Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

XMFSinchiruna (27.70)

We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident

Recs

23

June 29, 2012 – Comments (30)

30 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, outoffocus (22.81) wrote:

not health care per say, health insurance...

Report this comment
#2) On June 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM, silverminer (31.04) wrote:

By my calculations, Scorpio's M&I Resource at Nuestra Senora dropped 60% from 34.46m ounces AgEq to 13.95m ounces AgEq.

Still have positive cash flow to fund exploration at all projects, and the trucking distance between properties makes a single mill look more cost-effective anyway.

Mill capacity expanded to 2,750 tpd, now running at 1,425tpd.

Report this comment
#3) On June 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM, rfaramir (29.27) wrote:

Not so much a Right, but a Required Purchase Or Else.

A good deal of the decision was clear thinking, denying several attempted justifications of this law. Then Roberts gave in to Statism and decided Congress' power to Tax to support the enumerated powers was really the power to Tax anything for any reason.

A sad day indeed. 

Report this comment
#4) On June 29, 2012 at 11:38 PM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

A sad day for whom?  The poor just got health insurance.  The rich hate footing the bill.  While I don't understand all the details the Supreme Court simply held the law not to be unconstitutional.  You don't like the law go vote out Congress, afterall they were the ones that passed it. 

Report this comment
#5) On June 30, 2012 at 12:17 AM, whereaminow (21.10) wrote:

^ Total lie.  The poor already had health insuramce. This forces it upon those who for completely rational reasons did not want to be part of a system that provided them little to no benefit,

You already won your batlle. No reason to keep lying about the reasons for it.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#6) On June 30, 2012 at 7:38 AM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

Let’s make an attempt to predict how Obama Care is going to affect us.

I feel Private verses Government run organizations, providing the same service, is a good place to start. So, let’s take a look at United Parcel Service verses The Post Office.

The average customer wait time between the two is eye opening.

“The average wait time to purchase stamps at the post office was 35 minutes, at the UPS Store it was only 5 minutes…”

 

Sky

Official Web Link Assistant to Sinchi

Report this comment
#7) On June 30, 2012 at 12:20 PM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

Oh please David the only real insurance for the poor is the emergency room of a city run hospital.  Even many in the middle class, which I think is becoming the new poor, tend to chance it with no insurance due to affordability.  My brother-in-law had to put off prostate cancer surgery until he became medicaire eligible. 

I submit most didn't carry insurance because of either affordability or calculated risk of not needing it.  I didn't carry health insurance in my 20s and 30s because of those reasons.

But I wish people would stop railing on the Supreme Court.  They simply ruled it wasn't unconstitutional.  Rail on Congress if that is your pleasure. But one thing that has sickened me was listening to Romney attacking it when the law was based on his own law.

Report this comment
#8) On July 02, 2012 at 6:05 PM, skypilot2005 (< 20) wrote:

My perception is that Justice Roberts feels the voters should decide whether Obama Tax (aka Obama Care) continues as law.

If a voter doesn’t like Obama Tax; vote against President Obama and the members of Congress that support it.  It is straight forward. 

Justice Roberts demonstrated how NOT to legislate from the bench.

BTW, I am opposed to Obama Tax, personally.

Sky

Report this comment
#9) On July 02, 2012 at 10:27 PM, SN3165 (< 20) wrote:

Sinch, did you see this takeover (big premium!) ?

From JSMineset.com:

"GOLDMINER St Barbara originally planned to offer a 52 per cent takeover premium to shareholders of Allied Gold, and blamed a recent slump in the Allied share price for the 90 per cent premium that was offered under yesterday’s merger proposal.

Plans for the $556 million merger by scheme of arrangement were launched yesterday in a bid to create a mid-tier gold producer worth close to $1 billion."

 

Report this comment
#10) On July 02, 2012 at 10:28 PM, SN3165 (< 20) wrote:

Sinch, did you see this takeover (big premium!) ?

From JSMineset.com:

"GOLDMINER St Barbara originally planned to offer a 52 per cent takeover premium to shareholders of Allied Gold, and blamed a recent slump in the Allied share price for the 90 per cent premium that was offered under yesterday’s merger proposal.

Plans for the $556 million merger by scheme of arrangement were launched yesterday in a bid to create a mid-tier gold producer worth close to $1 billion."

 

Report this comment
#11) On July 03, 2012 at 9:32 AM, charliedawgg (< 20) wrote:

My knee-jerk reaction to CJ Roberts' opinion was that he was a turncoat, then I saw how very un-re-tahh-ded he was. He turned the light on in the kitchen so that more of the uninformed voters (and there are far too many of those) could see the roach problem. He, in a somewhat indirect fashion, voted against the mandate. Time will tell, but sometimes a chess player has to sacrifice a rook to protect the queen. Peace out.

Report this comment
#12) On July 03, 2012 at 9:32 AM, charliedawgg (< 20) wrote:

My knee-jerk reaction to CJ Roberts' opinion was that he was a turncoat, then I saw how very un-re-tahh-ded he was. He turned the light on in the kitchen so that more of the uninformed voters (and there are far too many of those) could see the roach problem. He, in a somewhat indirect fashion, voted against the mandate. Time will tell, but sometimes a chess player has to sacrifice a rook to protect the queen. Peace out.

Report this comment
#13) On July 03, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Sturmudgeon (< 20) wrote:

Thre whole thing should have been 'thrown out' merely because of the manner in which it was foisted on the populace by a Demo-controlled government that is definitely NOT "For The People".... and yes, we MAY have an opportunity to nullify it IF this same government-slash Dictatorship refrains from AGAIN ignoring the rule of law, and perhaps does away with elections...

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#14) On July 03, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Sturmudgeon (< 20) wrote:

as for "the poor".... give me a break!... so much has been "done for the poor" that we who are paying the piper will NEVER get out from under the yoke...  and this comment is coming from someone who brings in about one half of the so-called guidance that qualifies one as 'poor'...   save the $$ spent on cigs, beer, etc., and buy your own insurance or pay cash for your medical treatments...

Report this comment
#15) On July 03, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Sturmudgeon (< 20) wrote:

Sinch, Sky Pilot, or anyone:   Can you explain what this will likely mean to holders of this stock please??

 Aurcana Set to Join GDXJ Index; Grants Stock Options

 

Thanks in advance.

(the old guy)

Report this comment
#16) On July 03, 2012 at 9:34 PM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

Yeah shame on those pesky poor.  Let them eat cake.

Report this comment
#17) On July 03, 2012 at 10:29 PM, whereaminow (21.10) wrote:

^ Really, awallejr, you're an intelligent person. You don't have to lower yourself to Chris Mathews soundbites.

Prior to government intervention in health care, it was accessible to all Americans, even the "poor" that you supposedly care so much about.

The government cartelized the industry in the Progressive Era under the AMA, which was founded in order to keep blacks and women out of the medical industry.  Like minimum wage laws, the AMA has racist and sexist roots.  Through further intervention, like Medicare and Medicaid, costs rose until Congress intervened once again in 1973 with the Health Maintenance Organization Act, which gave us the system leading up to Obamacare.

So cry to Congress about the "poor."  They created the system that you hated so much.  Not us.

And try to keep the discourse about the 3rd grade "let them eat cake" nonsense. You can do better.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#18) On July 04, 2012 at 12:28 AM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

That wasn't directed at you but at #14 since in my opinion it was apropos.

Health care has never been accessible to all Americans from a practical point of view.  Yes in theory people could always buyhealth insurance, tho pre-exisiting conditions was a problem for many.  But in the end the poor used the emergency room since it was free.  And go spend some time in an emergency room and see how that works out.

I will confess I don't know how all the details will work out with this law.  It seems to still be a work in progress.  But we can't continue as is.  That is clear.

You like to argue about choice, but the choice people were using (which included me) was simply gambling on calculated risks. 

My cousins have an autistic child.  If it wasn't for the compassion of their school district and town they would have been ruined financially and their child wouldn't be receiving anywhere near the care he is getting.

Government isn't about being a business, which Romney seems to be arguing.  It is about compassion and aiding and protecting the common good, something Mayor Bloomberg of NYC seems to understand to his credit.

BTW Happy Birthday America.

Report this comment
#19) On July 04, 2012 at 12:32 AM, whereaminow (21.10) wrote:

You're still railing a system government created. When you concede that the HMO Act of 1973 is the system you despsie, we can talk intelligently about solutions.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#20) On July 04, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Melaschasm (57.85) wrote:

If the poor did not have health care before Obamacare, then why have I been paying medicaid taxes all these years?

Report this comment
#21) On July 04, 2012 at 12:50 AM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

Well interestingly the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by a Republican President, Nixon.  But it wasn't a mandated offering, only if employers of 25 people and more offered health insurance to begin with.  The theory I suppose was the greater the pool the lower the costs.

But I don't care what programs we offer, if we don't start to limit medical malpractice tort reform, costs will continue to skyrocket.

Report this comment
#22) On July 04, 2012 at 12:53 AM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

If the poor did not have health care before Obamacare, then why have I been paying medicaid taxes all these years?

There are very specific criteria for being entitled to medicaid.  Many "poor" people wouldn't even qualify.

 

Report this comment
#23) On July 04, 2012 at 1:03 AM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

I am going to pull a "Porte."  Here is a basic link to medicaid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

Report this comment
#24) On July 04, 2012 at 6:07 AM, LeonPhillip (< 20) wrote:

like Ellen responded I am alarmed that anybody able to earn $9450 in one month on the internet. have you read this site link (Click on menu Home more information)  http://goo.gl/Xpjyp

Report this comment
#25) On July 04, 2012 at 5:25 PM, whereaminow (21.10) wrote:

Well interestingly the 1973 HMO act was signed into law by a Republican President, Nixon.

I don't know why it has to be a Left/Right issue. I'm not a Republican and I see no interesting difference between the two parties.

Nixon, however, was a Keynesian and famously said "we're all Keynesians now!" as if he has some kind of revelation.  Indeed he did, that Keynesianism provides great cover for politicians to spend any money they want.  Can't ask for anything more than that, really.

The point of understanding the historical interventions in medicine, from the founding of the AMA 100 years ago to today, is to see that the system in place pre-Obamacare has nothing at all to do with some "market failure".  The general sh*ttiness of health care in America is a result of government.  One intervention creates two more problems that require intervention, and on we march to nationalized health care.

I understand you may want nationalized health care. In that case, every intervention up to today has been a good thing, including the HMO Act of 1973, since it moved us in the "right" direction. 

Just be consistent.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#26) On July 04, 2012 at 6:46 PM, wolfman225 (67.91) wrote:

Much has been made about the provisions for "coverage for pre-existing conditions".  1) Such coverage was already available, albeit much more costly, either through high risk pools or through increased premiums following a specified waiting period, and 2) when you are talking about such coverage you're not talking about "insurance".  Insurance is something you purchase for "just in case".  This is nothing more than an attempt to pre-purchase medical care you know you're going to need at subsidized rates.

If coverage for pre-existing conditions was insurance, then you would be able to purchase full coverage for your vehicle before entering the demolition derby at the state fair.  Which sounds about right, since Obamacare is about as honest a setup as your average carny midway game.

Report this comment
#27) On July 04, 2012 at 6:50 PM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

I dunno, why am I forever always arguing with you and devoish, especially when you 2 are like night and day.

I don't want nationalized medicine and never said I did.  I mentioned Nixon simply because so far this whole topic has been divided on straight partisan lines.

What Obamacare addresses is insurance.  It doesn't tell you where to buy it and from what company.  It now covers about 30 million more people.  The poor can actually use something other than the emergency room since the credits given will more than cover their premiums.  And those with pre-existing conditions can now get the necessary care needed without facing financial ruin or death/suffering.

I view that as a good thing.  How all the details will play out I don't think anyone knows.  But it can always be amended.

But I really do wish tort reform was dealt with too.  Unfortunately the legal lobbyists always get it shelved.

Report this comment
#28) On July 04, 2012 at 6:53 PM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

My comment 27 was referring to Dave and devoish.

Report this comment
#29) On July 04, 2012 at 7:13 PM, wolfman225 (67.91) wrote:

@ 27--"How all the details will play out I don't think anyone knows.  But it can always be amended."

Actually, I don't think it can.  Some provisions, the "Payment Advisory Board" for example, are immune to future alteration once the ACA has been fully implemented.  It is to be staffed with appointees who will thereafter be unaccountable to anyone.  Not the voters, not the Congress, not the President himself. 

Also, there are many, many references within to the bill to "....at the discretion of the Secretary (of HHS)", and "...as the Secretary may decide", and so on.

The ACA seems intentionally designed to be nearly impervious to any future attempt to reign it in, much less modulate any of it's potentially more onerous side effects, all of which are unknown and unknowable.  Giving such power and authority to largely unaccountable entities isn't such a good idea, IMO.

Report this comment
#30) On July 05, 2012 at 12:19 AM, awallejr (85.49) wrote:

Trust me wolf any law enacted can ALWAYS be amended.  Right now I wager that few people know how this law will play out.  But as time goes by Congress ALWAYS has the power to change it.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement