Mandated healthcare.

[LilOlLady]

MANDATED HEALTHCARE.

What is mind boggling is why would anyone with a body have to be forced to buy healthcare coverage? Unless they are “freeloaders” who want someone else to pay for their medical care if they get sick or have and accident. I am forced to even if I don’t want to by having to pay higher hospital bills and higher healthcare premiums because hospital who have to treat freeloaders will recoup their losses by charging my healthcare insurance more and I will have to pay more for my premiums. For my own protection humans with bodies should be forced to buy their own healthcare coverage.

Another thing that is mind boggling is why do people who don’t need healthcare don’t wants other to have healthcare? Like they eat three meals a day but don’t want other to eat three meals a day unless they eat in their restaurants.

Government has numerous mandated laws that we have to follow or buy and if we don’t we pay a fine or go to jail. Government mandates that if you drive a car, you must pass a driver’s test and buy a driver’s license if you don’t you can be fined. Is you own a car and want to drive in you are mandated to buy a smog certificate, buy a registration and buy auto insurance. And in some states you are mandated to buy uninsured motorist insurance to cover your car if a driver hits your car and does not have auto insurance. Government can mandate you to buy auto insurance for your car but cannot mandate you buy healthcare for you? If this is unconstitutional they the constitution needs to be amended. ASAP. It can be done because it has been done 28 times. Constitution is not written in blood.

I don’t want to pay for others auto accidents but if I am forced to buy insured motorist auto insurance that is what I am mandated to do. To protect me. If my car is hit by an uninsured motorist my auto premiums goes up.

I don’t want to pay for free loaders medical care if they get sick or have an accident and don’t have healthcare and that is what I am mandated to do.

Obamacare will drive up healthcare? Healthcare cost will to up anyway if everyone does not have healthcare.

You don’t mind if an uninsured person gets sick or have an accident and use your medical insurance and you pay the cost of his medical care? And you are mandated to do it if you want to keep your healthcare coverage.

If someone does not have a burial plan who pays for their burials?

I want every driver to have auto insurance coverage and every body to have healthcare coverage because it protect me and cost me less.


Mass has mandate healthcare and is subsidized by the federal goverenment.

 

[waltky]

Health care costs goin' up in spite of Obamacare...

Healthcare costs rose while insurance coverage fell, studies show
September 8, 2011 Reporting from Washington — The changes have left nearly half the working-age population without enough protection from illness. Altogether, 44% of American adults were either uninsured or underinsured last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

U.S. workers whose wages stagnated over the last decade also saw their health insurance degrade, even as medical costs gobbled up a growing share of their income, two new studies show. An estimated 29 million adults who had health insurance lacked adequate coverage in 2010, leaving them exposed to medical expenses such as high deductibles that they couldn't afford, according to a survey by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. That is up from 16 million underinsured people in 2003, the survey found, underscoring the rising burden that insurance plans are placing on consumers as the industry raises required co-pays and deductibles. "Underinsured families are at nearly as high risk as the uninsured because, while they have health insurance, holes or limits in their plans expose them to often unaffordable medical costs," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, lead author of the new report, which was published in the journal Health Affairs.

More workers also simply lost coverage over the last decade, the survey found. Fifty-two million adults ages 19 to 64 did not have insurance at some point in 2010, up from 46 million in 2003. That has left nearly half the working-age population without enough protection from illness. Altogether, 44% of U.S. adults were either uninsured or underinsured last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund. Children and seniors are more likely to have insurance because many qualify for public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The erosion in insurance coverage, which hit middle- and low-income Americans hardest, meant higher medical bills for U.S. families. The typical family of four with employer-based coverage saw its total monthly healthcare tab almost double between 1999 and 2009 — from $805 to $1,420 — researchers at the Rand Corp. found.

Over the same period, total monthly income grew only 30%, barely keeping pace with inflation, which pushed up prices 29% over the decade. "Even a typical family with employer-provided insurance is just barely treading water," said David Auerbach, the lead author of the study, also published in Health Affairs. Rising out-of-pocket medical bills were so corrosive, the study found, that they virtually wiped out income gains over the decade, leaving the typical family with just $95 more a month to spend on things other than healthcare in 2009, compared with 1999. Some of the increased healthcare burden came from higher insurance premiums and increases for co-payments and deductibles. But the Rand researchers calculated that families were also paying more indirectly. Employers spent more on health benefits, rather than offering their workers bigger paychecks.

Families took yet another hit as the share of their state and federal tax bills that went to support government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also rose over the decade. The Rand and Commonwealth Fund researchers said the new healthcare law that President Obama signed last year could bring some relief, particularly to Americans without adequate insurance who will qualify for subsidized insurance starting in 2014. That could reduce the number of underinsured adults as much as 70%, the Commonwealth report concluded. While projected Medicare savings will help offset some of the costs of providing subsidies to millions of Americans, however, new tax hikes built into the law could also indirectly further inflate the typical household's medical tab.

source

 

[Bern80]

MANDATED HEALTHCARE.

What is mind boggling is why would anyone with a body have to be forced to buy healthcare coverage? Unless they are “freeloaders” who want someone else to pay for their medical care if they get sick or have and accident...........

Good lord. I don't know one post could be so full of shit.

Ummmmm because that's the only way ANYONE can be provided healthcare coverage without having to 'pay' for it.

I am forced to even if I don’t want to by having to pay higher hospital bills and higher healthcare premiums because hospital who have to treat freeloaders will recoup their losses by charging my healthcare insurance more and I will have to pay more for my premiums. For my own protection humans with bodies should be forced to buy their own healthcare coverage.

And you will be forced to purchase it again whether you want to or not under the insurance mandate.

Another thing that is mind boggling is why do people who don’t need healthcare don’t wants other to have healthcare? Like they eat three meals a day but don’t want other to eat three meals a day unless they eat in their restaurants.

Show me one single person that has said they don't want someone else to recieve medical care. You won't find one. That is vastly different from who or if someone should have to PAY for medical care.

Government has numerous mandated laws that we have to follow or buy and if we don’t we pay a fine or go to jail. Government mandates that if you drive a car, you must pass a driver’s test and buy a driver’s license if you don’t you can be fined. Is you own a car and want to drive in you are mandated to buy a smog certificate, buy a registration and buy auto insurance. And in some states you are mandated to buy uninsured motorist insurance to cover your car if a driver hits your car and does not have auto insurance. Government can mandate you to buy auto insurance for your car but cannot mandate you buy healthcare for you? If this is unconstitutional they the constitution needs to be amended. ASAP. It can be done because it has been done 28 times. Constitution is not written in blood.

STATE governments, not the fed, mandate auot insurance laws which they have right to do under the constitution.

I don’t want to pay for others auto accidents but if I am forced to buy insured motorist auto insurance that is what I am mandated to do. To protect me. If my car is hit by an uninsured motorist my auto premiums goes up.

I don’t want to pay for free loaders medical care if they get sick or have an accident and don’t have healthcare and that is what I am mandated to do.

Obamacare will drive up healthcare? Healthcare cost will to up anyway if everyone does not have healthcare.

You don’t mind if an uninsured person gets sick or have an accident and use your medical insurance and you pay the cost of his medical care? And you are mandated to do it if you want to keep your healthcare coverage.

If someone does not have a burial plan who pays for their burials?

I want every driver to have auto insurance coverage and every body to have healthcare coverage because it protect me and cost me less.


Mass has mandate healthcare and is subsidized by the federal goverenment.

See above which renders the rest of the above drivel irrelevent.

 

[midcan5]

I loved Romney's response last evening, the reason Mass. had mandated health insurance was because the free loaders were costing too much. If that doesn't become a great ad for so called Obama-care I do not know what would. We all pay now for the free loaders, so why not spread the cost around, seems simple.

 

[Bern80]

I loved Romney's response last evening, the reason Mass. had mandated health insurance was because the free loaders were costing too much. If that doesn't become a great ad for so called Obama-care I do not know what would. We all pay now for the free loaders, so why not spread the cost around, seems simple.

"Instead of actually addressing the free loading issue, we're just gonna make everyone buy our product." Yeah you run with that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Health care challenge rejected

One of the broad challenges to the new health insurance mandate is rebuffed by Fourth Circuit, finding it a premature attempt to block a federal tax provision. Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear such a challenge, the 2-1 ruling said.

The Fourth Circuit Court ruled Thursday that a constitutional challenge to the new federal health care law requiring virtually everyone in the Nation to have health insurance by 2014 was filed prematurely, and thus cannot go forward. In a second ruling, the Circuit Court ruled that the state of Virginia had no legal right to bring a challenge to that mandate. The two rulings were a victory for the Obama Administration, but will not keep the insurance mandate issue from Supreme Court review, since other cases are either now at the Court or on the way. The main Circuit Court decision, a 2-1 ruling, is here; its Virginia opinion is here.

The Circuit Court ruled that the new law’s insurance mandate, enforced with a financial penalty, is a form of federal tax, and a federal law — the Anti-Injunction Act — bars lawsuits seeking to block enforcement of a tax measure before it goes into effect officially. This marked the first time that a federal appeals court had ordered an end to a constitutional challenge to the mandate based on this legal theory. In fact, the theory was abandoned by the Obama Administration when it appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit, but the Circuit Court revived it on its own.

Health care challenge rejected : SCOTUSblog

What’s interesting about these various conservative lawsuits and their attempt to derail the ACA is that they conflict with conservative legal dogma: that the courts are not an appropriate venue to address such issues.

As Judge Sutton noted in his recent ruling on the ACA: just because a law is bad doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional. And the appropriate way to address a ‘bad law’ is through the legislative process, not the judicial.

Of course, conservative opposition to the ACA has little – if anything – to do with the law and has mostly to do with politics. The right is primarily interested in humiliating Obama rather than ‘protecting the liberty’ of fellow Americans, subject to such an onerous and burdensome measure.

 

[Bern80]

Health care challenge rejected

One of the broad challenges to the new health insurance mandate is rebuffed by Fourth Circuit, finding it a premature attempt to block a federal tax provision. Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear such a challenge, the 2-1 ruling said.

The Fourth Circuit Court ruled Thursday that a constitutional challenge to the new federal health care law requiring virtually everyone in the Nation to have health insurance by 2014 was filed prematurely, and thus cannot go forward. In a second ruling, the Circuit Court ruled that the state of Virginia had no legal right to bring a challenge to that mandate. The two rulings were a victory for the Obama Administration, but will not keep the insurance mandate issue from Supreme Court review, since other cases are either now at the Court or on the way. The main Circuit Court decision, a 2-1 ruling, is here; its Virginia opinion is here.

The Circuit Court ruled that the new law’s insurance mandate, enforced with a financial penalty, is a form of federal tax, and a federal law — the Anti-Injunction Act — bars lawsuits seeking to block enforcement of a tax measure before it goes into effect officially. This marked the first time that a federal appeals court had ordered an end to a constitutional challenge to the mandate based on this legal theory. In fact, the theory was abandoned by the Obama Administration when it appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit, but the Circuit Court revived it on its own.

Health care challenge rejected : SCOTUSblog

What’s interesting about these various conservative lawsuits and their attempt to derail the ACA is that they conflict with conservative legal dogma: that the courts are not an appropriate venue to address such issues.

As Judge Sutton noted in his recent ruling on the ACA: just because a law is bad doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional. And the appropriate way to address a ‘bad law’ is through the legislative process, not the judicial.

Of course, conservative opposition to the ACA has little – if anything – to do with the law and has mostly to do with politics. The right is primarily interested in humiliating Obama rather than ‘protecting the liberty’ of fellow Americans, subject to such an onerous and burdensome measure.

Wrong. That's assuming you except the premise that it's constitutional in the first place. And that IS what is being challenged. Thus the courts ARE the appropriate place to challenge it. It is both bad law and unconstitutional law.

 

[dblack]

As Judge Sutton noted in his recent ruling on the ACA: just because a law is bad doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional. And the appropriate way to address a ‘bad law’ is through the legislative process, not the judicial.

Likewise, just because a law was passed and nominally received majority approval, doesn't mean it's constitutional. And the appropriate way to address an unconstitutional law is through the courts.

Of course if it's both bad, and unconstitutional, you have to wonder how we dug such a shithole in the first place.

Of course, conservative opposition to the ACA has little – if anything – to do with the law and has mostly to do with politics. The right is primarily interested in humiliating Obama rather than ‘protecting the liberty’ of fellow Americans, subject to such an onerous and burdensome measure.

I suppose there's some truth to that. Still, if someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, should we make a fuss and tell them to stop?

 

[Listening]

Good lord. I don't know one post could be so full of shit.

Practice.

Lots of practice.

 

[Listening]

I loved Romney's response last evening, the reason Mass. had mandated health insurance was because the free loaders were costing too much. If that doesn't become a great ad for so called Obama-care I do not know what would. We all pay now for the free loaders, so why not spread the cost around, seems simple.

Why not dump the freeloaders ?

Did you ever hear of Tenncare ?

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh and if everyone is required to buy auto insurance why the frack do we have to have uninsured motorists coverage?

 

[Listening]

I loved Romney's response last evening, the reason Mass. had mandated health insurance was because the free loaders were costing too much. If that doesn't become a great ad for so called Obama-care I do not know what would. We all pay now for the free loaders, so why not spread the cost around, seems simple.

"Instead of actually addressing the free loading issue, we're just gonna make everyone buy our product." Yeah you run with that.

What we will do is invite a great many more freeloaders.

 

[Listening]

Ohh and if everyone is required to buy auto insurance why the frack do we have to have uninsured motorists coverage?

Not everyone is required to buy auto insurance.

If you don't own a car, you probably don't have auto insurance.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why not dump the freeloaders ?

Did you ever hear of Tenncare ?

Dump them...into Medicaid?

 

[Lovebears65]

I loved Romney's response last evening, the reason Mass. had mandated health insurance was because the free loaders were costing too much. If that doesn't become a great ad for so called Obama-care I do not know what would. We all pay now for the free loaders, so why not spread the cost around, seems simple.

No matter what if we have a mandated or not there will be freeloaders who say they can afford it so we will be paying for them anyway. Oxymoron quote of Romney! I do not like that man!

 

[Listening]

Why not dump the freeloaders ?

Did you ever hear of Tenncare ?

Dump them...into Medicaid?

No, out of the system altogether.

Just asking.

 

[Trakar]

Why not dump the freeloaders ?

Did you ever hear of Tenncare ?

Dump them...into Medicaid?

Quite the point! shuffling from one government program to another is neither "dumping" nor a best use of resources. National Healthcare, single payer, would be a boon for citizens, states and most businesses, the only people who would lose out are the few who are making obscene profits of the misery of others now.

 

[Polk]

I loved Romney's response last evening, the reason Mass. had mandated health insurance was because the free loaders were costing too much. If that doesn't become a great ad for so called Obama-care I do not know what would. We all pay now for the free loaders, so why not spread the cost around, seems simple.

"Instead of actually addressing the free loading issue, we're just gonna make everyone buy our product." Yeah you run with that.

Realistically, how do you address the issue? I doubt "let critically ill people die on the steps of the ER" is going to be a popular rallying cry.

 

[dblack]

Realistically, how do you address the issue? I doubt "let critically ill people die on the steps of the ER" is going to be a popular rallying cry.

I think we have to challenge the (mostly unchallenged) assumption that government is the best way to express our sense of responsibility to our community. Some are even convinced it's the only way - that the values of brotherhood and looking out for your countrymen would simply vanish if not encoded into law. You're suggesting here that if the government doesn't dictate it, no one will help sick people without insurance, that hospitals would demand cash payment in advance, and that they'd watch people die who couldn't pay.

I assume that what a lot of people balk at is the idea that relying on charity, or the patience and good will of those who provide health care services, isn't a guarantee - and it's not. There is the chance that someone who throws caution to the wind will end up in a difficult spot. But it's that very disincentive that needs to be preserved. When we throw out all the natural incentives for responsible behavior, behavior follows suite. And then we try to patch it up, with bogus regulatory 'incentives' that generally fail to do the trick, and simply expand government power and scope in the process.

We can and should help people in need. But we don't need to evoke the coercive power of the state to accomplish that.

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh and if everyone is required to buy auto insurance why the frack do we have to have uninsured motorists coverage?

Not everyone is required to buy auto insurance.

If you don't own a car, you probably don't have auto insurance.

Umm it is uninsured motorists coverage, hence they must have a car to be a motorist.