Questions and comments about individual mandate

[DontBeStupid]

1) If the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it forces all to pay money to a private insurance company then are not all privatization schemes also unconstitutional? (For instance, privatizing Medicare)

It's not the same. The GOP plan to changed Medicare to a voucher system, would not force anyone to get insurance or care or face a penalty. All the Ryan Voucher Plan would do is have the Federal government reimburse less and less for the services.


Senators do not always perfectly represent the rights of their State.


Yes, which is what the Mandate would effectively do, which makes me wonder why so many "conservatives" are against it. The Mandate would hold people personally responsible for their decisions and not allow them (as much) to dump those costs onto society.

If the GOP were truly for "Repeal and Replace" they would offer a law that penalizes people who use ER services and then never pay for them.

I would much rather have seen the public option, btw.

Agreed.

On your first point, it would make us all pay taxes that would eventually go into the private health insurance so I'm not seeing how that is different.

On your second, it doesn't really matter, does it? Senators ARE elected to represent their states.

Okay on your third point.

On the first point, I think there has been a difference established with taxing citizens and then spending that money. That falls within Article 1 Section 8. The Mandate actually just cuts out the middle man. Congress could have just raised taxes and "given" everyone health insurance paid for out of tax payer money. Instead, they took this approach.

Ironically, it seems the Court is going to decide a Public Option is more Constitutional than people just making sure they have coverage.

 

[DontBeStupid]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

Some may really be unable to afford while others may have enough money to take care of themselves through private pay. Either way, neither should be forced to enter a contract.

Point of fact, the law does not force you to enter in to a contract. You don't have to enter in to one if you don't want to. You would face no jail time and have broken no laws. Not even a blip on your credit report.

 

[Vel]

It's not the same. The GOP plan to changed Medicare to a voucher system, would not force anyone to get insurance or care or face a penalty. All the Ryan Voucher Plan would do is have the Federal government reimburse less and less for the services.


Senators do not always perfectly represent the rights of their State.


Yes, which is what the Mandate would effectively do, which makes me wonder why so many "conservatives" are against it. The Mandate would hold people personally responsible for their decisions and not allow them (as much) to dump those costs onto society.

If the GOP were truly for "Repeal and Replace" they would offer a law that penalizes people who use ER services and then never pay for them.


Agreed.

On your first point, it would make us all pay taxes that would eventually go into the private health insurance so I'm not seeing how that is different.

On your second, it doesn't really matter, does it? Senators ARE elected to represent their states.

Okay on your third point.

On the first point, I think there has been a difference established with taxing citizens and then spending that money. That falls within Article 1 Section 8. The Mandate actually just cuts out the middle man. Congress could have just raised taxes and "given" everyone health insurance paid for out of tax payer money. Instead, they took this approach.

Ironically, it seems the Court is going to decide a Public Option is more Constitutional than people just making sure they have coverage.

So, why is it you think that Obama just didn't take that much simpler route?

 

[DontBeStupid]

On your first point, it would make us all pay taxes that would eventually go into the private health insurance so I'm not seeing how that is different.

On your second, it doesn't really matter, does it? Senators ARE elected to represent their states.

Okay on your third point.

On the first point, I think there has been a difference established with taxing citizens and then spending that money. That falls within Article 1 Section 8. The Mandate actually just cuts out the middle man. Congress could have just raised taxes and "given" everyone health insurance paid for out of tax payer money. Instead, they took this approach.

Ironically, it seems the Court is going to decide a Public Option is more Constitutional than people just making sure they have coverage.

So, why is it you think that Obama just didn't take that much simpler route?

Because that route was the Public Option, and the GOP would have burned down the White House before they allowed that to be voted in.

 

[francoHFW]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

Obviously, it was never 'Constitutional' as the Supremes are shitting all over it.

Despite Foxcrappe and cowardly corporate media BULLSHYTTE, the four non bought justices are for it, and Kennedy is waffling.

 

[Seawytch]

I want to know why anyone thinks it's right to force an employer to either provide health insurance for an employee or be fined. Why should it be the employers responsibility to buy the health insurance policy. If I pay you your wages, why can't you buy your own policy? Can't an employee be trusted to spend their wage wisely?

Do you not realize that individual policies are considerably more costly than group policies?

Now, if there was a public option available that would give the individuals group rates, that would be something wouldn't it?

It would be even better if we just all got health care and businesses AND individuals didn't have to worry about it.

Yes, I'm aware that group policies are cheaper than individual, but that still doesn't answer as to why your healthcare is your employer's responsibility instead of your own.

Employers provide Health Care as a way to attract quality employees. To properly compensate an employee that must purchase their own health care, the employer should then be prepared to pay a much higher salary.

If we are ever truly going to compete with other countries on a global scale, something must be done about our health care system. Most of the countries we are competing with have universal health care.

 

[Vel]

On the first point, I think there has been a difference established with taxing citizens and then spending that money. That falls within Article 1 Section 8. The Mandate actually just cuts out the middle man. Congress could have just raised taxes and "given" everyone health insurance paid for out of tax payer money. Instead, they took this approach.

Ironically, it seems the Court is going to decide a Public Option is more Constitutional than people just making sure they have coverage.

So, why is it you think that Obama just didn't take that much simpler route?

Because that route was the Public Option, and the GOP would have burned down the White House before they allowed that to be voted in.

Or perhaps because taxes would have had to have been raised for EVERYONE and Obama and the Democrats knew that would insure a one term presidency.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So, why is it you think that Obama just didn't take that much simpler route?

Because that route was the Public Option, and the GOP would have burned down the White House before they allowed that to be voted in.

Or perhaps because taxes would have had to have been raised for EVERYONE and Obama and the Democrats knew that would insure a one term presidency.

Probably not, as you can have a sustainable Public Option without raising taxes on everyone.

 

[francoHFW]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

Some may really be unable to afford while others may have enough money to take care of themselves through private pay. Either way, neither should be forced to enter a contract.

NOW they can't afford it. Under ACA they will.

Private pay my azz, unless they're millionnaires. No more bankruptcies with ACA...

 

[Vel]

Do you not realize that individual policies are considerably more costly than group policies?

Now, if there was a public option available that would give the individuals group rates, that would be something wouldn't it?

It would be even better if we just all got health care and businesses AND individuals didn't have to worry about it.

Yes, I'm aware that group policies are cheaper than individual, but that still doesn't answer as to why your healthcare is your employer's responsibility instead of your own.

Employers provide Health Care as a way to attract quality employees. To properly compensate an employee that must purchase their own health care, the employer should then be prepared to pay a much higher salary.

If we are ever truly going to compete with other countries on a global scale, something must be done about our health care system. Most of the countries we are competing with have universal health care.

That is all well and good but you aren't answering as to why it should be placed on employers, under threat of penalty, to provide the insurance. Does an employer offer a job or take someone to raise?

 

[Seawytch]

Because that route was the Public Option, and the GOP would have burned down the White House before they allowed that to be voted in.

Or perhaps because taxes would have had to have been raised for EVERYONE and Obama and the Democrats knew that would insure a one term presidency.

Probably not, as you can have a sustainable Public Option without raising taxes on everyone.

The vehicle is already in place...just open up Medicare to everyone and let anyone that wants to buy into it. Probably help out Medicare too, I'd imagine.

 

[francoHFW]

Because that route was the Public Option, and the GOP would have burned down the White House before they allowed that to be voted in.

Or perhaps because taxes would have had to have been raised for EVERYONE and Obama and the Democrats knew that would insure a one term presidency.

Probably not, as you can have a sustainable Public Option without raising taxes on everyone.

Just MIGHT have something to do with throwing the whole health insurancy industry out of work FCS...

 

[Vel]

Because that route was the Public Option, and the GOP would have burned down the White House before they allowed that to be voted in.

Or perhaps because taxes would have had to have been raised for EVERYONE and Obama and the Democrats knew that would insure a one term presidency.

Probably not, as you can have a sustainable Public Option without raising taxes on everyone.

How much do you think you can raise only taxing the 1%?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

People who refuse to buy affordable health care are freeloading a-holes. This was always constitutional until it was Obama's "idea". Pure Pubcrappe.

Yep. They were all for it until President Obama was for it. We are all just little pawns in the Repub game of Get Obama.

Other 1st world countries manage quite well. I know because I have experienced it. I dreaded having to get emergency care in Brussels but it was quick, easy, cheap and I got one of the best doctors in the city. Two visits, two scrips and three otc drugs that are scrips in this country and I paid less than 125 Euro. The doctor went out of his way for us, stayed late in his office even though he had a speaking engagement that night and,on top of every thing else, every single person I dealt with spoke flawless English.

If the same problem happened here, and if I were not insured and did not have a doctor who is also a friend, it would have been a huge hassle, expensive and I would be on a long waiting list.

We have got to stop working so damn hard to become a third world country because, thanks to the money grubbing Repubs, we are succeeding admirably.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, I'm aware that group policies are cheaper than individual, but that still doesn't answer as to why your healthcare is your employer's responsibility instead of your own.

Employers provide Health Care as a way to attract quality employees. To properly compensate an employee that must purchase their own health care, the employer should then be prepared to pay a much higher salary.

If we are ever truly going to compete with other countries on a global scale, something must be done about our health care system. Most of the countries we are competing with have universal health care.

That is all well and good but you aren't answering as to why it should be placed on employers, under threat of penalty, to provide the insurance. Does an employer offer a job or take someone to raise?

Do I have to provide health insurance to my employees?

The Affordable Care Act does not require employers to provide health insurance for their employees.

The Employer Responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act applies businesses with more than 50 full-time workers.​

Small Business

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sniiper Fire

What you are saying is the liberal laws to force providers to give away their services is fucked up.

That's not even remotely related to what he/she said but my question is, why to rw's believe that those who pay for own insurance should be forced to pay for their care too?

I am so sick of the welfare right wingers who talk such a good game right up until they have to get their check book out and pay their own way. No one who pays for their own insurance would be stupid enough to NOT want the opportunity to pay less. Therefore, they also would not want the Affordable Health Care Act struck down.

Here's the rub...We will be paying MORE. All of us who earn over the 400% of poverty threshold will see our bill increase dramatically. Those within say 20% of the threshold will find the mandate to be unaffordable.
With Obamacare, there is no Free. There is no reduced 'cost'....Of there will be 'price' adjustments, but the provider will not be able to recoup their expenses due to new government rules. Eventually, there will be a contraction in the number of providers, in the number of hospitals, doctor's groups and students willing to go through the rigors and expense of medical school because there just will not be enough money in medicine.
Take a look at Canada. Most of that nation's medical professionals are foreign born.
The final blow of Obamacare will be rationed medicine. That's inevitable.

 

[Seawytch]

Or perhaps because taxes would have had to have been raised for EVERYONE and Obama and the Democrats knew that would insure a one term presidency.

Probably not, as you can have a sustainable Public Option without raising taxes on everyone.

How much do you think you can raise only taxing the 1%?

You have no idea what the Public Option is do you?

 

[francoHFW]

#54-And their system costs half as mich as ours....arrrghh!! Pub dupes!

 

[Vel]

Employers provide Health Care as a way to attract quality employees. To properly compensate an employee that must purchase their own health care, the employer should then be prepared to pay a much higher salary.

If we are ever truly going to compete with other countries on a global scale, something must be done about our health care system. Most of the countries we are competing with have universal health care.

That is all well and good but you aren't answering as to why it should be placed on employers, under threat of penalty, to provide the insurance. Does an employer offer a job or take someone to raise?

Do I have to provide health insurance to my employees?

The Affordable Care Act does not require employers to provide health insurance for their employees.

The Employer Responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act applies businesses with more than 50 full-time workers.​

Small Business

You are either missing or avoiding the point. If you are a business with 50 or more employees, WHY should it be your responsibility to provide health care insurance to your employees or have to pay a fine? What part of you offering someone a job means that you have to take responsibility to provide their health care?

 

[francoHFW]

Sniiper Fire

What you are saying is the liberal laws to force providers to give away their services is fucked up.

That's not even remotely related to what he/she said but my question is, why to rw's believe that those who pay for own insurance should be forced to pay for their care too?

I am so sick of the welfare right wingers who talk such a good game right up until they have to get their check book out and pay their own way. No one who pays for their own insurance would be stupid enough to NOT want the opportunity to pay less. Therefore, they also would not want the Affordable Health Care Act struck down.

Here's the rub...We will be paying MORE. All of us who earn over the 400% of poverty threshold will see our bill increase dramatically. Those within say 20% of the threshold will find the mandate to be unaffordable.
With Obamacare, there is no Free. There is no reduced 'cost'....Of there will be 'price' adjustments, but the provider will not be able to recoup their expenses due to new government rules. Eventually, there will be a contraction in the number of providers, in the number of hospitals, doctor's groups and students willing to go through the rigors and expense of medical school because there just will not be enough money in medicine.
Take a look at Canada. Most of that nation's medical professionals are foreign born.
The final blow of Obamacare will be rationed medicine. That's inevitable.

Congrats, you're a brainwashed Pub dupe.