes the Conservative minority from the earlier case? https://twitter.com/irin/status/614078327939272705/photo/1 [twitter.com] Ouch!
(Score: 2, Redundant) by curunir_wolf on Thursday June 25 2015, @08:26PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @08:42PM
> Maybe they should not have gone along with passing it before they knew what was in it.
50 attempts to repeal it without a single success seems like pretty clear proof that congress is happy enough with what they did pass.
(Score: 1) by Groonch on Thursday June 25 2015, @09:19PM
The point at issue was not some obscure feature of the ACA but the basic architecture of it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 25 2015, @09:33PM
OH, really? Why do you say this? I thought the question of the basic structure was settled in the previous SCOTUS case.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Groonch on Friday June 26 2015, @01:56AM
The fact that the federal government can set up exchanges if the state governments do not is pretty basic to the scheme of the ACA. If you had to explain the ACA on a napkin, this would be on that napkin. Amusingly, Roberts' opinion in this case actually points out that some of the justices in the minority actually acknowledged this as self-evident fact in the 2012 decision. When it became a possible way to gut Obamacare, Scalia, Alito and Thomas suddenly felt very differently about it...
(Score: 1) by Groonch on Friday June 26 2015, @02:13AM
And no, the 2012 case was not about determining the basic structure of the ACA; It was about whether the ACA is constitutional. I don't recall any significant statutory interpretation issues in it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 25 2015, @11:24PM
Apparently you lack that fluency too since that is categorically not what the SCOTUS said in their majority opinion. Right there on page 3 they explicitly say that the language is not plain: "When read in context, the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it could also refer to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—for purposes of the tax credits."
Only for certain values of "proper". They admit here that there thing is clearly defined, but then assert to the contrary that it is "properly" viewed as "ambiguous".
What's going to happen when this sort of reasoning is used on secret trade agreements or extending the US's government's powers? The ends don't justify these means because the means are too broad and can be readily applied to far more wicked ends.
And once again, the Supreme Court unconstitutionally ignores the lack of severability built into the law. The law should have been throw out twice now due to the issues found in it. They do not have the legal authority to pick and choose what to keep because the US Congress didn't allow for that.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @12:42AM
And once again, the Supreme Court unconstitutionally ignores . . .
I am so glad that finally there is somewhere to appeal really bad Supreme Court decisions! It is almost like having an EU court! Or a TPP court! We can call it, "The Ubersupreme Court of jmorris and khallow." Unfortunately, I predict almost entirely split decisions, once the honeymoon is over.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:01PM
If you accept that as an axiom, then the only logical political system is anarchy. And that means that the best country in the world to live in should be one with either no government at all (e.g. Somalia) or a completely dysfunctional government (e.g. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan). Since those kinds of countries are demonstrably not the best countries to live in (measured by GDP per capita, life expectancy, education level, and a whole lot of other measures), that seems like a fundamentally flawed assumption to make. Sometimes government gets it right or at least really close to right (e.g. municipal water supplies), sometimes government gets it wrong (e.g. Fast and Furious), and failing to praise it when it gets things right is just as incorrect as failing to criticize it when it gets things wrong.
As for the rest of your argument, you are conveniently ignoring several aspects of the ACA that prevent your doomsday scenario:
1. It's still a competitive marketplace, so insurance companies are motivated to keep their costs down. As in, if your subsidy is $80 per month, your subsidy is $80 regardless of whether you pay $150 a month for insurance or $450 a month in insurance, which will motivate insurers to keep the prices down.
2. The 85% rule demands that the insurance companies spend at least 85% of what they take in on actual health care. That means that any savings that the insurance company is able to eke out of the vendors will be immediately reflected in the pricing.
3. Insurance companies can and do have leverage to negotiate with health care providers to keep prices down in a way that individuals do not. That helps the price of the initial health care no longer spiral out of control.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by enigma32 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:09PM
3. Insurance companies can and do have leverage to negotiate with health care providers to keep prices down in a way that individuals do not. That helps the price of the initial health care no longer spiral out of control.
Have you ever actually gone to a doctor before?
Have you ever seen the price difference between paying yourself and paying through insurance?
Anecdotally speaking (based on my own experience and experiences friends have shared with me), the same care seems to cost 2-3x more when the insurance company is paying than when you pay out of pocket. You're saying that's them keeping the price of healthcare from spiraling out of control?
(Score: 5, Informative) by vux984 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:29PM
Anecdotally speaking (based on my own experience and experiences friends have shared with me), the same care seems to cost 2-3x more when the insurance company is paying than when you pay out of pocket.
Meanwhile...
http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2007/anderson-hospital-charges.html [jhsph.edu]
So it clearly goes both ways.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:34PM
This is the thing. It *depends* on where you go.
Most of the people I have been dealing with are willing to give me a break if I do 3 things. I pay up front with cash (or something close), no credit card, and no insurance. If you are dealing with a conglomerate company their prices are determined by the head office (meaning no breaks). But if you are dealing with a 'mom and pop' practice you can get some good discounts. They *reallllllly* do not like dealing with insurance. You think you hate it? They deal with it day in and day out.
(Score: 1) by enigma32 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:34PM
Touché.
That's very interesting. I wish there was a link to the research.
It's not entirely clear whether he means the total cost of care is less with insurance or the out-of-pocket cost is less, though presumably he means the former, since otherwise it's useless drivel.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:22PM
Yes, in the last year.
Yes. And I've seen both the insured and uninsured prices for the same procedures. The prices were somewhat lower with insurance, even factoring in the costs of insurance.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:18PM
Uh-huh. Makes sense, doesn't it? Except, I'm paying more today than I paid two years ago. My employer and my insurance company both blame Obamacare for the increases. Hmmm . . .
Oh yes, I know there are success stories because of Obamacare. Some social worker in Ohio demonstrated that he got health care for hundreds of clients who were un-insurable before Obamacare. So, what does that mean? Subsidies. You, me, and every taxpayer in the nation is paying for those un-insurable people's insurance.
I could maybe go along with that, up to a point. Obama COULD HAVE simply passed a law that no one could be turned down for insurance. No one. If someone applies for insurance, the insurance company has to insure them, at a reasonable rate. First thing that would have happened is, the insurance companies would have jacked up the rates - and I'd be in just about the same place I am now, with a couple rate hikes. Wouldn't that have been much simpler? And, the IRS wouldn't be looking over my shoulder to make sure that I'm insured.
BTW, when I said gubbermint doesn't get ANYTHING right, I was referring to our own government.
The military industrial complex is so very damned expensive for the very same reasons we can expect health care to continue increasing in cost every year from now on. When gubbermint meddles in anything at all, the costs grow exponentially.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:37PM
My employer and my insurance company both blame Obamacare for the increases. Hmmm . . .
And you believe them? Hmmm, we need to get the mental health provisions into Obamacare, Stat!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:58PM
Do I believe them? Yes and no. No, I don't believe that they can justify the increased rates. But, I most certainly believe that they can rationalize the increased rates by blaming Obamacare. And, it's working - the rates have been jacked up, and I have little choice but to pay them! Five years ago, I had an option to just drop the damned insurance, today, the law says I don't have that option. Obviously, the rates can be increased by 10, 30, even 100% at the insurance company's whim, each and every year. If I were getting the subsidy, the near-term pain would be masked, but what about five, or ten years from now, when gubbermint turns the subsidies off?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:59PM
Mine has not gone up since Obamacare, for the first time ever.
So there's the opposite anecdote for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:20PM
> Mine has not gone up since Obamacare, for the first time ever.
I went from paying $550/month with a $5K deductible and a 30% co-pay to $300/month with a $2K deductible and $10 office-visits and $10 diagnostics.
Former plan was through my employer, later plan was a "gold" plan bought through my state's exchange website.
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Friday June 26 2015, @01:17PM
We are paying the same price as two years ago for much better coverage. No subsidies and complaints here, either.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:39PM
But the obscene rise in health care costs started back between the Clinton and Bush era and has been spiralling upward ever since. Obamacare is certainly a waste and will eventually be proven a historical failure, but it was just a legislative symptom of a much bigger disease running its course through this country. And partisanship is at least one vector it uses to to infect the system.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:46PM
Uh-huh. Makes sense, doesn't it? Except, I'm paying more today than I paid two years ago.
And this is totally the ONLY time healthcare costs have ever risen, right?
My employer and my insurance company both blame Obamacare for the increases. Hmmm . . .
Certainly no conflict of interest there...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:26PM
We were promised that health care costs would DECLINE, you idiot.
http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/10/28/video-19-times-obama-promised-to-lower-annual-insurance-premiums-by-2500/ [breitbart.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gishzida on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:14PM
What we got in the ACA was what was "Allowed" by large corporate interests. This is your hard earned "Libertarian Ideals (tm)" in action!
It would have been much better if what had been enacted was true socialized medicine where the "profit motive" had been removed. The "Death Panels" advertized by Republicans, Tea Baggers, and Libertarians are now run by insurance companies instead of ethicists looking for reasonable quality of care and quality of life.
As for subsidies not working or being a failure the answer for me at least is that they work as described. When we enrolled we'd had a really bad year with total income being around $12K... so we got a "deal" of about $76 / mo. for my wife and I... but during the year I got old enough (59 1/2) to cash in some of my 401K savings... When tax time came around I had to "pay back" $1400 to the government since my income was too high for the subsidy received and we had to re-enroll in a "more expensive" plan (about $120 / mo.) .
You complain about what you have to pay for insurance when the truth is your corporate masters are the ones that are screwing you. They make their profit off of your hard work and blame someone else for why they can't pay you a decent wage and proper benefits. To make matters worse they refused to make medical care a public "utility". Why did they do that? So they can make a profit from people's medical issues, disease, and suffering. Don't believe the issue is about "choice". It is about profits. That is the only thing corporations care about.
Much as I dislike the ACA it is better than nothing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 26 2015, @04:54AM
This is your hard earned "Libertarian Ideals (tm)" in action!
This is quite true. I doubt there is a leftist idea out there, no matter how stupid, ill-conceived, or self-serving, that we can't cause to fail instantly merely by pointing out that it won't work. Our mental failwaves are simply too strong for you to resist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:37PM
I believe there are people in the GOP that would love to interview you and go all Fox Newsy about it.
Because they've been looking for a case like that for a long while and couldn't find a single one that stood up to even a little bit of scrutiny.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday June 26 2015, @01:29PM
Yup, we are. Just like we were before - we used to do so by hospitals overcharging for care to make up for the people that couldn't pay their bills, now we're helping to pay for their insurance. And the least insurable people in the country are also already covered by taxpayers, with Medicare and Medicaid.
What if the someone in question can't afford to pay the "reasonable rate"? Then what do you do?
If your policy goal is to make sure that everybody has insurance, then you need some way of either forcing or incentivizing everybody to have insurance to make sure that those who are not sick can pay for the costs of those who get sick.
The ACA, which is definitely not perfect but much less bad than the way things were before, basically has 3 pieces:
A. Insurers must insure everybody. None of this "first prove you aren't sick, and then we'll let you buy insurance, and if you get sick then we'll cut you off" business that was going on in 2005.
B. Everybody must have insurance. Otherwise, you'll have people only buy insurance when they're sick, which means that the cost of insurance will rise to be more than the cost of health care, which defeats the purpose of having insurance, which means that nobody is better off than before.
C. Subsidies are given out for people who can't afford insurance without help. Otherwise, you're going to have lots of people who both have to have insurance (point B) and can't get it.
That, of course, explains the skyrocketing costs of postage stamps [usnews.com]. By which I mean not-at-all skyrocketing, because the inflation-adjusted price is lower now than it was in the 1970's.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:18PM
If you accept that as an axiom, then the only logical political system is anarchy.
Or you do what the Founding Fathers did and establish a strictly limited Constitutional Republic empowered to do only those things that our current understanding of economics and political science hasn't found a way to handle better down at a lower level of government or in the private sector. And you do it in the clear knowledge that the State will still tend to be a substandard solution and a general drag on society.
Look around, has Fascism worked out here these last hundred years? Has it worked anywhere? Or how about it's kissin' cousin of Socialism? Has it worked? Anywhere? So why not try Americanism again? It worked.
Go read The Federalist Papers, if you can't handle the language read the modern translation Glenn Beck got a college student to produce to help with that problem. Understand what the Old Republic was, why it was designed that way and THEN and only then decide if think it would be likely to work better than the Empire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:21PM
read the modern translation Glenn Beck got a college student to produce to help with that problem.
Glenn Beck? College student? Translation from English to English? Unpossible!!!
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:32PM
I read old books, the language of The Federalist Papers is perfectly readable for me but a common complaint is the difficulty of modern government educated people to read it. Most modern writing is on a level that someone of the Founder's era with a sixth grade education would consider pretty dumbed down. So one day, way back when Beck was on FNC he said it would be a wonderful thing if somebody would do a translation to 'Modern English' and a college student heard it and stepped up. Beck had the kid on the show and announced that he would be publishing the book through his imprint and did so. I have now read both and can see how the translated version would be much easier to digest and understand. Nothing appears changed in the meaning of the text but there has been a fair amount of linguistic drift in two centuries, different word choices make sense now, cultural references need footnotes, breaking up long sentences with multiple dependent clauses and so on. Just generally updating the work to match the expectations of a modern audience.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:03PM
I'm assuming "here" means the United States. If that's not the case, please let me know.
Since you've decided that everything that's been done by the US government since 1915 is "fascism", then yes, I'd say it worked out extremely well. Some of the achievements of that system:
- Defeating the avowed fascists in Italy and Germany and Japan, and dominating the world militarily.
- Infrastructure such as the Interstate Highway System and airports all over the country.
- Pushed literacy rates above 99.5%, and overall education level to the highest in human history.
- The largest GDP and worker productivity in the world.
- Through scientific research (e.g. human genome project) and public health regulation (e.g. the FDA), helped make the life expectancy in the US from 55 years to 80 years, compared with the 60 years or so in those countries without "fascism".
- Landing people on the moon. No other organization on the planet has even come close to duplicating that.
I can keep going, but generally speaking the US has done damn well under the governments of such noted fascists as Dwight Eisenhower.
You could point out that the US is no longer #1 in a lot of those areas, and you'd be right. The part that you'd be wrong about is that libertarianism helps you in any of that, because the countries doing the better than the US by these kinds of measurements (Finland, France, Sweden, Canada) are run by avowed democratic socialists who pursue policies that are far more left-wing than the US.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:56PM
and dominating the world militarily.
Playing world police is not a virtue.
- Infrastructure such as the Interstate Highway System and airports all over the country.
Very good. Now, if only we could get the TSA thugs out of the airports...
- Pushed literacy rates above 99.5%, and overall education level to the highest in human history.
Literacy is good, obviously. Sadly, schools do not educate; they mostly force people to memorize information. Understanding is not required. Sure, it's better than before, but being better than absolute garbage isn't too much of an accomplishment. We still have a long way to go, and I don't think we're at the top when it comes to education level.
You could point out that the US is no longer #1 in a lot of those areas, and you'd be right.
I know you said this, but I could not resist.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by K_benzoate on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:03PM
I always thought that once everyone could see that it would be cheaper and better if we just signed everyone up for Medicare by default, and allowed people to opt-out and get private insurance if they want, that we would quickly enact single payer and end this foolishness. People actually like Medicare, it's very popular with seniors and would be with everyone else. With such an expanded pool you'd even be able to do full coverage instead of 80% up to the out of pocket limit.
Surely once people saw how expensive the alternative private system is they'd flock to this logical conclusion. What is the insurance company actually doing for me? They'd wonder. Why can't we all just buy healthcare directly and pay into the system based on what our income level allows? They'd embrace the economy of scale that comes with monopsony healthcare systems. But Nope. Turns out people would rather be spite-poor and spite-sick than accept the fact that rational cooperation is (sometimes) better than stubborn, idealistic, individualism.
Well, at least you succeeded in keeping the government out of your medicare! [blogspot.com] Get a brain, morans! [ixquick.com]
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @09:54PM
One big hole in the picture is immigration reform. We've either got to close the borders good and tight or make it much easier for migrant workers to go legal and pay taxes. Most would gladly pay taxes and be a citizen rather than be deported.
Another big hole is that the cheaper service only works when the government is an economic adversary to the corporations. As it stands the corporations dictate legislation in the USA with congress being merely a formality. What incentive do the corporate interests that own the government have to allow the government to pay it less? See also: Regulator Capture.
You can't start with a plutocracy like the USA, then make assumptions based on it still being a democratic republic, because this just isn't the case anymore. [bbc.com]
(Score: 1) by enigma32 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:05PM
+1
I don't understand how so few people see how an effective government subsidy of an industry that has already driven up the cost of healthcare excessively is a bad idea, when we could have instead found ways to drive down the cost of the care itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:08PM
Obamacare is just corporate welfare. Too bad Obama has come out against singlepayer. What a true 'liberal' he is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:37PM
He had to give up on single payer because his own guys wouldn't have dared vote for the evil socialist policy which is providing all other developed countries with healthcare at half our cost.
(Score: 2, Informative) by enigma32 on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:53PM
The other countries that do it at "half our cost" also regulate the costs of the healthcare itself.
One of the best examples is typically Taiwan, with which I have some first-hand experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan [wikipedia.org]
Go read about it.
The thing that makes the ACA so terrible is that it forces us all to pay for overpriced healthcare, rather than fixing the underlying problem.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday June 25 2015, @10:50PM
How would the underlying problem be fixed efficiently?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:00PM
That's not what he said. He said that the ACA was never planned to eventually lead to single payer in the first place. This is just something he himself admitted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:00PM
Source?
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:21PM
Few people can afford Obamacare, so the government is subsidizing it. Let's not even consider that government never gets anything right. Let's only consider what happens when government subsidizes anything at all.
I completely agree. In fact, we should change the name to clearly reflect what the subsidy is for -- medical care. Perhaps instead of 'Obama', which will become less current over time, we could use some form of 'Medical' -- Med, Medica ... I'm drawing a blank. Oh well.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:11PM
Subsidies. If you're taking Uncle's money, you owe Uncle. And, you bet your ass that Uncle is going to collect.
If the subsidies ONLY covered insurance premiums. (which I believe is the case), the price of premiums would rise to absorb ALL the available subsidies, which would force those non-subsidized insurance payers (unions, businesses, and individuals), to soon have to accept the subsidies.
The actual prices charged by health care vendors (doctors, hospitals etc) would be controlled ONLY by insurance companies will pay, pretty much as it has been. In the end insurers would still be allocating medical care, and adjusting premiums to recover all costs and some profit as well.
You might be able to regulate the profit level of insurers, (after all the government subsidies removes just about all risk). But without some financial reward nobody will sell insurance. The basic facts are than insurance needs to have a lot of healthy people in the system, AS WELL AS make money from investment of the premiums, and in order to cover high-cost cases, they have to make a profit on a significant portion of their subscribers.
With no incentive to keep premiums low the whole thing spirals out of control EVEN if you postulate a well managed government subsidies market.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:05AM
There's the real problem, a bunch of disgusting sociopaths profiting off disease and sickness. Basic healthcare should not be done for-profit. Extra, non-essential stuff, sure, but everyone should be able to get healthcare without being extorted so the middlemen can line their pockets.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @08:12AM
But without some financial reward nobody will sell insurance.
Oh, sure they will! it's called "gambling", and a sucker is born every minute!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @09:02PM
The cost of healthcare in Canada (per person) is about HALF the cost of it in the USA. In other countries with public healthcare, again, it's less expensive than the USA. So... does it really look like government covering health care leads to price bloat? Nope, it's the opposite. Government investment in healthcare brings the costs down.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 26 2015, @04:49AM
i'll never understand why anyone votes for anybody who's platform is "government can't do anything right". if they're in control, then of course government won't be able to do anything right, they have a vested interest in proving themselves right.