Health Care Summit (Live Thread)

[Not not Mattaru]

It's a legitimate question. 90% of the cases I read contain that type of analysis. "If we are to rule this way, then X can happen." And it seems like 100% of the time dissents use that exact analysis in attacking the majority's opinion.

Whether you like it or not, that's how the law is often determined.

Yeah I recognize that. It is not unimportant to take into consideration worst-case scenarios, but I have said time and again the government is not really doing anything super different or without precedent.

The point being almost everything is not water-tight, so you have multiple checks to deal with it, not just one. I mean, there is thousands of years of philosophical history behind the question of the correct way to rule, moreover to make a consistently logical and acceptable moral standard is debated in millions of pages. People still debate about it.

Its called risk mitigation, chance are one defense may fail, so you have multiple ones. You can have a power and it can be used correctly or it can be abused, even a law itself can be debated by its letter or spirit, so you find ways to handle abuses of power.

If health care goes to the Supreme Court so be it, but right now it isn't even a law.

[Fistandantilus]

You'd think a political thread without Leif would be an upgrade, but nope, all it did was show that we have other equally retarded people on the board.

[archibaldcrane]

Swampy - if a mandate requiring everyone to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional, then you're fucking golden. You don't want it, the Supreme Court would shut it down, just kick back and relax - let the little liberals and their unconstitutional bills try to push them past a Supreme Court challenge.

And if you're wrong and it is constitutional, then shut the fuck up about the goddamn constitution.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Don't hold your breath.

[archibaldcrane]

It sounds more like you're scared it is constitutional than convinced that it isn't.

[Chun Liroy]

I really really hope Daily Show is going to cover this tonight.

EDIT: LOL, Obama's face when the two representatives were arguing.

http://i46.tinypic.com/i6fe53.png

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It sounds more like you're scared it is constitutional than convinced that it isn't.

Currently it is unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS change the law if it wants to. Just because under current law it would be unconstitutional doesn't mean it will be after the SCOTUS would reach it's decision. After learning the history of the commerce clause, it's really kinda scary. It wouldn't surprise me if the SCOTUS found a way to make it constitutional.

[archibaldcrane]

Currently it is constitutionality hasn't been decided

ftfy

[kuronosan]

God damn, I come back from work hoping that Swamp had actually tried to form an intelligent argument... but comparing having to buy health care to mandating ipad purchases...


...Really?

[Not not Mattaru]

God damn, I come back from work hoping that Swamp had actually tried to form an intelligent argument... but comparing having to buy health care to mandating ipad purchases...


...Really?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/MavisD/ipad.jpg

The future that can be!

[Acturus]

I'm not familiar with not for profit, but its probably a tax code thing (most non-profits are c501(3), not for profit is probably different).

My hospital system has it's own health insurance. We sell it to employees and to some employer groups in the community, but it's small-time compared to true commercial insurance.

It is a "not-for-profit" insurance system that is provided by a "not-for-profit" hospital system.

It's different than non-profit. I'm not a tax guy, but non-profit just doesn't make money on top of cost of business, whereas not-for-profit makes a profit, but reinvests it in the foundation of the business towards expansion and improvements.

My hospital system has a huge (liek xbox) charity service that pays for a lot of bad debt in the ER, on top of community projects and other philanthropic deals with our communities. Our "profits" go to things like that.

[Not not Mattaru]

My hospital system has it's own health insurance. We sell it to employees and to some employer groups in the community, but it's small-time compared to true commercial insurance.

It is a "not-for-profit" insurance system that is provided by a "not-for-profit" hospital system.

It's different than non-profit. I'm not a tax guy, but non-profit just doesn't make money on top of cost of business, whereas not-for-profit makes a profit, but reinvests it in the foundation of the business towards expansion and improvements.

My hospital system has a huge (liek xbox) charity service that pays for a lot of bad debt in the ER, on top of community projects and other philanthropic deals with our communities. Our "profits" go to things like that.

Yeah Rhino went over this (non-profit vs. not for profit) awhile ago. I know about not-for-profit hospitals (my mom works in hospital administration).

[Acturus]

Yeah Rhino went over this (non-profit vs. not for profit) awhile ago. I know about not-for-profit hospitals (my mom works in hospital administration).

That's what I get for skipping pages.

[Acturus]

As with most things political, I went to Factcheck.org this morning to check up on the information used yesterday:

http://factcheck.org/2010/02/health-...mit-squabbles/

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

God damn, I come back from work hoping that Swamp had actually tried to form an intelligent argument... but comparing having to buy health care to mandating ipad purchases...


...Really?

I wake up hoping that you're able to understand an intelligent argument. What was I thinking.

[Not not Mattaru]

Why can't we just have CBO write a bill. This also goes for CRS (Congressional Research Service - the people who tell congress all the facts they can then choose to disregard).

And yes I know why they shouldn't, but it would be nice if people listened to these people without bias.

[Darus Grey]

MI'm not a tax guy, but non-profit just doesn't make money on top of cost of business, whereas not-for-profit makes a profit, but reinvests it in the foundation of the business towards expansion and improvements.

There's actually no legal distinction between these, it's entirely a philosophical/scope of mission difference.

I.e. I run a community center, I have to reinvest into it.
If I ran a charity instead I simply pay for overhead and spend all my money on my mission.

Basically the scope is whether the organization is the target of the charity(i.e. a community center(, or if the target is external to it(helping children in haiti).

Both however are non-profits and legally are the same type of entity, some states do have a special category for charities, but it simply means that 85% of your income is spent externally, and you get a few tax incentives, this is still just a rider attached to your federal non-profit status though.

tl;dr there is no legal distinction between non-profit and not-for-profit.

[Beckwin]

I thought that ruling regarding the 16th amendment basically said that the 16th was superfluous, not that income tax was unconstitutional.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I thought that ruling regarding the 16th amendment basically said that the 16th was superfluous, not that income tax was unconstitutional.

There were multiple rulings. Prior to the 16th income tax was unconstitutional unless was calculated regarding population or something. Afterward it was clearly ruled constitutional.

Don't know what you mean by superfluous though, as it only applied to the income tax.

[kuronosan]

I wake up hoping that you're able to understand an intelligent argument. What was I thinking.

Someone who compares national health care to the purchase of an over-glorified piece of technological crap should not be lecturing others on understanding intelligent arguments, let alone thinking they are capable of making one.