Obamacare mandate is precedent setting, in a BIG way

[dblack]

Geez, that is just great. Those who have been down on their luck since Obama took office had better be ready for a double whammy.

Yeah. I love it. Insurance is too expensive, and as a result lots of people are uninsured. So the solution is to force everyone to buy it. If this is the logic we're to govern with, why not just pass a law banning illness?

*also, before some of you starting writing the legislation, I was just kidding.

 

[Ravi]

This is a very odd take. Something's amiss here. Most on the right were against hc, most on the left were for hc. How would the left be for something that is a corporate sellout?

It might benefit insurance companies, just as seat belt laws benefit seat belt companies. This remains to be seen.

But the trade-off is that it will also force those that don't have insurance to contribute to their medical bills through taxation.

Geez, that is just great. Those who have been down on their luck since Obama took office had better be ready for a double whammy.

Immie

No, those below the poverty line or hovering thereabouts are excused.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, and Immie, I'm sure you meant to say, "since Bush crashed the economy."

 

[Ravi]

Geez, that is just great. Those who have been down on their luck since Obama took office had better be ready for a double whammy.

Yeah. I love it. Insurance is too expensive, and as a result lots of people are uninsured. So the solution is to force everyone to buy it. If this is the logic we're to govern with, why not just pass a law banning illness?

*also, before some of you starting writing the legislation, I was just kidding.

Do you have insurance?

 

[dblack]

It might benefit insurance companies, just as seat belt laws benefit seat belt companies. This remains to be seen.

It's a little hard to believe you typed that with a straight face. We're giving them captive customers - they can't lose. They'll essentially be public utilities and no matter what their costs turn out to be, they'll simply make their case to regulators and raise their rates to make a guaranteed profit. With the mandate they've essentially removed all risk from their business model. There isn't a CEO alive who wouldn't leap at such an opportunity.

 

[Immanuel]

It might benefit insurance companies, just as seat belt laws benefit seat belt companies. This remains to be seen.

But the trade-off is that it will also force those that don't have insurance to contribute to their medical bills through taxation.

Geez, that is just great. Those who have been down on their luck since Obama took office had better be ready for a double whammy.

Immie

No, those below the poverty line or hovering thereabouts are excused.

Well, since much of the reason for some of us "hovering thereabouts" is because of the job market and the poor excuses of the Obama Administration and their unwillingness to better the situation with regards to corporate hiring the double whammy still applies because if I can't find a job I'm still hit by the double whammy.

Now whether or not the initial cause of the hiring problems lies in the lap of Obama is immaterial. The fact is that his administration is hindering jobs growth through an anti-business attitude and legislation such as the one that we are currently discussing.

Immie

 

[Rinata]

Good, Lord, put your gun down!!! I am simply stating a fact. I worked for a major health insurance company for many years. I know what I'm saying.

I don't even own a gun!

But I do find EMTALA a particularly bad excuse for the individual mandate. It's like "well, see, we passed a questionable law that turned out to have unintended consequences, so we need another questionable law to address the unintended consequences of the previous debacle. But this time, it will be ok. Honest."

Why did you even respond to my post?? You didn't respond to my question at all. All you're doing is jabbering!!

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

You get Medicaid up to $15k single, 27k family of four. Preventive care/own doctor is cheaper than the ER care we have now. This will be the most popular social program ever and make us globally competitive again, but by all means be a fear mongered, brainwashed Pub dupe, ya GD MORON.

 

[manifold]

The more I think about it, perhaps it is a straight up civil rights violation (as well as Romneycare in MA).

Sure there are existing examples of states imposing other mandates, such as seat-belt laws and auto insurance. However, theoretically at least, those mandates can be avoided by not using an automobile. The Obamacare and Romneycare mandates cannot be avoided while remaining a resident. These mandates apply to everyone simply by virtue of their being. hmmm...

Sure, you can avoid it by not being employed.

Isn't it the law of the land that hospitals must treat patients for emergency care?

I've never heard anything about the mandate being tied to employment.

 

[Greenbeard]

I've never heard anything about the mandate being tied to employment.

It's tied to income (i.e. people below the filing threshold aren't subject to it) and affordability of local insurance options.

 

[daveman]

You get Medicaid up to $15k single, 27k family of four. Preventive care/own doctor is cheaper than the ER care we have now. This will be the most popular social program ever and make us globally competitive again, but by all means be a fear mongered, brainwashed Pub dupe, ya GD MORON.

*sigh* Obama is ever so dreamy...

Make us globally competitive? Yeah, I see the unemployment rate dropping even as we speak.

Oh, wait, sorry -- I mean employment rate.

 

[dblack]

Do you have insurance?

I currently have health insurance through my employer, though I'm quite dissatisfied with it. It costs way to much, and the benefits are minimal. In my previous job (three years ago) I had something close to an ideal setup. Our employer offered catastrophic coverage combined with a HSA. (though I still think the link between employment and insurance - currently held in place via tax policy - should be severed).

I've been talking with my current employer about going that route but, as Obamacare will dictate what constitutes the minimum requirement for insurance, they don't want to do that. Essentially, ACA outlaws catastrophic coverage and HSAs - insisting that we all give our pound of flesh to corporate group insurance plans. Corporatism prevails.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Another first for Seawytch!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

All that proves is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Tell me something, why did the Supreme Court rule that the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 unconstitutional in United States v Lopez? Guns and ammunition are both obviously interstate commerce, yet the court said they cannot reach that far down into people's lives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On another note, I always find it completely laughable when someone says the mandate is just another evil way by Liberals to try and control everything.

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama was opposed to the individual mandate. He stated the following in a Feb. 28, 2008 interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show about his divergent views with Hillary Clinton:

"Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

While the new healthcare bill does some good things (getting rid of pre-existing conditions for starters), the ones who are probably most happy with the bill at the end of the day are the Health insurance companies.

Does the fact that Republicans had the idea at one point somehow prove that it is not an evil attempt on the part government to take control of people's lives?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

I think we should try all of them. The power hungry assholes in Congress all think they have the answers though, and want to take away our ability to make choices by imposing grand solutions that make things worse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would a state have the power if the federal government doesn't? If it's unconstitutional, how does become constitutional at the state level?

Because the Constitution was written specifically to give a dual government at the sate and federal level in order to protect the rights of individuals. That is why states can pass laws that make it illegal to carry a gun in a school zone but the federal government cannot. Did you sleep through your mandatory civics class in high school, or was it taught by an idiotic progressive who lied to you in order to further a power grab by the federal government?

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Ah yes, guaranteed affordable health care with huge savings FINALLY, will be horrible. Beck/Rush?Pub dupes....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tenth Amendment does not give states the right to force Americans to do something that has been ruled unconstitutional.

If it is my constitutional right not to be forced to buy health insurance, then that's my right. The state can't pass laws that violate my constitutional rights. They are protected by the Supremacy Clause.

Look, I'm not arguing here. I'm looking for a clear and concise explanation as to why I might be wrong.

Here is my understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong.

SCOTUS decides what is unconstitutional for the federal government.

It only weighs in on state law in special circumstances.

The STATE Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of state law and state government constitutionality as is applies to the STATE Constitution.

This is the Federalist system, as opposed to a unitary system where all the power rests with the central government.

Simplistic, but overall it shows a good basic understanding. Not that my understanding is much better, I barely understand all the ins and outs of federalism from the reading I have been doing on it the last few days.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Tenth Amendment does not give states the right to force Americans to do something that has been ruled unconstitutional.

If it is my constitutional right not to be forced to buy health insurance, then that's my right. The state can't pass laws that violate my constitutional rights. They are protected by the Supremacy Clause.

Look, I'm not arguing here. I'm looking for a clear and concise explanation as to why I might be wrong.

Here is my understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong.

SCOTUS decides what is unconstitutional for the federal government.

It only weighs in on state law in special circumstances.

The STATE Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of state law and state government constitutionality as is applies to the STATE Constitution.

This is the Federalist system, as opposed to a unitary system where all the power rests with the central government.

If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to ban all gun ownership, because of the second amendment,

a state can't turn around and ban all gun ownership within the state can it?

The 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from banning guns. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from doing so.