Obamacare Supreme court case: Day 1

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Ultratwinkie:
If this case doesn't go for Obama, it will be a death sentence for any American who isn't sitting on million of dollars.

So, exactly how is preventing the US medical care as a whole going bankrupt due to the babyboom generation growing old, a death sentence?

Which brings me to the only conceivable reason why people could possibly oppose what Obamacare stands for, and that reason is pure selfishness and unwillingness to look beyond the short term.


If the supreme court opposes this, than the US budget and healthcare are done for. It'll continue like it has, but much worse, with millions of uninsured people and people who avoid visiting doctors and then go to the ER when their condition has worsened severely. And in the meantime the obesity epidemic will continue to grow and create health costs and lost productivity.

Therumancer:

Comando96:

Not G. Ivingname:
If it isn't delayed, no matter how the vote goes, it is going to be one of the most historical Supreme Court cases in United States history.

Really?

Getting rid of racism... sexism... getting rid of 1 shit and ineffective bill?

What exactly are you're priorities here? O_o

It's historical because the Supreme Court has ruled on social issues of that sort before and that was part of it's intent. If The Supreme Court knocks this law down it will be one of the few times it has taken action directly against a presidential policy of this sort.

What's more the whole situation involves far more people than either racism or sexism did arguably, since according to some hype this bill will wind up affecting like 95% of people, either in having to pay into Obamacare or face a penelty for not joining it and using a differant service.

What's this 'pay into Obamacare' business. Obamacare is just new regulations for the healthcare system. The only people that have to actually pay are people without insurance, a decent portion of whom are without it because insurance companies refuse to insure them, but it is not like they are not getting anything in return, you know the whole access to healthcare part.

I confess to some concern over it because I believe it's heavy handed, and to be honest as someone who is disabled and on social security I'm not entirely sure I'm going to be able to afford to pay for it, not to mention concerns over how it's going to work with my current Medicare benefits, and ultimatly what kinds of treatment I'm going to be able to get. Not to mention how doctors are going to react to being forced to accept it, and how that might influance treatment.

Medicare is insurance. If you are on Medicare then you have insurance. You don't have to go out and get insurance if you already have it. No Medicare benefits are actually being cut. The Republicans say it is being cut, but that is because Obamacare is making reforms to how services are provided to lower the costs. Just because it is costing less does not automatically mean you are getting less. This seems to be something Americans have trouble getting their head around.

Also, doctors are not being forced to accept anything, it is insurance companies. Doctors treat patients just as they always have. The only difference is they now get to treat the actual sick patients who could not get insurance before.

I've seen those concerns answered in a few differant ways by differant people at differant times, but the end result seems to be that for all the experts claiming they know what's going to happen on both sides, the bottom line is nobody knows what's going to happen for sure until it actually goes through and we start gauging reactions.

I do not like the idea of the goverment telling me that I have to have their insurance or pay a penelty, and to be honest despite my personal needs I am sort of a supporter of the rights of private businessemen, including doctors. A principle I stick with despite it not nessicarly representing my own best interests.

All rambling aside, the point is that this will be a huge, huge thing that is going to affect an unprecedented number of people.

Also The Supreme Court is in a position to play "Kingmaker" right now. A ruling right now, in either direction, could very well determine who the next president is going to be, especially if they deliver the ruling the right way. That is an unusual turn of events. Heck, even delaying the ruling could very well have that effect.

My gut feeling is that all my Republican tendencies aside, Obamacare being shot down is probably not a bad thing in of itself. However in shooting it down the Supreme Court is causing a problem by basically saying the goverment can't require any kind of nation-wide health insurance of grant it. As wary as I am of Obamacare, I am not entirely opposed to the idea of a similar program that is more carefully crafted and with more certainy in what it's going to actually do, especially if the people who don't use it are not forced to pay a panelty for not having it.... that's the part that really sucks to me. The Supreme Court is probably taking so long to debate this because there are a lot of ramifications here, and it really can't say no to Obamacare without basically nixing other similar programs since it's ruling more on the federal goverment's abillity to require something like that, than the program itself.

America is the only developed nation that does not seem to understand that to have UHC everyone needs to pay for it, not just the people that want to use it. If the only people that paid are the people that wanted to use it then it would be no different then normal health insurance.

The argument that you don't want to pay for other people's healthcare is also bogus because that is exactly what insurance is. Do you think the insurance company puts all the money you pay them away for a rainy day in a vault with your name on it. Of course they don't.

If you want to blame anyone for the uncertainty over OC blame the Republicans. They are the ones that forced a lot of changes. That is what is wrong with US politics. You get a decent piece of legislation and then you take it to Congress and they fuck it up because of their financial backers and personal beliefs instead of doing what is best for the country.

pyrate:

Therumancer:

Comando96:

Really?

Getting rid of racism... sexism... getting rid of 1 shit and ineffective bill?

What exactly are you're priorities here? O_o

It's historical because the Supreme Court has ruled on social issues of that sort before and that was part of it's intent. If The Supreme Court knocks this law down it will be one of the few times it has taken action directly against a presidential policy of this sort.

What's more the whole situation involves far more people than either racism or sexism did arguably, since according to some hype this bill will wind up affecting like 95% of people, either in having to pay into Obamacare or face a penelty for not joining it and using a differant service.

What's this 'pay into Obamacare' business. Obamacare is just new regulations for the healthcare system. The only people that have to actually pay are people without insurance, a decent portion of whom are without it because insurance companies refuse to insure them, but it is not like they are not getting anything in return, you know the whole access to healthcare part.

I confess to some concern over it because I believe it's heavy handed, and to be honest as someone who is disabled and on social security I'm not entirely sure I'm going to be able to afford to pay for it, not to mention concerns over how it's going to work with my current Medicare benefits, and ultimatly what kinds of treatment I'm going to be able to get. Not to mention how doctors are going to react to being forced to accept it, and how that might influance treatment.

Medicare is insurance. If you are on Medicare then you have insurance. You don't have to go out and get insurance if you already have it. No Medicare benefits are actually being cut. The Republicans say it is being cut, but that is because Obamacare is making reforms to how services are provided to lower the costs. Just because it is costing less does not automatically mean you are getting less. This seems to be something Americans have trouble getting their head around.

Also, doctors are not being forced to accept anything, it is insurance companies. Doctors treat patients just as they always have. The only difference is they now get to treat the actual sick patients who could not get insurance before.

I've seen those concerns answered in a few differant ways by differant people at differant times, but the end result seems to be that for all the experts claiming they know what's going to happen on both sides, the bottom line is nobody knows what's going to happen for sure until it actually goes through and we start gauging reactions.

I do not like the idea of the goverment telling me that I have to have their insurance or pay a penelty, and to be honest despite my personal needs I am sort of a supporter of the rights of private businessemen, including doctors. A principle I stick with despite it not nessicarly representing my own best interests.

All rambling aside, the point is that this will be a huge, huge thing that is going to affect an unprecedented number of people.

Also The Supreme Court is in a position to play "Kingmaker" right now. A ruling right now, in either direction, could very well determine who the next president is going to be, especially if they deliver the ruling the right way. That is an unusual turn of events. Heck, even delaying the ruling could very well have that effect.

My gut feeling is that all my Republican tendencies aside, Obamacare being shot down is probably not a bad thing in of itself. However in shooting it down the Supreme Court is causing a problem by basically saying the goverment can't require any kind of nation-wide health insurance of grant it. As wary as I am of Obamacare, I am not entirely opposed to the idea of a similar program that is more carefully crafted and with more certainy in what it's going to actually do, especially if the people who don't use it are not forced to pay a panelty for not having it.... that's the part that really sucks to me. The Supreme Court is probably taking so long to debate this because there are a lot of ramifications here, and it really can't say no to Obamacare without basically nixing other similar programs since it's ruling more on the federal goverment's abillity to require something like that, than the program itself.

America is the only developed nation that does not seem to understand that to have UHC everyone needs to pay for it, not just the people that want to use it. If the only people that paid are the people that wanted to use it then it would be no different then normal health insurance.

The argument that you don't want to pay for other people's healthcare is also bogus because that is exactly what insurance is. Do you think the insurance company puts all the money you pay them away for a rainy day in a vault with your name on it. Of course they don't.

If you want to blame anyone for the uncertainty over OC blame the Republicans. They are the ones that forced a lot of changes. That is what is wrong with US politics. You get a decent piece of legislation and then you take it to Congress and they fuck it up because of their financial backers and personal beliefs instead of doing what is best for the country.

It's odd that you act confused about the whole "pay into Obamacare" thing and then make it clear you understand the point towards the end.

Something to understand is that unlike a lot of the other countries with UHC the USA does not have the same kind of socialist tendencies. The idea of forcing people to pay into something like this is actually an anathema to what the country is supposed to stand for, even if it's not exactly unprecedented.

I also look at other situations where the goverment has started forcing people to pay into mandatory services... like Social Security benefits. It was a great idea, but a big part of the problem is when politicians started taking money out of that huge pile with the intent of putting it back, and then never wound up doing so. The way our goverment works, we're just not going to be able to shield a program like this in the long term, any more than we did by trying to make Social Security some kind of sacred, untouchable cow.

I understand the benevolent intent, but I do not like the idea of the goverment forcing this, and I also do not trust the goverment to run a program like this even if they do implement it.

What's more, there are concerns over how it works with other goverment benefits, and truthfully when I'm living on a fixed income (social security and nothing else) and forced to live at home with brain damage, I have some serious bloody concerns about the goverment taking chunks out of the money it's already giving me for no real benefit.

According to some interpetations I'm reading, Obamacare is largely going to apply to people who for whatever reason can't qualify for social security. Having done the social security dance with my problems, I can say the system isn't fun to work with, but it's the way it is for a reason. There are plenty of people who want social security and/or Medicare who generally shouldn't be entitled to it, and have other options like actually working. Some of the people I ran into while involved in that had barely even worked for their life. I at least worked for a decade at the casinos alone, and was more or less forced into that position (so it was relatively easy for me with all my documentation).

As "heartless" as it sounds I honestly think a lot of the people who would benefit from the Obamacare system and make use of it, are people that shouldn't be on a goverment dole to begin with. Not universally of course, but it still applies. I think for many Obamacare is going to be an excuse to not even try to work and find other ways to hold down benefits (making the nessicary sacrifices).

I'll also say that as "bad" as it is, there are people in the US, and even entire groups, that should just be left to die. That's a strong, and cruel statement, but it happens to be true. There are people out there who are basically worthless, and have never made even the slightest effort to do anything but leech off the system and find excuses not to do anything, not even biting the bullet under the pressure. I feel we should help those who actually tried, or have legitimate problems (which we have a reason to be skeptical about), and pretty much F@ck the rest who are entirely responsible for themselves.

I'd much rather see the money assigned to Obamacare over this period of time get fed back into the existing, failing, social security system to replace some of the money thhat has been taken out. It won't solve all the problems, but it will help a bit, and ultimatly support what is a fairer, if far from perfect, system.

Hmm I listened to the day 2 audio and I have to say that if I were a betting man I would say that in a 5-4 or perhaps even 6-3 decision the individual mandate gets overturned.

Therumancer:

pyrate:

Therumancer:
[quote="Comando96" post="528.357943.14153543"][quote="Not G. Ivingname" post="528.357943.14153510"]If it isn't delayed, no matter how the vote goes, it is going to be one of the most historical Supreme Court cases in United States history.

snip

It's odd that you act confused about the whole "pay into Obamacare" thing and then make it clear you understand the point towards the end.

Something to understand is that unlike a lot of the other countries with UHC the USA does not have the same kind of socialist tendencies. The idea of forcing people to pay into something like this is actually an anathema to what the country is supposed to stand for, even if it's not exactly unprecedented.

I also look at other situations where the goverment has started forcing people to pay into mandatory services... like Social Security benefits. It was a great idea, but a big part of the problem is when politicians started taking money out of that huge pile with the intent of putting it back, and then never wound up doing so. The way our goverment works, we're just not going to be able to shield a program like this in the long term, any more than we did by trying to make Social Security some kind of sacred, untouchable cow.

I understand the benevolent intent, but I do not like the idea of the goverment forcing this, and I also do not trust the goverment to run a program like this even if they do implement it.

What's more, there are concerns over how it works with other goverment benefits, and truthfully when I'm living on a fixed income (social security and nothing else) and forced to live at home with brain damage, I have some serious bloody concerns about the goverment taking chunks out of the money it's already giving me for no real benefit.

According to some interpetations I'm reading, Obamacare is largely going to apply to people who for whatever reason can't qualify for social security. Having done the social security dance with my problems, I can say the system isn't fun to work with, but it's the way it is for a reason. There are plenty of people who want social security and/or Medicare who generally shouldn't be entitled to it, and have other options like actually working. Some of the people I ran into while involved in that had barely even worked for their life. I at least worked for a decade at the casinos alone, and was more or less forced into that position (so it was relatively easy for me with all my documentation).

As "heartless" as it sounds I honestly think a lot of the people who would benefit from the Obamacare system and make use of it, are people that shouldn't be on a goverment dole to begin with. Not universally of course, but it still applies. I think for many Obamacare is going to be an excuse to not even try to work and find other ways to hold down benefits (making the nessicary sacrifices).

I'll also say that as "bad" as it is, there are people in the US, and even entire groups, that should just be left to die. That's a strong, and cruel statement, but it happens to be true. There are people out there who are basically worthless, and have never made even the slightest effort to do anything but leech off the system and find excuses not to do anything, not even biting the bullet under the pressure. I feel we should help those who actually tried, or have legitimate problems (which we have a reason to be skeptical about), and pretty much F@ck the rest who are entirely responsible for themselves.

I'd much rather see the money assigned to Obamacare over this period of time get fed back into the existing, failing, social security system to replace some of the money thhat has been taken out. It won't solve all the problems, but it will help a bit, and ultimatly support what is a fairer, if far from perfect, system.

I don't think you really understand what OC is. The way you talk about 'paying into it" and compare it to Social Security it makes it sound like you think it is the government that is running it. They are not. It is not a scheme like Social Security, it is not government insurance. The government is not starting a new health fund, it is not paying for the healthcare of any more people than it already does.

All OC does is require insurance companies to insure people regardless of existing conditions so that the people that actually need healthcare can get it. To make it work though you need everyone to be involved so insurance companies have the healthy people to finance the sick people that they will make a loss on.

Your concern over how it works with other government benefits is also unwarranted. OC is not a government benefit, it has zero effect on any other benefit you have. You are listening to far to much right wing radio, they are making it sound far more complicated then it actually is.

Healthcare is a unique market because even if you don't pay for it, you are still in the market. If you get in an accident and get taken to the ER then they still have to treat you even if you don't have insurance and cannot pay for it. Do you know who pays for this, everyone else. The hospitals don't just accept that they have to treat people and will never see a dime, they pass the costs on to patients with insurance, who are paying extra for that insurance because of the increased cost of healthcare.

As for the money "assigned" to OC....what money. OC is saving half a trillion over 10 years. That is not money "assigned", that is money saved.

As for wanting to leave sections of society to die, that is just plain wrong. Who are you to judge others that you claim are just leeching. Who decides who is leeching and who has problems? There hundreds of thousands of people in America who cannot get a job because they have a conviction for marijuana related offenses. Do you let these people die? Should the businessman who lost everything in the GFC and lives on the street, subsequently cannot get a job because he has no address die? Is it really his fault? This is the problem right wing America has. They seem to think that everyone is 100% responsible for everything that happens to them. You need to realize that our society dictates that these people must exist. It is not their fault, it is the rules of the game. For every winner in our society there has to be a loser. That is the way it is. To let these people die because they made one bad decision, or just got unlucky, that is some fucked up shit.

pyrate:
[

I don't think you really understand what OC is. The way you talk about 'paying into it" and compare it to Social Security it makes it sound like you think it is the government that is running it. They are not. It is not a scheme like Social Security, it is not government insurance. The government is not starting a new health fund, it is not paying for the healthcare of any more people than it already does.

All OC does is require insurance companies to insure people regardless of existing conditions so that the people that actually need healthcare can get it. To make it work though you need everyone to be involved so insurance companies have the healthy people to finance the sick people that they will make a loss on.

Your concern over how it works with other government benefits is also unwarranted. OC is not a government benefit, it has zero effect on any other benefit you have. You are listening to far to much right wing radio, they are making it sound far more complicated then it actually is.

Healthcare is a unique market because even if you don't pay for it, you are still in the market. If you get in an accident and get taken to the ER then they still have to treat you even if you don't have insurance and cannot pay for it. Do you know who pays for this, everyone else. The hospitals don't just accept that they have to treat people and will never see a dime, they pass the costs on to patients with insurance, who are paying extra for that insurance because of the increased cost of healthcare.

As for the money "assigned" to OC....what money. OC is saving half a trillion over 10 years. That is not money "assigned", that is money saved.

As for wanting to leave sections of society to die, that is just plain wrong. Who are you to judge others that you claim are just leeching. Who decides who is leeching and who has problems? There hundreds of thousands of people in America who cannot get a job because they have a conviction for marijuana related offenses. Do you let these people die? Should the businessman who lost everything in the GFC and lives on the street, subsequently cannot get a job because he has no address die? Is it really his fault? This is the problem right wing America has. They seem to think that everyone is 100% responsible for everything that happens to them. You need to realize that our society dictates that these people must exist. It is not their fault, it is the rules of the game. For every winner in our society there has to be a loser. That is the way it is. To let these people die because they made one bad decision, or just got unlucky, that is some fucked up shit.

I understand more or less how it works, from the descriptions I've run into what it that the goverment collects the money (as they are the ones deducting it) and then pays it to the insurance companies, who wind up having to insure you. The system being dependant on that money the goverment is collecting to maintain it. Basically the insurance companies are forced to take you, pass their costs to the goverment, who then pays them using the pool of money collected from all the healthy people and everyone else who tosses in a share.

The issue here of course is that I have my insurance, Medicare, I'm not likely to get another insurance provider, and if everyone is expected to pay, does this mean that they are going to start taking money out of my social security? I'm not especially fond of that for obvious reasons.

I understand what Obama is trying to do, but in the end it comes down to the goverment taking money from everyone to support another social program. Your not paying for your own insurance, your giving the goverment the funding to basically pay for the insurance for you. Honestly working through a third party isn't really any better than if the goverment simply used the pool of money to pay medical bills directly.

As far as the rest goes, the problem with your logic is that for a lot of those cases they are going to fall under existing social programs to begin with. No matter how people represent themselves, in general if someone is being rejected for everything already out there, they probably don't belong in the program to begin with, and that effects how much sympathy I wind up having for them. For every person who has a legitimate reason for being in that condition, and is rejected by the system somehow, there are going to be a hundred or more who really don't belong there and are looking for a handout and not wanting to work. The thing with all inclusive social programs is that the more you give certain people the less you are going to encourage them to change their condition. What's more things like Marijuana offenses and such don't get sympathy from me, because I actually support than being illegal, and as such feel that the very fact people see it as a trivial offense is why it needs to carry harsh penelties, including going on people's records to prevent them from getting jobs.

Don't think that I'm entirely heartless, I just feel that what's right on a personal level is not nessicarly right for a society in the big picture. Money and benefits given to people who don't even make the effort, and aren't qualifying for the programs we have in force, is money that could be fed into the programs that already exist for the people deemed to have problems and be exceptions and whom receive care under the current system.

As I said, I'd much rather money be collected to be fed into things like social security, than money be collected for things like Obamacare. We already have medicare, pump that up and improve it.

Leadfinger:
Odd the Republicans should be so dead set against Obamacare. It is, after all, their idea.

Excuse me?

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/165

every house republican told obama to get bent over this law

I_am_acting:

Leadfinger:
Odd the Republicans should be so dead set against Obamacare. It is, after all, their idea.

Excuse me?

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/165

every house republican told obama to get bent over this law

He is trying to make a snide comment about how decades ago the Republicans suggested an individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare but then rejected that idea. Its like if I brought up the fact that a balanced budget amendment was originally an idea supported by the Democratic Party.

Therumancer:
[quote="pyrate" post="528.357943.14167689"]

I understand more or less how it works, from the descriptions I've run into what it that the goverment collects the money (as they are the ones deducting it) and then pays it to the insurance companies, who wind up having to insure you. The system being dependant on that money the goverment is collecting to maintain it. Basically the insurance companies are forced to take you, pass their costs to the goverment, who then pays them using the pool of money collected from all the healthy people and everyone else who tosses in a share.

The issue here of course is that I have my insurance, Medicare, I'm not likely to get another insurance provider, and if everyone is expected to pay, does this mean that they are going to start taking money out of my social security? I'm not especially fond of that for obvious reasons.

I understand what Obama is trying to do, but in the end it comes down to the goverment taking money from everyone to support another social program. Your not paying for your own insurance, your giving the goverment the funding to basically pay for the insurance for you. Honestly working through a third party isn't really any better than if the goverment simply used the pool of money to pay medical bills directly.

As far as the rest goes, the problem with your logic is that for a lot of those cases they are going to fall under existing social programs to begin with. No matter how people represent themselves, in general if someone is being rejected for everything already out there, they probably don't belong in the program to begin with, and that effects how much sympathy I wind up having for them. For every person who has a legitimate reason for being in that condition, and is rejected by the system somehow, there are going to be a hundred or more who really don't belong there and are looking for a handout and not wanting to work. The thing with all inclusive social programs is that the more you give certain people the less you are going to encourage them to change their condition. What's more things like Marijuana offenses and such don't get sympathy from me, because I actually support than being illegal, and as such feel that the very fact people see it as a trivial offense is why it needs to carry harsh penelties, including going on people's records to prevent them from getting jobs.

Don't think that I'm entirely heartless, I just feel that what's right on a personal level is not nessicarly right for a society in the big picture. Money and benefits given to people who don't even make the effort, and aren't qualifying for the programs we have in force, is money that could be fed into the programs that already exist for the people deemed to have problems and be exceptions and whom receive care under the current system.

As I said, I'd much rather money be collected to be fed into things like social security, than money be collected for things like Obamacare. We already have medicare, pump that up and improve it.

Your understanding is very wrong. The government does not collect money and then pay insurance companies. There is an element of subsidized insurance for people that need it, but it has nothing to do with the fines. The subsidized elements would remain regardless of how much money was gathered through fines.

The only money the government collects is the fines for people not having insurance, that is it. The fine itself is not to pay for the plan, it is a deterrent for people who don't want health insurance.

I am trying to think of counters to some other points you make, such as your social security, but it all comes back to the your belief that the government is someone taking money from everyone to pay for this.

While I am here I will also point out the misconception that is "everyone has to pay for insurance" as this is not actually the case. There are a tonne of exemptions.

First up, everyone covered by a public option such as medicare or VA is exempt. If you are part of a group health insurance policy, you are exempt. If you belong to a religion that is opposed to health insurance you are exempt (those Christian Scientists). Anyone with income low enough to not need to file a tax return, exempt. Anyone who would have to pay more than 8% of their income on the cheapest plan, exempt. After all the exemptions it is estimated there are only about 7 million people without insurance that the mandate actually covers.

does anyone else find it hilarious that the person who seems to know the most about obama care is an australian and those who seem to have the most misinformation are american. its amazing how much the right wing misinforms its followers.

BreakfastMan:

Comando96:

Not G. Ivingname:
If it isn't delayed, no matter how the vote goes, it is going to be one of the most historical Supreme Court cases in United States history.

Really?

Getting rid of racism... sexism... getting rid of 1 shit and ineffective bill?

What exactly are you're priorities here? O_o

Well, this one case has already broken the record for amicus (spelling?) briefings filed for a single case. And it is shaping up to be one hell of a battle. So, I think historic is a decent term to apply to it.

OT: The outcome of this will pretty much make or break Obama's re-election chances, I think (you know, depending on who the final republican candidate is, Romney or frothy).

Agree on historic, disagree on make or break. The nominee is 99% likely to be Romney, and "Obamacare" was patterned on "Romneycare". Santorum's statement that Romney is the single worst Republican to put up against Obama on this issue is absolutely right, it would be a huge help to anyone who isn't Romney. You can quibble on the idea that Romney says that his plan was great for Mass. and bad as a federal system, except that Romney's on record implying his plan *is* good as a federal system, so expect to see Obama wrapping that around his neck if his Act fails in the SC.

(And the hell of it is, if this went into effect earlier than 2014 I think Obama might be right in thinking Americans would change their mind on it. The removal of the pre-existing condition exception *alone* is a huge boon to many, many Americans (myself being one of them). To my mind, the problem this bill has is that it's neither fish nor fowl-- it isn't a liberal plan, it isn't a conservative plan, and it gives so much running room to private insurance companies that most of what it does is compromised. I mean, insurance companies are responding to the idea of free preventive care by tripling copays on meds and doubling copays for specialist visits, and blaming it on "Obamacare"-- it's just turning into a giant pretext for corporate usury.)

reonhato:
does anyone else find it hilarious that the person who seems to know the most about obama care is an australian and those who seem to have the most misinformation are american. its amazing how much the right wing misinforms its followers.

I don't find it hilarious, it really pisses me off. Both with the right wing and corporate insurance, for spending absolutely obscene amounts of money to spread complete misinformation agitprop, and with the Obama Administration, for being so completely ham-handed in ways to actually explain this shit to Americans. People are against it because they have no real idea what it *does*; people have no idea what it does because there's been no good, well-coordinated effort to tell them.

Seekster:

I_am_acting:

Leadfinger:
Odd the Republicans should be so dead set against Obamacare. It is, after all, their idea.

Excuse me?

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/165

every house republican told obama to get bent over this law

He is trying to make a snide comment about how decades ago the Republicans suggested an individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare but then rejected that idea. Its like if I brought up the fact that a balanced budget amendment was originally an idea supported by the Democratic Party.

By "rejecting" you mean "enacting in Massachusetts," right?

Universal Healthcare is what we need and "Obamacare" isn't it. It should not be legal for the government to legislate that people must purchase a service from a private corporation. It also should not be legal for the government to "tax" people as a penalty for not doing as they are told.

I think we ought to have universal health care but I do not want to allow the government to have powers it should not simply because I like the end result.

TheStatutoryApe:
Universal Healthcare is what we need and "Obamacare" isn't it. It should not be legal for the government to legislate that people must purchase a service from a private corporation. It also should not be legal for the government to "tax" people as a penalty for not doing as they are told.

But that idea cripples just about every government service ever and greatly enhances the very costly model of denying people healthcare, and then fixing them up in the ER when their condition is much worse.

Plenty of countries have forced private insurance, like the Netherlands. It likely more than cut health costs in half while the level of services went up. All you need to do is regulate it properly. For instance a basic insurance package is predetermined and any health insurer is compelled to offer that to be allowed to operate, and refusing people for basic insurance is forbidden.

The mistake the US may be heading for is making people buy insurance (always a good thing, even if just because otherwise the aging of the population will bankrupt insurers or skyrocket the prices to the unaffordable) while not regulating it properly, because all regulations on doing business are the incarnation of satan himself in the American's ideas.

But that doesn't make the first step a bad one. Right now, this is all that was politically possible. Any difference between obamacare and universal healthcare lies with the republicans, and I suppose that if the American people want it, they can vote the republicans out of office and demand to be able to receive medical care.

Blablahb:
But that idea cripples just about every government service ever and greatly enhances the very costly model of denying people healthcare, and then fixing them up in the ER when their condition is much worse.

Plenty of countries have forced private insurance, like the Netherlands. It likely more than cut health costs in half while the level of services went up. All you need to do is regulate it properly. For instance a basic insurance package is predetermined and any health insurer is compelled to offer that to be allowed to operate, and refusing people for basic insurance is forbidden.

The mistake the US may be heading for is making people buy insurance (always a good thing, even if just because otherwise the aging of the population will bankrupt insurers or skyrocket the prices to the unaffordable) while not regulating it properly, because all regulations on doing business are the incarnation of satan himself in the American's ideas.

But that doesn't make the first step a bad one. Right now, this is all that was politically possible. Any difference between obamacare and universal healthcare lies with the republicans, and I suppose that if the American people want it, they can vote the republicans out of office and demand to be able to receive medical care.

Universal Healthcare is not so reviled in the US as people make it out to be. Our politicians are just cowards and tend to bow to the whims of fringe asshats. Done right, packaged right, it would pass. "Obamacare" originally had a public option which they were forced to scrap by republicans trying to score points with their base. The public option actually had about a 70% support.

TheStatutoryApe:
Universal Healthcare is what we need and "Obamacare" isn't it. It should not be legal for the government to legislate that people must purchase a service from a private corporation. It also should not be legal for the government to "tax" people as a penalty for not doing as they are told.

I think we ought to have universal health care but I do not want to allow the government to have powers it should not simply because I like the end result.

You are right. I don't know why we have to keep paying to private insurers. They should just enact single-payer and cut out the parasitic middle man altogether.

Surely the better question would be to ask "how much of the opposition to this is financially backed by private health care?" oh yeah all of it!

Leadfinger:

Seekster:

I_am_acting:

Excuse me?

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/165

every house republican told obama to get bent over this law

He is trying to make a snide comment about how decades ago the Republicans suggested an individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare but then rejected that idea. Its like if I brought up the fact that a balanced budget amendment was originally an idea supported by the Democratic Party.

By "rejecting" you mean "enacting in Massachusetts," right?

Different plan and different set of circumstances from a national program so no.

Seekster:

Leadfinger:

Seekster:

He is trying to make a snide comment about how decades ago the Republicans suggested an individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare but then rejected that idea. Its like if I brought up the fact that a balanced budget amendment was originally an idea supported by the Democratic Party.

By "rejecting" you mean "enacting in Massachusetts," right?

Different plan and different set of circumstances from a national program so no.

Same individual mandate and a fine for non-compliance. So yes, same same.

Leadfinger:

Seekster:

Leadfinger:
By "rejecting" you mean "enacting in Massachusetts," right?

Different plan and different set of circumstances from a national program so no.

Same individual mandate and a fine for non-compliance. So yes, same same.

Well the biggest difference that is indisputable (and thus the easiest to prove) is that it was a state program not a federal program. If a state wants to have an individual mandate thats up to the people there. The federal government on the other hand would have almost limitless power if it could compel people to purchase health insurance unconditionally.

Seekster:

Leadfinger:

Seekster:

Different plan and different set of circumstances from a national program so no.

Same individual mandate and a fine for non-compliance. So yes, same same.

Well the biggest difference that is indisputable (and thus the easiest to prove) is that it was a state program not a federal program. If a state wants to have an individual mandate thats up to the people there. The federal government on the other hand would have almost limitless power if it could compel people to purchase health insurance unconditionally.

So if the states force people to buy health insurance that's good, but if the federal government does it that's bad? I think the only part of Obamacare the Republicans object to is the "Obama" part.

Leadfinger:
I don't know why we have to keep paying to private insurers. They should just enact single-payer and cut out the parasitic middle man altogether.

Seriously. I am a realist. Insurance companies are not in the business of being philanthropists, they are in the business of making money. I do not want to trust my healthcare to them. I want to trust my healthcare to people who are in the business of helping people.

Leadfinger:

Seekster:

Leadfinger:
Same individual mandate and a fine for non-compliance. So yes, same same.

Well the biggest difference that is indisputable (and thus the easiest to prove) is that it was a state program not a federal program. If a state wants to have an individual mandate thats up to the people there. The federal government on the other hand would have almost limitless power if it could compel people to purchase health insurance unconditionally.

So if the states force people to buy health insurance that's good, but if the federal government does it that's bad? I think the only part of Obamacare the Republicans object to is the "Obama" part.

No I don't think its good but the people of Massachusetts apparently decided it was right for them.

Well you would be wrong about that last bit.

Seekster:

No I don't think its good but the people of Massachusetts apparently decided it was right for them.

Well you would be wrong about that last bit.

not just a question for seekster, but a question for all those who oppose UHC and obamacare in america (obamacare being the first step in the right direction)

have you ever seen the documentary sicko?

inb4 bias liberal hippy moore crap

anyway, if you have not watched it then go watch it even if you hate moore. it does a great job showing just how crappy american health care is compared to europe.

Stagnant:

JSF01:
If the goverment could get away with forcing you to by a prouduct by simply calling it a tax, they could basicily make you buy what ever they want you to.

Goverment:"Oh the auto industry is failing, go out and buy a ford."
The people: "No, we don't want to."
Goverment:"Well... it's a tax so you have to"

To give the goverment the power to force you to buy somthing because it effects commerce is a very scary thing. Every thing you do or don't do effects commerce in some way shape or form.

And once again, we get to hear from the "I live in a world of ridiculous hypotheticals" crowd. Because clearly, ensuring that everyone in America actually has a health care plan is equivalent to forcing everyone to buy a luxury good they do not necessarily need.

Not to mention that the government subsidies local purchases and tariffs incoming all the time any ways, so when you think about it, the government is already doing that too.

This is a situation where the government is giving states money, and saying "You can choose to have this money, but it's getting spent with some rules", and conservatives flipping their shit. "They're running all over state's rights!". Um, what? Bullshit?

You get a fucking tax credit. If you fail to get insurance, that credit is revoked. Easy as fucking pie people. If that 'forces' you to buy insurance and you don't like it, fucking live without the tax credit.

Shit, you might as well argue that the government has mandated I get married because there's a tax credit in marriage too.

The only difference in this case is, for simplicity, you get the tax credit automatically and are only held accountable for misusing it later, rather than losing your money for the whole year then getting a 'refund' at the end of the year. That's in our fucking favor as taxpayers to not give the government an interest free yearly loan.

The implications this Bill has if the SCOTUS cuts it down are pretty big. It means that the government can no longer ever tariff or subsidize or give a tax break on something, anything, again, ever.

"Oh, the government raising my taxes on luxury goods is a mandate that I buy cheaper shit".

"The government lowering my taxes if I own a home, is a government mandate that I own a home".

"The government lowering my taxes if I own stock is a government mandate I own stock.".

Edit: Actually that's what I'd do if I was the Democrats. Raise everybody but the lowest few bracket's tax rate like X% higher, or whatever % makes up this tax credit. Or cut their available deductible for that bracket down by whatever the average yearly insurance bill costs. Then make insurance itself a deductible.

Don't want insurance? Fucking fine, but you don't get that deductible, and your tax rate is higher. No mandate.

Don't want to be married? Fucking fine, but you pay extra taxes too. Same fucking thing.

Seekster:
Well the biggest difference that is indisputable (and thus the easiest to prove) is that it was a state program not a federal program. If a state wants to have an individual mandate thats up to the people there. The federal government on the other hand would have almost limitless power if it could compel people to purchase health insurance unconditionally.

Okay, question. And this is to EVERYONE in this thread supporting Obamacare being overturned.

Is Obamacare wrong on its own merits, or is it wrong because it violates the 10th amendment?

Damien Granz:
Don't want insurance? Fucking fine, but you don't get that deductible, and your tax rate is higher. No mandate.

Don't want to be married? Fucking fine, but you pay extra taxes too. Same fucking thing.

Its not a "tax credit". That would require the tax to already exist and then be credited back to you. It's a penalty in the form of a tax which is borderline attainder (a legislated penalty rather than an adjudicated one). There is no tax on being single. There is no tax on not owning a home. And the arguments they are are republican accountant whinge fests.

TheStatutoryApe:

Damien Granz:
Don't want insurance? Fucking fine, but you don't get that deductible, and your tax rate is higher. No mandate.

Don't want to be married? Fucking fine, but you pay extra taxes too. Same fucking thing.

Its not a "tax credit". That would require the tax to already exist and then be credited back to you. It's a penalty in the form of a tax which is borderline attainder (a legislated penalty rather than an adjudicated one). There is no tax on being single. There is no tax on not owning a home. And the arguments they are are republican accountant whinge fests.

Tough shit to them? I mean, if they want to rule that the end to a temporary break is the same as a tax raise, then me failing to get a break because I'm single is the same as a tax raise to me.

Them failing to catch a break = tax raise but only when you're rich or something? Fuck that noise.

So I say, if they don't want the 'mandate', then congress should raise everybody's taxes, except the lowest some brackets by exactly what the mandate would had given back, and make health insurance a deductible item by the same amount. Which is exactly the same goddamn thing.

You say there's not tax on being single, but my fucking wallet disagrees.

reonhato:

Seekster:

No I don't think its good but the people of Massachusetts apparently decided it was right for them.

Well you would be wrong about that last bit.

not just a question for seekster, but a question for all those who oppose UHC and obamacare in america (obamacare being the first step in the right direction)

have you ever seen the documentary sicko?

inb4 bias liberal hippy moore crap

anyway, if you have not watched it then go watch it even if you hate moore. it does a great job showing just how crappy american health care is compared to europe.

No, have you ever seen Michael Moore hates America? Neither have I. I didn't watch it for the same reason I don't watch any of Moore's movies. I don't go to the movies to watch someone try and bs me.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Well the biggest difference that is indisputable (and thus the easiest to prove) is that it was a state program not a federal program. If a state wants to have an individual mandate thats up to the people there. The federal government on the other hand would have almost limitless power if it could compel people to purchase health insurance unconditionally.

Okay, question. And this is to EVERYONE in this thread supporting Obamacare being overturned.

Is Obamacare wrong on its own merits, or is it wrong because it violates the 10th amendment?

That is a rather broad question. Obamacare is over 2,000 pages long (I loved the joke that I think Alito made about it being a violation of the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) to ask the court to go through ever single page of that law to decide on each point what is and is not constitutional). Most Conservatives wont admit this but there are parts of Obamacare that make sense and are well within the power of the government to implement. The trouble is Obamacare went too far in a number of ways, the biggest being the unconditional mandate forcing people to buy health insurance. That doesnt just violate the 10th Amendment, it violates the entire principle of federalism and limited central government that the United States was founded upon (I imagine it also violates a few other amendments as well).

Now if the government set up its own government run healthcare system and treated it like social security where its a government run program and everyone has to pay into that then that would be constitutional I think. So why didn't they do that? Because when an American politician says "I want government run healthcare" the vast majority of Americans hear "I don't want to be reelected, please dont vote for me".

Obama therefore had to use the private sector. Problem, requiring the private sector to expand coverage would raise the premiums for everyone and ironically would make health insurance even more unaffordable. Now that problem could have been solved through raising taxes to pay for it but Americans generally don't like raising taxes (if people arent willing to pay higher taxes for something then they can probably live without it imo). To try and get around this Obama and the Democrats decided to try the individual mandate and perhaps they even thought since it was a Republican idea originally (you know like how the balanced budget amendment was originally a Democrat idea) that the Republicans would go for it. Trouble is that the Republicans had dumped the idea of an individual mandate at least at the federal level (at the state level most Conservatives still don't like the idea of an individual mandate but states rights dictates that if one state or another wants one you can't really tell it that it can't have one).

Now it looks likely that the individual mandate is, at least for the federal government, unconstitutional (the Supreme Court will announce their decision in June and I know that the arguments dont necessarily mean they will vote a certain way but seriously listen to the day 2 audio, the government's argument is pitiful and its not just because the guy making it was having bad day).

I know in other countries in the Western World Nationalized Health Care works great for you (taking your word for it as I can't really say otherwise seeing has how I have never lived in a country with a national health care system) but America as usual likes to do things its own way and Americans in general have a strong distrust of government so if we as a nation decide we don't want Government Run Health Care its only appropriate to respect that decision just as we respect the decision of other countries to have a Government Run Health Care system (doesnt mean you can't make jokes just don't act like you know better about what is best for the United States).

reonhato:

Seekster:

No I don't think its good but the people of Massachusetts apparently decided it was right for them.

Well you would be wrong about that last bit.

not just a question for seekster, but a question for all those who oppose UHC and obamacare in america (obamacare being the first step in the right direction)

have you ever seen the documentary sicko?

inb4 bias liberal hippy moore crap

anyway, if you have not watched it then go watch it even if you hate moore. it does a great job showing just how crappy american health care is compared to europe.

How about instead of that polarizing documentary, you start with a pair of PBS documentaries you can get online?

Sick in America
Sick Around the World

Not entirely sure what countries can watch these, but Americans should have access. Each are about an hour. The first examines the US healthcare system. The second examines five other countries' systems (UK, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and Switzerland) and the pros and cons of each.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked