Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional

Your nonsense has already been DEBUNKED in post #588 above and you have subsequently FAILED to establish any other basis for your asinine question since it was originally based entirely on the debunked nonsense.

Obviously it is too difficult for you to understand how the concept of civil discourse works.

 

That's pretty weak. Teams in the NFL don't play to lose....and the teams don't lose money...if they did they wouldn't be in operation....that's the difference

 

You have a problem with profits?

 

Your quote is attributed to the WRONG member!

Yes, I do have a problem because there is no justification for the exorbitant profits in some areas of the healthcare system.

I don't have a problem with profits of 10% but I do have a problem with profits of 800% at the expense of the lives of sick people. Let me PROVE what I am talking about.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...expensive-after-latest-price-hikes-2017-10-23

That is $18,546 PER MONTH for the rest of the life of the patient. That comes to $222,552 per year.

Did Celgene do anything to actually increase the value of the drug? Nope! It just raised the price in order to INFLATE PROFITS!

Now let's compare that $222 THOUSAND to the GENERIC version of Revlimid available in India. That only costs $275 for an entire year which INCLUDE the profit markup for the manufacturer!

Revlimid is basically just Thalidomide that has been around for 50 years now.

But because of the GAMING of the Patent Laws the Big Phama corporations are RIPPING OFF sick Americans with this PRICE GOUGING.

The worst part of this is that if someone could not afford Revlimid they would just have to die without it because Celgene has filed lawsuits and patents worldwide to STOP anyone from being able to buy the generic version outside of India. That effectively condemns people without healthcare insurance in other nations to death whereas they could probably afford the generic alternative.

So when PROFITS are made via EXTORTION which threatens the lives of sick people then yes, I do have a serious problem with them.

And the big question is why don't you have one too?

 

You are drifting into rather uncivil incoherence. So far, you have "DEBUNKED" nothing. Instead you are attacking me for asking a direct question that you obviously do not want to answer. Wanna see it again?

This is what I asked you: " So are we talking about what to do with a $32 Trillion pot of USG collected loot?
What would be the ***individual workers' share*** of that loot if it was divided equally and given to them?" Ddyad (*** added)

I did not slip a decimal, but I apparently underestimated the total amount of loot to be collected.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act, as written, would add $32 trillion in debt over the decade, and as much as $170 trillion over 30 years."
THE DAILY BEAST, CASH CRUNCH, The $32 Trillion Question That ‘Medicare for All’ Advocates Will Never Answer, By Brian Riedl, 10.10.18 5:03 AM ET.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-d...-medicare-for-all-advocates-will-never-answer

Did Senator Sanders and The Daily Beast get it wrong? So far you have proven them right - you still refuse to answer the question.

 

Because I'm smart enough to ensure myself against such things. And if you're not, that's not my problem.

 

2. PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INSULTS

Personal attacks and insults are not tolerated here. When replying to a post, your own post must be about the post to which you are replying, not the poster themselves.

So still waiting what was your point?

 

There is no catch, a kid with an ear ache is not in imminent danger and needs to receive primary care and follow-up treatment and the ER is not required to treat them. The bottom line is Obamacare and giving people a piece of paper saying they have "insurance" did not decrease ER visits and in fact they are up.

 

You confuse the profits of one product with the profitability of the company in toto.

Net profits 22.79%
Return on assets 10.84%
https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Celgene-Corp/Ratios/Profitability

Tell me do you make sure that any companies in which you invest make no more than a 23% net profit and no more than 11% return on assets?

 

Personal attack, come on man.

 

Focus on the issue and still waiting for you to explain what was your point.

 

I don't even remember after all the petty bullshit you keep posting.

 

They all compete. If they win, they get a far bigger payday.

Try telling a pro player that they aren't competing - lol!

 

Obviously not.

The issue here is that we're trying to use free market capitalism to distribute healthcare to each American.

And, free market capitalism has no motivation to do that.

Our economic system is oriented to maximizing profit, NOT saving lives or reducing suffering.

The result is that for DECADES we've tried to coerce corporations to do what we need done by adding regulations to disallow the various policies that are not acceptable.

It as wholly immoral to see life and suffering as no more than an opportunity for financial profit. And, no amount of regulation is going to cause our system to provide coverage to those who need it.

 

You're saying a doctor or nurse isn't motivated by money? I disagree. They want to have the best doctor's office, and provide the best care, in order to get the most clients....which brings them more wealth.

What policies are not acceptable? I don't disagree that for decades we have added regulation, after regulation...largely simply just adding cost and making things more expensive.

 

Hence my question which is never answered: So are we talking about what to do with a $170 Trillion pot of USG collected loot?
What would be the ***individual workers' share*** of that loot if it was divided equally and given to them?

"Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act, as written, would add $32 trillion in debt over the decade, and as much as $170 trillion over 30 years."
THE DAILY BEAST, CASH CRUNCH, The $32 Trillion Question That ‘Medicare for All’ Advocates Will Never Answer, By Brian Riedl, 10.10.18 5:03 AM ET.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-d...-medicare-for-all-advocates-will-never-answer

 

OK, so that went over your head.

An earache is not necessariily benign. The ER has to verify that it is benign before dumping the patient on the street as you suggest.

This is a general issue as most symptoms can have causes that can be benign or serious.

 

No. I diid NOT say that.

Please reread.

 

You're playing math games, and so is your cite.

Let's remember that we already spend FAR more than other countriies with perfectly good healthcare systems that cover everyone.

I think one of the under represented savings will come with detaching healthcare from employment.

Why do we have every corporation or even reasonably small employers figuring out how to design, administer and pay for healthcare??

No company in the EU has to do that.

 

Image that, you can’t make money removing pain, solving illinesses, fixing broken bones, saving lives. Who would have thought.

Guess if you’re a doctor, you best move to Venezuela so you can earn a decent living.

 

You seem quite confused.

Nobody has suggested providers shouldn't be paid.

 

Did you or did you not post: you can’t make profit by saving lives and removing suffering?

Your words, dude, not mine.
Now, I’ll give you this: you can’t make money slaving for the poor, but who the hell wants to be a slave or work for the poor. Not me. That’s why I’m not moving to Venezuela. I like to earn a living.

 

No. I most certainly did NOT say that.

What you can''t do is depend on a for-profit system to deliver services to the entire population.

As for your personal decision, I think you're making a wise choice. For so much of our economy, free market capitalism is a winner.

The difference is that we do not care if everyone gets a big screen TV or a shiney new car. BUT, we do care when our citizeenns are suffering from lack of healthcare. Capitalism is fine for the first of these and is a total flop for the second - so much of a flop that large amounts of regulation haven't adequately resolved the probleem.

 

Silly boy, socialized medicine is for losers.

The purpose of capitalism is to make money; the purpose of socialized medicine is to make slaves of the doctors and the healthy in order to be "Mother Teresas" to the poor. BTW: Andrew Cargnie, that raping robber baron, lifted more out of poverty in one hour than Mother Teresa did her whole life.

The fools in this nation don't want health insurance, they want free health care for every sneeze, cough, scrape, hangnail, watery eyes, chapped lips, and on, and on, and on, forever and ever--and they want someone else to pay for it. Hucksters like you, wrap it up in altruistic snake oil, and fleece the poor fools who buy it.

I ain't buying.

Furthermore, if you can't make a profit giving good products and service in a capitalist system, you can't make a profit anywhere; but then again it's not profit we are talking about, is it. We're talking about looting and enslaving the productive for the sake of "I can't help myself". How wretched, how stupid, how bloody rotten, how frigging immoral, how unjust.

You will never save the good by enslaving the best.

 

That issue was never addressed.

Courts follow rules of procedure. If you are sued, you should answer the Complaint and list all relevant defenses available to you. For example, if you are sued for debt allegedly owed, and the statute of limitations has expired, you must list the statute of limitations as an Absolute Defense in your Answer. If you fail to do that, you cannot raise that as a defense later, even though it is a valid defense and precludes collection of the debt.

Appeals are the same way. You must state the issue(s) on appeal, and the appellate court will address those, and only those issues, and no other issues. You cannot raise additional issues during appeal. If it goes to the Supreme Court, the Court will only address those issues on appeal, and no other issues, and you cannot raise new issues.

If there are other issues, then you must file a new lawsuit, or file a new appeal specifically addressing those issues.

This issue was not raised on appeal, and so the appellate court did not address it, and neither did the Supreme Court.

This issue actually stems from a case filed by States. It is a new issue.