-
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Google Killed The Twitter-Twat Star (Updated) Or Not….
I particularly enjoyed his Oct 26th 2009 status update:
people whos (sic) are disrespectful, deserve the same inreturn (sic)
-
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Seasons Change And So Did I, You Need Not Wonder Why
Apparently there are 3 reasons to end Obamacare but I stopped reading half way through the 1st reason:
1. It Represents the End of Limited Government. The Supreme Court will issue its verdict later this spring of course,
The decision will actually be made in June which, as any fool who’s familiar with Earth’s northern hemisphere knows, is in Summer.
That glaring error was not the first sign that Brietbart.com’s much-touted reliability as an important journalisming site had been overhyped.
-
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Five Elephants In The Room
Do you really think you pay for health care with insurance??
I realise this may be a shock for you but 250 million people in this country *do* have health insurance and, as Justice Ginsburg said, “we don’t get insurance so we can stare at our insurance certificate.” We get it so that we can pay for healthcare products & services. It serves absolutely no other function. In that sense, it is identical to cash.
What you are saying is like saying making you buy broccoli is nothing more than regulating credit cards
Au contraire, that’s not what I’m saying at all. In fact, my very point is that the Government is specifically *not* making you buy broccoli.
Your problem is that you’re confusing the “what” with the “how”. They’re not mandating *what* healthcare products you purchase, they’re determining *how* those products must be paid for. And, though we don’t much care for it, our predecessors have decided that primary health care is a market and that products in this market are paid for via for-profit insurance.
The reason some people (including, but not limited to, you, Scalia & Kennedy) struggle with this subtle distinction is because they think that individuals who are not participating in a market are being “forced into commerce”. The problem with that argument is that the healthcare “market” is unique: it’s the only one in which everyone inevitably *does* participate. Added to that: a) one frequently doesn’t get to choose *when* one will participate in it; and b) one is entitled to some of the most expensive products & services without having the means to pay for them.
It’s not therefore unreasonable that the regulation of financial contracts used to pay for products and services in this market should be handled differently.
I agree that a Single Payer system would be awesome; even if we had a Public Option, the mandate wouldn’t be necessary, but demolishing the private health insurance industry overnight isn’t quite the slam dunk you might think it is…and we have to start somewhere.
-
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Five Elephants In The Room
I guess you’d already given up on the ACA before it reached the Supreme Court and didn’t bother listening to the Oral Arguments.
The Government’s argument was not that it was forcing you to buy a product but that it was regulating the way you *pay* for a product.
You pay for broccoli with a credit card; you pay for healthcare with insurance.
-
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Five Elephants In The Room
Her argument makes absolutely no sense.
To summarize:
1. The law is good and should not be overturned.
2. If the law were to be overturned, the court would be guilty of partisanship.
3. Obama is wrong to suggest that if the court were to overturn the law it would be guilty of partisanship. -
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Slow Poster Children Ahead
Unfortunately, there’s no evidence to suggest that Republicans will assign any credit to the Obama Administration for benefits they receive from the ACA. It is, after all, inconceivable that the Government could benefit them in any way (viz. “Government, get your hands off my Medicare”).
That said, there are some often overlooked gems in the ACA that already do a lot to “grease the skids” as you put it. The only help the Supreme Court cases will provide (so long as the Government prevails!) is to remove the number of roadblocks that opponents can put up in future.
-
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Slow Poster Children Ahead
I’m pretty sure I saw his face on a piece of toast this morning.
-
AndrewNYC commented on the blog post Friday Night Random Ten
Only three? Wow, that’s tough. Even Desert Island Discs allows eight.
On which subject, it appears Suggs at least would agree with L&TC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/e83591a4





