E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court is debating how much of the health care overhaul law should be salvaged if the health insurance requirement is thrown out. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
Updated at 6:45 p.m. ET In the Supreme Court’s final day of arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, the justices wrestled Wednesday with what happens to the law if they strike down the provision that requires the uninsured to buy insurance.
“I think a majority of the court believes that if it rules that individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the health care law probably cannot be saved,” reported NBC’s Pete Williams after hearing the 90 minutes of oral argument.
“It would seem that a majority of the court -- again, breaking down along the familiar lines -- believes ... it would be a very difficult, almost impossible, chore to figure out which parts of the law could still be saved,” Williams reported.
Read a transcript of the afternoon oral arguments here (.pdf)
At issue before the court on Wednesday was “severability” -- a principle that holds that if one part of a law is ruled unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law can stay in force.
The Supreme Court of the United States takes up the fate of the Obama administration's overhaul of the nation's health care system. Listen to the entire oral arguments from day three.
Williams reported that the justices were “very concerned” about the effects on the insurance industry of leaving intact the obligations imposed on it to offer coverage to all who seek it without the source of income from the individual mandate.
“They are very worried about saddling the insurance industry with that,” he said.
Read a transcript of the morning oral arguments here (.pdf)
Arguing that Congress ought to be given the opportunity to repair the bill if the court strikes down the individual mandate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “In a democracy structured like ours, where each branch does different things, why we should involve the Court in making the legislative judgment?”
Paul Clement, the attorney representing the states who oppose the law, told the justices, “I think you do want to strike it all down to avoid a redux of Buckley," -- a reference to the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo campaign finance decision that struck down congressional limits on campaign spending but retained the limits on campaign contributions.
Art Lien/NBC News
Attorney Paul Clement argues on behalf of respondents challenging the constitutionality of President Obama's 2010 health care law.
Arguing for the Obama administration, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said “as a matter of judicial restraint,” the court should not invalidate the entire law if it strikes down the individual mandate.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy said the court would be exercising too much power if it threw out the mandate but other provisions “remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider."
That, he said, might be "a more extreme exercise of judicial power" than striking down the whole law.
Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to suggest at one point during Wednesday’s argument that Congress might find itself unable to repair what remains of the law if the justices invalidate parts of it. “There is such a thing as legislative inertia, isn't there?” he asked.
Listen to that exchange between Justice Scalia and Paul Clement here (.wav)
Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general in the Obama administration, indicated that she might vote to preserve all other parts of the law except guaranteed issue and other insurance reforms, if the court struck down the individual mandate.
Referring to the new insurance marketplaces, or “exchanges,” which the law sets up, Kagan asked, “Is half a loaf better than no loaf? And on something like the exchanges it seems to me a perfect example where half a loaf is better than no loaf. The exchanges will do something.”
NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams reports on the Supreme Court's oral argument Wednesday in the challenge to the 2010 health insurance overhaul.
And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Clement, “There are so many things in this Act that are unquestionably okay ... Why make Congress re-do those?”
Listen to that exchange between Justice Ginsburg and Paul Clement here (.wav)
She told Clement, “Why should we say it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”
The 2010 law does not contain a severability clause so the justices were confronted with the task of trying to ascertain what Congress would have wanted, if it knew that part of the law would be struck down.
The Obama administration argues in its brief that the high court should hold that only two provisions of the act can’t be severed from the individual mandate provision.
The two provisions that the administration says are inseparable are guaranteed issue and “community rating” -- which means insurance premiums do not vary by individuals’ health characteristics or health status.
The Obama administration argues that without the individual mandate, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions “would drive up costs and reduce coverage, the opposite of Congress’s goals.” They, therefore, can’t be severed from the individual mandate and “must be invalidated if the court finds it unconstitutional.”
Justices express skepticism over constitutionality of health insurance mandate
But all the other provisions in the law “can operate independently and would still advance Congress’s core goals of expanding coverage, improving public health, and controlling costs even if the minimum coverage provision were held unconstitutional.”
Those other provisions include, for example, an increase in the Medicare tax on people who earn more than $200,000 a year, a requirement that children up to age 26 be covered on their parents’ health insurance policy, and an expansion of prescription drug benefits for people on Medicare.
Also argued Wednesday was the constitutionality of Congress’s expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people.
The states traditionally were required to offer Medicaid only to low-income people in certain categories: families with dependent children, the elderly, blind people, the disabled, and pregnant women. But the 2010 law requires states to cover all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level.
Art Lien/NBC News
Deputy Solicitor Gen. Edwin Kneedler argues before the Supreme Court.
More than two dozen states are asking the court to strike down the Medicaid expansion on the grounds that the law coerces the states.
The federal government will pay all the Medicaid costs of covering newly eligible people from 2014 to 2016. After that federal support will decrease, and after 2020), the federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs of covering the newly eligible.
Under prior law, the federal government pays, on average, about 60 percent of the cost of Medicaid coverage.
Pointing to this, Justice Kagan said, “the Federal government is here saying (to the states), we are giving you a boatload of money….There's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of Federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”
Chief Justice Roberts said “the concern is that the secretary (of Health and Human Services) has the total and complete say because the secretary has the authority under this provision to say you lose everything (all federal Medicaid funds). No one's suggested in the normal course that will happen, but so long as the Federal government has that power, it seems to be a significant intrusion on the sovereign interests of the State.”
But Roberts also suggested that the states were mostly to blame for letting themselves reliant on federal funds.
“Isn't that a consequence of how willing they have been since the New Deal to take the Federal government's money?” he asked. “And it seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal government has done, they should not be surprised” at the federal government exercising control over them.
The states, Roberts said, “tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal government isn't going to start pulling them.”
NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.
I want free healthcare like Obama
You will never get health care like Obama has for that is for the top dogs only the dogs that have to eat what is left over we will get this crap.
Lusitania; you already have free healthcare under the previous system. Obamacare is going to make freeloaders like yourself responsible and pay for it or be fined.
I think Congress should have to pay for their health care until they come up with a nationalized system.
Maybe then the GOP obstructionists would sit down to the table and help come up with a plan rather than just stand on the sidelines hurling insults and carnival barking.
Silver Flyer - that is only deception. If a person cannot afford healthcare NOW they will still NOT be able to afford it later or with this bill or without it. Those unable to pay due to lack will still PAY NOTHING. The YOUNG who do not need large health care sums will be paying through the nose though, and what about those that just want to pay out of pocket? You liberal nuts apparently ONLY want others to PAY for YOU. You don't give a rats butt about others needs, or health care. You are Judas Iscariots who talk about how the oil should have been sold and the money given to the "poor" while all you really are about is dipping into the funds for YOURSELVES!
The politicians posing as Supreme Court 'justices' will never allow a law that their party voted against.
Verrilli did a horrible job yesterday.
Maybe then the GOP obstructionists...
Maybe you should learn to accept defeat like a man...You liberals wanted it to go to the SCOTUS...just knew it was constitutional. Now what are you going to do? Occupy the Supreme Court? LOL!
Tell me how the GOP was involved in the process.
someoneelse-4466623
I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Hogwash.
There are plenty of deadbeats out there who can AFFORD healthcare, but choose to rip off the system and, indirectly, those of us who behave responsibly.
For those who are truly in need, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides assistance in making insurance affordable.
.
Why be involved in a losing proposition?
Maybe the GOP obstructionists would sit down to the table and help come up with a plan
Hunh? Do you watch the news? What was remarkable about Obamacare is that the GOP was entirely shut-out by Obama and the Democrats. The most sweeping change in American government in history and not one republican vote? Is that right? Is that FAIR? Obama and the Dems had the presidency, the house and the senate. Republicans were stiff-armed. How anyone who values compromise could support this one sided bus ticket to socialized medicine is beyond me. Stop blaming 50% of the nation for wanting a voice in such a huge issue.
Obamacare is a is the most corrupt take over of our health system for thousands of government employees who are going to decide what is the best for us. Pass must the law .....don" read the bill...... deals behind doors.....Louisiana purchase ........twisting arms, this is how this law pass. The only talking point is, insurance to young adults and insurance with pre-existing condition, we don't need 3,000 of pages ,an army of bureaucrats, and 1.7 trillions of dollars in order to get that. Repeal Obamacare
Obamacare is a is the most corrupt take over of our health system for thousands of government employees who are going to decide what is the best for us. Pass must the law .....don" read the bill...... deals behind doors.....Louisiana purchase ........twisting arms, this is how this law pass. The only talking point is, insurance to young adults and insurance with pre-existing condition, we don't need 3,000 of pages ,an army of bureaucrats, and 1.7 trillions of dollars in order to get that. Repeal Obamacare
Gjalt...
well said...well said!
redvirginia,
very comical statement coming from virginia where they are trying to legislate women's genetalia and wombs.
Rod_Father...
Let me guess...California?
I am sitting here trying to compose my opinion on this medical insurance fiasco. Anything that I can think of to put into words has already been written here in these comments. What ever I say would be trashed by both sides - republican or democrat. The only thing that I can think of that has not been clearly stated is .... GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE - LET ME MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS.
Wow. Every last thing you said is utter nonsense. First of all, let's talk about your absurd statement that the GOP was "shut out of the process". The reality is that the health care reform bill had so many republican ideas in it that it came to bear a close resemblance to Mitt Romney's plan in MA. To support this nonsense you say that there was "not one republican vote. Is that right? Is that FAIR?"
Ok, let me see if I have this straight. Because the entire republican party joined hands and filibustered a bill that is somehow evidence that the democrats were being unfair? "YEAH! My entire party refused to let your party's bill come up for an up or down vote! See how unfair your party is being?" On what planet does that make any sense at all?
Republicans weren't stiff armed. "Obamacare" had so many ideas in it that it was practically a republican bill. The republicans opposed it only because they didn't want a democratic president to be able to claim it as a victory. Republicans opposed it only because Obama was for it.
Next let's move on to your hilarious statement that the health care reform bill was a "one sided bus ticket to socialized medicine". Let me guess: you're one of those people that STILL argues that the health care reform was a "government takeover of health care" even after every major nonpartisan fact checking website called that a baldfaced lie. Politifact even named it their "lie of the year" -- and yet you republicans **STILL** say it.
Congress didnt know what they wanted at the time. They had to pass the bill before they could read it. Therefore, one cannot ascertain what Congress would have wanted at the time of the bill's passage if the pillars of the bill were to be removed.
The foolish people who support the overturn of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) are only 'cutting their own throats'! ALL of them will pay more insurance premiums for less insurance or perhaps even be denied coverage, if they can afford coverage, because of "preconditions" of themselves or their loved ones. More and more employers are cutting or eliminating the medical insurance benefits of their employees, as well as most every other benefit, to reduce their business costs and increase profits for their shareholders. They give not one damn iota about the health of their employees if it means more expense to the company! I have Medicare and am very happy with the benefits and the program is better administrated than ANY private plan I've had when I was younger. It absolutely amazes me to think that the taxpayers of this country will have to pay for ANYONE, who is without private insurance, they show up at a hospital emergency room for an injury or serious illness. I could go on about the greedy private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies but let me close by saying that the insurance industry, as a whole wants to 'eat' like and elephant (charge exorbitant premiums) and 'SH1T like a canary (pay out medical claims). If only those opposed to the ACA would stop and THINK what a benefit it would be to ALL AMERICANS, including themselves, just maybe they would change their uninformed tune! The United States ranks 17th in health care out of the top 20 industrialized countries in the world in healthcare; we rank number 37 out of 191 ranked countries by the World Health Organization BUT we have, by far, the very highest cost! Anyone wanting citations for the above can Google world healhcare and healthcare cost by country and will get approximately 19 million 'hits', to choose from, to confirm my statements.
cantakenomore,
Let me guess, 10 years old?
Gotta give 'ol Hussein Obama some credit though, he's trying everything he can to bankrupt and destroy our country.
The democrats can't expect this to stand against a test involving the commerce clause. The ink hadn't even dried and they were handing out waivers for many, and by that admission, it cannot be considered under the commerce clause. No severability for the mandate? They never expected this to stand up against the constitution. They are STILL arguing with themselves. And the GOP is a problem?
Congress intentionally did not put a severability clause in the health care law because it was seen as an all or nothing proposition by them due to the intertwined nature of the provisions and the need for the law to be revenue neutral. The Supreme Court should not start deciding which parts can be severed and which can not. The law as written requires that if any part is struck down the entire law goes down and the Supreme Court should honor that. For the court to do otherwise would result in the court violating the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches by essentially rewriting the law. This is not their job, their job in this case is simply to determine whether or not the parts of the law being challenged are constitutional or not.
Very few things about the current law can stand alone if the mandate is struck down. Also, the democrats failed to include a severability clause into the law. In my opinion, because the severability clause is excluded, the whole law should be struck down. Strategic failures on the democrats in the writing of this law. If the penalty was labeled a tax, this would have passed through the US Supreme Court. But, to force any individual into a contract for any purpose, negates the contract from the start (contracts must be entered into willfully, without coercion, by all parties). To argue that this is like Social security...no, social security is a tax, as is medicare.
What I can't believe is the vote to overturn the law will only be 5-4. Our US Constitution protects individual liberty above all. The federal government was suppose to have limited, enumerated power. All other powers not included under the US Constitution were suppose to go to the states. But, the taxing authority and "commerce" clause have expanded the power and scope of the Federal government.
Let me guess, Junicon, your views can be summarized by this one sentence: " I have a dream of a world where the Government does more for my children then it did for me."
No thanks, I'll stick with being able to make my own decisions about what is best for me and my family. Government cannot "give" anyone anything that it hasn't taken from someone else.
If they can afford health care, but choose not to, then they'll be able to afford to make payments on their medical bills without the government forcing them to buy a product they don't want.
Tex your idiot bush43 already accomplished that.
scrambolo - since this bill has passed Blue Cross Blue Shield has raised their price by 30% per year per policy and this is during the biggest recession in history. Most employees will soon be taxed on their company paid health insurance because of this law. Not sure where you are coming from.
This is all really simple. The 10th amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution is denied to them.
The constitution doesn't mention health care at all.
... hmmm, what does this mean...?
oh, I know. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT HEALTH CARE.
But we hear Obamaniacs cry, "but, but, but... The commerce clause..."
Will somebody that believes Obama care is constitutional paste a line or two from the commerce clause that says Obama can make somebody buy health insurance...? I'm guessing no.
Such a major piece of legislation got rammed through during a lame duck session of congress. The Democrats knew that once the newly elected by the people congressmen got sworn in that this bill was dead. The people had spoken and the Democrats had chosen to ignor them.
It doesn't matter who puts what into a bill. What matters is who votes for what is in the bill. If I suggest that we drop the legal driving age to 10 across the US and someone puts it in a bill that I vote against, does that make it my fault if others are stupid enough to vote yes on it? I guess you have to vote for it before you can know what is in it.
Rod_Father
43 wasn't my man but thanks for pretending to know me. Now tell me, when does Obama's presidency begin...so i'll know which things are his fault.
Incompetent President , Incompetent Law, Incompetent Solicitor General. Out of the Chicago Tribune today, Verrilli who appeared to struggle to answer the probing questions of the conservatives. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberal justices at points intervened to help along. So who is being political? Look out Jimmy Carter and the history books HERESSSSS BARACK. Total Failure!
Unconstitutional!! Libs need more power so they can appoint more judges. This is just unacceptable! haha
If the mandate fails you can kiss coverage for anyone with a preexisting condition and coverage for women in general good-bye.
To force coverage for preexisting conditions and women (who get pregnant) without the mandate, means that people would only pay for insurance and get coverage AFTER they became ill or pregnant. This would mean that premiums would raise to astronomical levels and no one except hedgefund billionaires could afford healthcare.
Of course, some of you will probably say good, and that keeping rates affordable for lower classes is class warfare or socialism and we should let kids with cancer die... but whatever.
This issue should be examined on it's constitutionality only.
Gjalt, please stop regurgitating Faux News lies. The bill approved by Sen. Christopher Dodd’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, for instance, included 161 amendments authored by Republicans. Only 49 Republican amendments were rejected out of 210 considered. . If the GOP was shut out from Heath Care reform, why did a majority of the amendments they offered make it into the bill?
maddog
Thank you. You get it.
scrambolo you missed when you went after how the US does in the world standing. We have the highest cost for a verity of reasons. The biggest is probably are attitude, keep him alive at all COST. When you spend all outdoors on a 95 year old patient with N stage cancer you're going to pass the 17 other countries that send the patient home to die in his own bed. When pills here cost 10x as much because other countries just control the cost, but we are left with the research bill for finding new medicines. These are just a few. Check number of MRI machines in other countries per 100,000 population vs. other countries. Could go on but the simple fact is when someone is sick somewhere in the world and they are asked where they want to go for treatment US is more than likely the top spot or at least in the top three.
Rod_Father...
Let me guess...you can dish it out but you can't take it. Typical liberal responses. Demean over 50% of the population because the MAJORITY don't want to live like you do.
The hand writing is on the wall, it will be declared un-constitutional, 5-3 (kagan can not vote under law); let us get back to the drawing board, do not let the insurance company's and drug lobbyist's, write this law, let us get real health reform in this country, not a multi-national cartels wet dream.
So wnow we see why Nancy Pelosi said "We need to pass it so we can see what's in it".
It's a mishmash of confusion, written only by Democrats behind closed doors in the dark of night, using sneaky parliamentary moves to pass it. If they had intended to have certain parts survive if other parts are found unconstitutional, they should have put in the needed severability clauses.
Because of their incompetence, what we may have left is an unworkable mess that will be far more expensive and accomplish little.
That's why writing a truly 'bipartisan' bill always works best.
Biggie-1929519
I think you hit on something that is never brought into the conversation. One aspect as to why costs are so high. A few years ago, the cost of care for an AIDS patient was I believe around one million dollars. There are babies that are premature due to a variety of reasons that also cost a million dollars. There are cancer patients given months to live that cost a million dollars only to extend their lives by months. The most money will be spent during a persons lifetime on healthcare in the last month of their life. I know it is cold, but we are faced with harsh realities, and every person that costs a million dollars would pay for average health care for 400 people at $2500 a year.
My mom had an aneurysm two years ago that cost Medicare over a half a million dollars. I love my mom, but this is unsustainable. We can't keep spending more on an individual on medicine than they will earn in their entire lifetime. The math simply just doesn't work. Like I wrote, I know it is cold, but there it is.
Saxon,
Actually the decision won't come down until June, and anyone who knows a thing about SCOTUS knows not to assume a decision based on oral arguments. The justices are gonna throw every hard ball question out there to both sides, so they can examine it as thoroughly as possible, you know.
saxon
Agreed. Something's got to be done, just not this.
Hello Sarah.
This is the same thing as if the government wanted everyone to buy flood insurance. You say "well I bought a house on top of a mountain so unless it does that 40 day and 40 night thing I really don't think I need it and will take my chances". Hey were the Government you got to or we won't allow you to get a mortgage. So now the government can take my premiums and give them to the idiot who builds his house five feet from the ocean or in a neighborhood that sits below sea level, that has a levy the Army Corp of Engineering hasn't been given money to check on or repair.
Hi Tex.
Biggie,
No it isn't. There's a couple of key differences. First, if your house floods and you don't have insurance, no one is obligated to build you a new one or replace the old, and the cost of replacing it will not be put on the backs of those who DO have flood insurance. Right now, doctors are obligated to treat you regardless, and it is inevitable that one day you will need treatment.
Also, it is not inevitable that there will be a flood. It is inevitable that we will all use healthcare.
That's why the mandate isn't forcing you to do anything, it's regulating what we already do, so that those with insurance don't grow broke.
Everyone, think of it this way...
1. You're not being forced to engage in commerce or buy anything, YOU ALREADY DO. Inevitably you will seek healthcare, ergo you're already engaging and not being forced to. And because healthcare crosses state lines, it is interstate commerce, and subject to regulation by the feds. This isn't about how they can regulate, it's about the effect on nationwide commerce.
2. The insurance market only works if everyone participates. That's not true for any other example you can give. The vegetable market doesn't need 100% participation, does it? If we continue to allow health insurance to be voluntary, while not allowing for discrimination against preexisting conditions the healthy people will exit the system and only reenter it when they're sick, CRASHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
Sarah, come on. You are being forced to engage in commerce. If I didn't buy health insurance before, and I now have to, I'm being forced to engage in commerce. I know you're saying that because people will some day need healthcare, then being forced to buy health insurance (not healthcare) is the same thing. Plus, the government is not currently forcing me to pay healthcare, so the two are not even remotely interchangeable.
Also, Healthcare may cross state lines, but isn't health insurance actuall limited to NOT crossing state lines?
Tex,
It started the moment he was sworn in, Jan 20th, 2009.
Remember, the bank bailout came directly from the pens of paulson and bush43.
I would like to know what your definition of commerce is. If I am currently not purchasing insurance, and then I am required to purchase insurance, that is not commerce? Or are you saying that because some day I will need healthcare, I am already participating in commerce and then buying insurance is just doing what I am already doing?
Ask,
No, you are being regulated in how you pay for the healthcare you will inevitably need, so as not to shift the cost on to others. The health insurance is the regulation, the healthcare is the purchase.
And it is intersate commerce. Like if I were to get sick, and go to Johns Hopkins for treatment, but my insurance is based in MI and I'm a resident of MI, my insurance will be engaging in commerce with an out of state hospital.
Almost spot on, but the insurance is the regulation, which the Feds are allowed to do because this is interstate commerce. They're regulating how you pay for the inevitable purchase of healthcare.
Mostof us who can't afford health insurance ARE NOT deadbeats. My husband was disabled by a series of strokes last year, about the same time I lost my job. Up until then we had medical insurance. Now we are living on a disability check and unemployment check. I am praying I get a job I just interviewed for that only pays $7.25 an hour... It has been many years since I worked for minimum wage, yet if I can get this job I will be grateful, even though it means I'll bring home about what I'm getting on unemployment. My husband does not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid because even on our income we make too much, and we have to wait till 2014 before he is eligible. With his pre-existing conditions if I get this job, I will not be able to afford coverage for him, IF he would even be accepted. When I WAS working my insurance was getting more and more expensive, with less and less coverage, so that it was hardly worth having. It would have taken almost my whole paycheck to carry the kind of insurance we needed. There are many of us out here who want a comprehensive health care plan but just can't afford it. Right now we are scraping just to get by each month and have cut out non-necessities and have had to resort to going to a food bank to be able to eat. We once had good credit, now, like millions of others in this economy our credit is ruined. We had to allow one car to be repossessed, now we're hanging on for dear life to keep up the payments on the other because in our neighborhood there is no public transportation. We have made a payment plan with his doctor, but what we can afford to pay right now is so little that we are just getting farther and farther into debt with him. One of the specialists he had to go to waived his fee altogether for us, and another has told us not to worry about the bill. Vocational re-hab is trying to help my husband get into a simple part time job now, the extra income will help us to start paying off more of the medical bills that have accumulated. Three years ago between us we were making $75 K a year, now I would be grateful if we could get to $30 K. So maybe some of you should think twice about calling people "deadbeats".
TO: Gjalt who wrote:
This is why I don't respect Republican politicians: Instead a taking a position and sticking to it, they take a position and then lie lie lie about it.
Republicans REFUSED, and if you don't have any "blinders" on you know they still refuse, to do ANYTHING that will in any way help either America or the American People. The ONLY thing Republicans have offered in the last 3-1/2 years is obstructionism.
Not to mention the FACT that Republican politicians were paid MILLIONS by insurance company lobbyiests to do anything and everything possible to thwart the passing of affordable, quality health care for All Americans.
Even right here on MSNBC Teabaggers themselves admitted that they were sending people to Washington with the specific purpose of NOT allowing ANYTHING to get done in Washington.
Now Republicans want to claim they were "shut-out"! I think Republicans would do better to "shut-up".
It must make Republican Voters feel pretty darn good that they have lawyers arguing before the United States Supreme Court AGAINST your own best interests. Had it been Iraqis, Afghans, or any other cutlure OVERSEAS, Republicans would have been tickled pink to send BILLIONS to provide health care for THEM.
Obama / Biden 2012
Political theater brought on by the party that has lost their honor. Nothing more, nothing less. Americans have been screaming for decades for reform. Individual mandate originally an idea from the right. Nothing but theater from the republican sheep. What idiots they truly are. Shaming our country over a decade now with no end in sight. Complete and utter idiots.
Sarah - Brilliant posts as usual. Rational argument is still alive in this country though the pulse is weak.
It is scary that elections are won by the person who spends the most on advertising (isn't it Mitt.) There are too many people on both sides who have a Pavlovian response to the 30 second sound bite without rationalizing the argument.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Paul Simon
Belfast,
Thank you! I really feel it's a lack of understanding about how the system really works, what the mandate really is, and what the Constitution really covers.
I blame the 24 hour news cycle and money in politics, personally.
I mean every 1st World nation has some sort of universal converage, either through a single payer system or a mandate. Personally, I'd have preferred single payer, but if this is all we can get through, with the hyper partisanship, lobbyists and paranoia, than let's work with it the best we can.
Sarah - not everyone eventually needs healthcare. Why do you think that? What about someone that doesn't go to the doctor, then suddenly dies?
Do you think that the government should be able to make everyone purchase FOOD insurance? and that if someone can't afford food some private insurance company will have to pay for their food?
I guess I don't understand where you are on whether the government will be able to force people to buy ANYTHING they think is necessary (for example, years back NOT everyone received health care - what if in the future people (any single person) doesn't need it?)
What do you think about the fact that it's the insurance companies paying for the healthcare, not the insured? Health insurance is a man made business! Not some fundamental freedom of health!
Also, how can you say "you're being regulated on buying healthcare you will eventually need?" Doesn't that infer that the government somehow knows how much healthcare I'll need? Interstate commerce regulation has to do with regulating present commerce (if I buy goods interstate, the federal government can regulate the purchase of those goods). That is not the same as making me pay now for something I may never want/need! (ex. - forcing me to pay $1,000's of dollars throughout my life for say, what if I die and have $1,000 of medical costs?) It's not the same, as, say, your wheat example from the other day.
askaboutet
What about someone who doesn't go to the doctor then suddenly dies? Duh - maybe they should have gone to the doctor?
I concede that some people prefer that Government not tell them what to do. I am, however confused when these same people want to legislate a women's health decisions, gay rights and whether my son should fight a war against (Name country - Syria might be hot favorite.)
In your last paragraph, you state that insurance companies pay for healthcare not the insured - REALLY?
askaboutet
To add to your post...Health Insurance companies are in the business to make $$, NOT because they care about your health.
Try switching plans to something 'cheaper' and you find that the Dr's you've gone to for years do NOT accept your new plan. The Dr's that will accept your new plan have offices so busy that you're lucky to get 5 min with a Dr. (I was once seen at the nurses station instead of an exam room.)
Mandating that everyone purchase a private industry's product claiming it will reduce health care costs does not mean that you will receive quality health care.
You gotta love the progressive lefty's. They have gone from touting Obamacare as a victory for socialism to the striking down of it by the SCOTUS as the best thing that could happen for Obama.
Win Win either way, eh?
This is about the commerse clause, It was never intended to make us buy something. Our President who is a constitional laywer should understand this. Wrong way to go about it. The only way this would work would be to treat it like Social Security.
Ask,
Are you really basing your argument on betting on people not ever getting sick or injured? You're grasping at straws, I don't think you're stupid, but that statement certainly makes you look it.
I've already covered this, but here goes. No, food, clothes, houses, are different. This is why...
If you're a starving, homeless person and you walk into a grocery store or an apartment complex, no one is obligated and mandated to feed you, clothe you, or house you, and than pass the expense of that onto those who already have food, homes, and clothes.
They are obligated to treat you if you're sick or injured in the ER and those expenses to get covered through the premiums of those who already have insurance.
I guarantee you I don't know it all or have all the answers but i'll tell you this...when the folks from other countries with universal healthcare get really sick and decide that they want to live, they try to find a way to America. All of this really is a big problem, bigger than the surface. Where would we be if we weren't supporting people who are here illegally? Surely that would relieve a good deal of pressure and, at the same time, open up jobs, cut crime, blah, blah, blah.
How ever we do it, it is imperative that we keep the Government at bay. I'm not just saying this because i'm concerned with Government abuse taking my rights, i'm concerned about your rights too. If this country is fundamentally changed from what it was/is on our watch, our grandchildren will kick us in the ass for it and they'll never get it back.
And I still don't know what to think about all of you who bash Democrats/Republicans. They all bat for the same team, and it ain't yours.
Many of the provisions in there were built around the mandate.
If the mandate isn't constitutional, the entire thing needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
"The people are the only guidance of u.s constitution " as what the forefathers intended.
The duties of supreme court judges are to ensures as "The people wishes and interpretations" are being carry out,blinded not to the Individual,Military,Corporations or Politicians.
Time to repeal many of those that are NOT Constitution but being written as "Constitution's law" which many of those written law actually don't benefits the people at all.
You want health care like his?
I want vacations like he & his family take about once a month!
Sarah - I hate to start people bashing, but although you think that me saying "how do you know everyone will need healthcare" makes me look stupid, I say it makes you look stupid to say just because someone probably will (or in your opinion - should) need a service in the future, it allows the federal government to force everyone to buy a separate product from a private company.
Also, the argument you keep brining up about all first world countries having healthcare for all has nothing to do with the consitutiuon.
Regarding food, etc - If you don't have enough money, the hospitals WILL still be required to provide services for you. PLUS, even if you DO have enough money, they'll still provide the service, then give you the bill. What if you don't pay? Won't you run in to the same problem?
cms5 - exactly. DESPITE the constitutionality issue, there is still the issue that mandating insurance from insurance companies, and a doctor charging too much are very different. They are both in the medical field, and have to do with costs, but there doesn't seem to be too much actual evidence that doing one thing will fix the other one!
Most of the comments I have been reading here are pretty much on party lines, but the question is, do you really know what is in the bill? Do you know what the effects on healthcare are going to be if it is struck down? Well, from a hospital point of view, this bill didn't do enough to reign in costs. The lobbyists came in and started to make changes that benefits a particular sector, the big winner here was the insurance companies. As a non-profit hospital, we have money set aside for indignant care, for those who cannot pay. You the taxpayer doesn't pay for it, the hospital does. We have revenue caps, so we can't just go out and increase our prices. And then insurance companies come in and negotiate a percentage of the actual cost that they will pay. Medicare has the best deal, they are paying out 30 to 35% of the actual cost.
Now if it is struck down, well you are going to pay more for insurance with less coverage, basically the status quo. Hospitals will shutdown, they won't be able to afford to stay open. Less access to healthcare and skyrocketing costs. And if the Congress ever allows the medicare reimbursements to be reduced for doctors, then doctors will be closing up shop.
In conclusion, this bill didn't come anywhere near to bringing down costs and shouldn't have been passed, but it is better than staying with the status quo. The best advice that I can give to anyone is to live a healthy lifestyle and if you become seriously ill, just assume you are going to die. What will be left in healthcare will be just a shadow of its former self. Welcome to the 15th century.
If you're below the poverty line, ACA has you covered under Medicaid. If you aren't, you'll have insurance. If you still don't pay your premiums, those costs will be swallowed by a much larger pool of people, and they'll be much smaller costs to begin with. I'll eat your $500 premium spread through 100's of millions of folks and not be too pissed.
We, those of us who DO have healthcare insurance (HI), pay for those that do NOT have healthcare. If someone goes to the emergency room and they do NOT have HI then we ALL pay PLAIN AND SIMPLE. We are already paying for HI.
SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE would force the various HMOs to COMPETE against each other for our business... Come on you right-wing-nuts this is the perfect chance to stand up for AMERICAN CAPITALISM.
For you myopic ANTI-ANYTHING-OBAMA-DOES-BECAUSE-I-CAN'T-THINK-FOR-MYSELF nutcases... ALL former federal elected officials from all three branches of government get FREE (taxpayer funded) healthcare. How is this not SOCIALIZED MEDICINE????
How about Mechanics Insurance. Everyone is effected by it, every one will need it whether directly or indirecty. If you don't pay your bill the cost for everybody else will go up. If food is not delivered by vehicles we could all starve. If the ambulance fails to make it to the hospital the patient might die. Why would this bill not be next?
So, your point about about not passing off the costs, aren't you now saying that they'd be passing off the costs?
Also, doesn't the mandate specifically not require the insurance (or penalty) for people below a certain income level? I don't know off the top of my head but do the levels coincide exactly with the Medicaid levels?
notliborcon, I agree with you about what single payer would cause as a result, but that's not what we have here, right? And instead of lumping anyone against the constitutionality of this mandate in together as "anti-everything-obama," let's get back on topic to the constitutionality of the mandate.
FYI - I am against the mandate, not registered as a republican, and I voted for Obama, if that makes a difference.
133% of the poverty line iirc.
Obamacare is an unconstitutional attempt to grab control of our private lives by the government. No one knows what other land mines are contained in the bill. It needs to be scraped completely. Kudos to the Court for realizing this!
Also, regarding the food thing, are you saying the constitutionality of this thing rests on the fact that costs are covered by other people through premiums, and therefore it is constitutionaliy allowed, as opposed to your grocery store example?
Askaboutet
It's a smoke and mirrors thing. For whatever reason, people seem to feel that paying for subsidies and high risk pools is better than paying for uninsured emergency room visits. The trouble is, the premiums are monthly...do the uninsured visit the emergency room monthly?
Sarah - sorry to beat a dead horse, but you are participating a lot, and I love it, and I'm really just trying to figure out the other side othe argument (not argue, even if it comes across like that). You seem to be strongly informed and opinionated, so I like talking to you about this because IMMEDIATELY, my initial reaction was, how can that happen? Isn't that wicked unconstitutional?
I guess my thoughts on this matter, is that it's not about health insurance, it's that I would be having the same conversation about this if it were any product. You seem to be saying that you believe this would NOT be allowed for other products, and that it's healthcare/health insurance specifically that are allowed consitutionally (as opposed to food, housing, etc.)
So what I am trying to figure out is what about health insurance makes it allowed? Is it that healthcare/insurance costs are split amount the other people? Like you said in responce to my food example? Because lots of costs will still be "split" among the people (in my opinion). Or is it that we'll "have" to by healthcare at somepoint anyways, so that means we can be forced to by health insurance now? And if that is the argument, isn't that also true about food?
Republicans want this struck down so we can go back to paying for the uninsured with our taxes, and not requiring them to be personally responsible at all.
So Republicans want MORE entitlement people in the system, and they do NOT want these people to be responsible for their own medical care. But when it comes to welfare, they want less entitlements and more people to be responsible.
And, on top of that, because children with preexisting conditions are no longer in the fetus development stage, Republicans would rather have them die than get coverage. But if it is a fetus with a preexisting condition, they want to spend money to save it... so it can die as an infant or toddler.
Talk about a completely backwards party... I have never seen so many contradictory platforms.
YAY! Throw this POS legislation out. It needs a wrecking ball.
This was never done right in the first place - backroom deals and no bi-partisan support.
This needs to be done over and done right. It must have some cost containment features and should have a public option.
No one even knows what this is all about, in the end. Even butt-kisser Pelosi said "we have to pass it to know what's in it". Then again, she is a big idiot.
haha - glad I finally have a teammate!
cms5
Yes, ask anyone who works in an ER and you will learn that uninsured patients come through the door monthly... if not weekly or daily.
I am Republican. Hear me roar. I want all Government out of my life; to stop telling me what to do; and stop redistributing wealth. I refuse to take any social security payments, as a protest against huge government programs. I refuse to drive on public roads that have been built with taxes--funds forcibly stolen from citizens. And I refuse to accept any freedom won by the tax supported military. Only private militias will I recognize.
The government belongs only in 1) women's vaginas, and 2) to guarantee the rights of christians. That is it.
No one knows what other landmines are in the bill??? the law is 2 years old and published for all to see. If you don't know what's in it by now, that's your fault.
Indieparty - I get from your post that you are saying that repubs want away with this bill and that dems are for it?
Wouldn't your agruement (rebups are against this bill and against entitlements, which in your opinion are opposites, so they're a backwards party) be the same the other way around? *If this bill actually does decrease entitlements, which you seem to believe, then also - Dems are for entitlements and are for this bill, so they are a backwards party too?
stoopid - it's posts like this that are the poblem. People amass together, ignoring the actual issue, then continue that...
You by no means contribute anything to the discussion of whether this is constitutionally valid or not.
If this bill gets scrapped, it will be because the SCOTUS is filled with partisan hacks. Activist judges are those who meddle with laws passed by the other two branches of government as this law was.
Ironically, if a Republican had passed this law (it was a Republican idea originally afterall), the conservative judges would have been all for it.
I always looked at the SCOTUS to be above politics. It's not.
Really? So no one can read the bill? Are you @!$%#ing kidding me?
It all lays in the cost, you can pay for roughly 100 visits to a doctor for the amount of one ER visit. They don't have to go monthly to rack up the bills. This is why socialized medicine works in every other developed nation.
Supreme Court Justice (Dem) Kennedy is the "Wild Card" in preventing Obama's Healthcare Plan to go through.
He is talking against it now, but he may be blustering until the very end, when the vote is taken, voting Yea.
A good Majority of Americans do not want the new Health Care Bill. The Book of 2,500 pages or more was thrown to the Senate to read overnight. What a surprise now, that there are more expenses to all Americans if it should go through; now after it has been thoroughly read.
No one should be made to buy a "Product" by the Government. This is a country of Freedoms. So many people will be paying for those who do not care to go the doctor for fear, or those who never wanted insurance---The ER rooms will be jammed; and to get a doctor's appt, it will be just about impossible. We will need thousands and thousands of new doctors. It take at least 11-15 years to get a Medical Degree going through a quality Medical School. It is also extremely costly. "Student Loans"?
Where is the money for this program going to come from? Many factors exist re: who pays.
Where's Sarah?
Why are these conservative, activist judges trying to save the insurance industry?
Their job is to study the constitutional questions, not play around with free market issues!
It all comes down to the fact that Obama promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less that $200,000. What they should have done is raised taxes on everyone accross the board by $500 a year and is giving a $500 tax credit to anyone who could provide proof they were covered by a health insurance plan.
Fining people for not buying a private product is NOT constitutional. Offering a tax credit for buying a product IS. In otherwords, the government cannot impose a penalty on you for NOT buying an Energy Star Appliance; however they CAN offer you a tax credit if you buy one.
They can regulate appliance manufaturers to only make energy efficient units, Just like they can regulate insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions or provide preventative care with no co-pay. But they can't make you trade in your old antique stove from the 40's for a newer, more efficient model if you don't want to. Everyone lives in the environment, we all have a vested interest in making the environment sustainable. That does not give the Cogress of the United States more powers than are enumerated in the constitution. They are allowed to levy taxes to pay for services, true. Again the key word is taxes.
Blame Obama. He could have governed on his principles, and if that meant it cost him re-election, then so be it. He could have instituted a tax to pay for a government single payer run healthcare program and given a tax credit to anyone who showed they had existing coverage. Instead he had to make sure that he kept his job and made this overly complicated compromise.
That's the problem with politicians, they waste their entire first term in office because they are afraid of not winning a second term. If this gets struck down, Dems have no one to blame but themselves.
askaboutet,
If you are truly, honestly interested in hearing the "other side", then I will help you out.
Health care is viewed as a service that everyone in a civilized society will eventually use and feel entitled to... similar to police protection. I live in a very upscale neighborhood with one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. As such, I have never needed assistance from the police, yet I still pay for them. This is because, as a society, we have decided that it is in the best interest of everyone to be protected, regardless of how often each individual uses the police.
Health care is similar. As a society, we all benefit by everyone being healthy. Epidemics are decreased, virus and disease does not spread as rapidly, mortality rates decrease, etc. Thus, like police protection, health care for everyone benefits society as a whole. And, like police protection, it is more affordable when funded by everyone and not just the few.
So the argument comes down to two factors:
(1) If you believe, or do not believe, that society as a whole benefits from health care. Those in favor of ACA believe we do, those opposed to ACA believe we do not benefit. For some reason they see no problem with letting the sick and diseased remain that way. I see this as short-sided, as a virus does not care who you are or how much money you make, so the sick will get you sick.
(2) If you believe that we all benefit from healthcare... should everyone contribute because everyone uses it, or should we pay for the uninsured with our tax dollars? This comes down to the entitlement theory. The uninsured are getting free health care on our dime, while we pay more. Mandating that they contribute and stop getting the entitlement will force them to pay as well, and reduce the cost for everyone.
There are other issues, like preexisting conditions, coverage for children, and making the insurance companies use 80% of their funds on healthcare instead of executive salaries. But the crux of the debate comes down to those two points. Does health care for all benefit society as a whole? And should the uninsured pay their own way, or should we pay for them?
MA is facing that issue...those accustomed to ER visits continued to visit the ER, even with subsidized health insurance. Is there anything in the ACT that will prevent what MA is facing cost wise?
Rusty - I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic...?
It is unbelievable how uninformed this group is.
1) Obama and all members of congress purchase their health insurance from the federal insurance located here. http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/ that is federal law. they choose which plan from the federal agency which picks up up to 50% of the cost. That is not free.
The only benefit the president, vice president might get is access to the military health system for maximum security.
2) the only people who get free health care are those who cannot pay for it. That cost may be paid for by some non-profit groups who raise money for that purpose or is rolled into a new higher cost for whomever uses any medical service.
I just love all of the armchair lawyers and Constitutional scholars here portraying their OPINIONS as facts. The purpose of SCOTUS is to determine the Constitutionality of laws so until they render an opinion/verdict STFU. The ruling will not happen until June/July.
I think Obama and our Congress failed in this terrible attempt to correct our broken healthcare system. It should have been an attempt to institute a single payer system as opposed to this legal quagmire they created. If the mandate is judged to be unconstitutional then ALL of it will be tossed out. This includes continuing to ALLOW HMOs to drop you if you get sick, to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions and to continue to drive the prices of plans up. I guess some of you like these notions.
Bart connor & I'm just saying
Can either of you honestly say you have read and understand the entire bill including all legal implications? If so you are more informed than the Members of Congress who voted it in or President Obama who signed it into law.
In the beginning there was an agenda to push this law through whatever it took; even when Obama controlled both houses of Congress he couldn't get it through; his own party didn't really want it; nobody really wanted it - yet Obama wanted it and ultimately, after wasting two years and untold amounts of brainpower and energy and money on making it, got IT.
IT being a 2000 page document that practically no one - if anyone - understands; took or was given the time to read and which now, understandably, is about to be struck down and properly recognized for the incompetent, unwieldy and grossly costly piece of deficit increasing legislation that it is.
HOO RAY! Just imagine, if Obama had spent even half the time he wasted on this ridiculous "re-engineering" of America effort toward a better, more socialistic America working to truly make the country strong economically where we might be now - instead of being even deeper and deeper and going ever deeper into debt to our "good friends" the Chinese.
Time for change we can count on; "It's the economy stupid!" Is what the Democrats kept throwing in the face of President Bush One; ain't it lovely when what goes around comes around?!
Sahar you missed:
"1. You're not being forced to engage in commerce or buy anything, YOU ALREADY DO. Inevitably you will seek healthcare, ergo you're already engaging and not being forced to. And because healthcare crosses state lines, it is interstate commerce, and subject to regulation by the feds. This isn't about how they can regulate, it's about the effect on nationwide commerce."
Yes you are being forced. Becuase I'm not doing it now doesn't mean that I will have to. You have no idea what is inevitable. First off there is no inevitable need. You don't know when some is going to need healthcare! They could fall off a mountain, commit suicide, hit by a bus or get killed in one of these stupid wars. 30 years ago my aunt died at 50 from a stroke, loved to say she was never sick a day in her life. Ergo she was not engaged.
To say the young must pertipate or it all crash is not right. When you feel a decline and join the insurance company should be judged you as you are: age, weight, smoker or not and charged accordingly.
You charge kids more for car insurance becuse of their age. Charge a forty year old X for finnally joining an insurance plan. Fifty year olds premium is X plus. Thats why they have actuarrry tables
Psychologist on Obama
Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our president.
Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.
Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident -- a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling.. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people.
The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,"says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. "She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention.
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself .
This election was like no other in the history of America . The issues were insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.
This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple.
The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting . They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.
Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House .
America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.
Michael A. Haberman, M.D.
WAKE UP AMERICA !
@ Sarah and Americangirl
Please jump off the tallest building you can find. IDIOTS!!
So if Obamacare is deemed unconstitutional, does that mean that Romneycare is unconstitutional as well?
Perhaps we should look to the future assuming that this horrible law will be ripped apart in the USSC opinions come June. Without a realistic Republican alternative liberals in the USA will continue to favor what they think will be something free to them, controlled by the feds. Their salvation, so to speak, will be found in the taxing authority Congress possesses, and they will, sooner or later, come at us again, and again, and again, with some way to nationalize and control health care through taxation, rather than mandation.
So, a modest idea: Eliminate all tax preferences for health care insurance (Obama himself suggested this and it makes sense--about the only thing he has ever suggested which makes sense); allow insurers to operate across state lines; reform tort law so that punitive judgements are unlimited but instead of going to the injured party they would go into a general fund, perhaps one to assist states with low-income or pre-existing condition subsidies, but also make punitive awards off-the-table when it comes to lawyers' fees calculations; eliminate the federal requirement that each county in the USA provide a medical care facility for those without insurance (the people where you live are smart enough on their own to figure out how to help the poor...we don't need DC to tell us).
And one not-so-modest idea: Block grant to the states the money required for the states to offer to each person in the state a refundable tax credit equal to the cost of insurance, if the state wants, which applies if and only if the individual buys insurance acceptable to the state's minimum requirements. But with a twist...If you spend less on your health care than actuarialy predicted, convert some of that savings in to a direct payment to the individual. So if $10k per year is your actuarial expectation for coverage, and you, for whatever reasons, get the job done for $8k per year, take some portion of the $2k saved and convert it to money in your own pocket.
What does all this do? Portability? Solved. Your liberty? Increased. Costs of health care? Down (unless you think that an incentive to use less health care, while not punishing you if you use more, would have no positive effect). Federal power? Reduced. Constitutional fidelity? Mostly preserved (that block grant should be sunsetted so that the constitution is completely preserved).
Why won't this ever work? Liberals cannot accept any system in which the government doesn't get more power over the people AND where some group is not ostensibly punished (whether doctors or insurers or "deadbeats" or...whatever). And Conservatives lack the energy to make this case--it carries great risk. We might do better to teach calculus to cats than to try to create a viable alternative for liberals to consider.
Actually, the cost of the bill was determined by the CBO prior to it being voted for. The most recent estimate by the CBO actually LOWERS it's overall costs.
A good majority of Americans are against our wars---does this mean that the President must stop the wars immediately? People's opinions change with the wind, particularly when they are purposely mis-informed as to what's in the healthcare law.
Sure, we're in a country of freedoms but we also a country that says that the ER has to treat you even of you are not insured. Shouldn't I be free to not have to pay YOUR bill?
As for the need for more doctors, that is true, but doctors are not the only profession that provides healthcare. We have nurses, nurse practioners, physician assts, optometrists, etc. We can cover everyone just fine.
Indie - Thanks! That was an awesome response!
I guess my counter would be - how does this differ from food? or housing?
The police are funded by our tax dollars, and paid directly by the government to return as protection from the police. The healthcare law, though, requires us to buy insurance from an insurance company. This would (in my opinion) be more like the government NOT providing police, then telling every american that they HAD to hire (not that they COULD hire) a bodyguard. That's where the difference is for me - we're not paying taxes to the government who will then pay our health costs, we're going to have to buy a product from a business. TOTALLY different.
Also, I am not against affordable health care, and also think a government run system would be something interesting to talk about. But, just because it would be nice for everyone to be able to pay their health costs "and not be sick and dying on the streets" doesn't mean ANY proposed method is okay..., right?
Great job. Mr. Obama !!! No wonder his health care bill rarely gets mentioned in the fifty thousand cheerleader speeches he gives. If the man actually is as smart as we are constantly told he is, then maybe he knew his 3000 page reform was a stinker from the beginning.
On the other hand...maybe the real truth is that the man is not half as smart as we are constantly told he is, but he's such a narcissist that he thought he'd get his way despite the flaws in his flawed plan.
Canyongal56
Sorry for your problems. I believe there is help out there for you. Get you husband on Social Security Disability. That will get you closer to that 30K figure you mentioned. After two years he will have Medicare. Sounds like a long time but they usually go back to when the disability began. He may be closer than you think. You do need help..and I hope you can find it. Don't give up.
GOP - no, probably not. There are actually differences between what states and the federal governments can/are allowed to do.
In all honesty, this line has been VERY skewed and really, in practice, is not always followed. That is why a lot of people that are FOR the mandate point out a bunch of other things that are probably also unconstitutional as a defense, even though that is sort of a two wrongs make a right, or an eye for an eye approach.
Either way, the short answer is NO, just because the supreme court rules that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do something doesn't mean states are not allowed to do it.
A bit of a stretch to bring George Bush into this topic, isn't it ???
Or will the president be blaming his reform's collapse on the Chinese, the Arab Spring, the tsunami in Japan, and on his old standby excuse...Mr. Bush.
That darn Constitution...just keeps gettin in Obama's way for some reason!
Xina the Awesome
I liked you approach. I'm not against coverage, just the way they did it.
Really?-1739510
your right why should someone be allowed to walk away from a bill.
john-737278:
Dick Cheney's new heart at 75... does that fill your prescription?
Indie -
"Republicans want this struck down so we can go back to paying for the uninsured with our taxes,"
Of course that is way they want it struck down, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Government taking power it was never given.
It is people like you and Sharpton driving the stake between people, everybody thinks something needs to happen to control the raising cost of health insurance/care. The difference between the sides is that one want to give the Government and shred the constitution and the other side wants something done in without destroying the constitution.
The coverage mandate simply requires people to cover their own risk of incurring health care costs at some point. Even healthy people like me have some risk of illness or injury over the course of a lifetime. Presently, we have some folks - for a variety of reasons - betting on their health and having other people cover their bets.
Fine...strike down this health care bill. BUT I want to go to my appraisal district and show that I have full coverage insurance and quit having to pay anything to the hospital district. Then I want my insurance rates to go back to what they were prior to the discussion of this bill and be frozen.
All of you without insurance can figure out how you're going to pay for your next doctor or hospital bill because I'm tired of paying for YOU!
Hi GOP,
The simple answer is no. If Obamacare is unconstitutional it will have no effect on Romneycare, as bad an idea as that is. See, the federal government is constrained by the federal constitution, and it may be (and I think clearly is) the case that Congress lacks the authority to impose on us this monstrosity. But that same federal constitution permits states to do all sorts of crazy things. In fact, you have a copy of The Federalist Papers, you might find in them several passages where the concept of state government innovation and experimentation are goals and ideals, and where states and the federal government are not one, but are instead distinct from one another, with specific powers granted to the feds, and all other powers granted to the states or the people. That damned 10th Amendment!
While I do believe the law is unconstitutional there is something that concerns me greatly if the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way.
The way the law is written, anyone below 133% of the poverty line will get Medicaid.
Now, if someone makes one penny more than the guideline, they will be required to pay for insurance, with a deductible, that will take them all the way down to the actual poverty line.
Since the average pay across the US is within a couple thousand dollars of the 133% mark, what is the motivation to earn that extra $2,000 when in reality, if they drop the $2,000 in income they can gain $10,000 in healthcare. People aren't really that stupid to not figure it out.
What is the motivation to work any longer when you can have others work for you?
If the ACA is struck down, maybe it's time to just go the other way. If you do not have health insurance, and cannot afford to pay, your entry to the emergency room will be denied, and you can just die. That will save us a ton of money, and protect everyone's freedom just fine, right? Also, all of us with pre-existing conditions, tough luck. God made us unhealthy because he wants us all in heaven sooner... same with the millions of children now covered, who may soon be cut off from coverage. God wants them all in heaven sooner anyway.
Don't like that idea? Then if the ACA gets struck down, our only remaining option is single payor, universal health care coverage. This attempt to keep it in private hands has only caused delay.
John-
Only the people in favor of the mandate! haha
If that's how you want to act, go right ahead. Most of us don't feel that way at all. besides, above the 133% line are the exchanges and sibsidies. Above that, well, we already have insurance through our jobs. No change, except we can no longer be denied coverage, which means we don't have to stay in a bad job, just for the insurance coverage. We can take a chance, and quit.
John - if the mandate doesn't pass, then we'll have to live like americans have lived for the history of america, right? Like your parents and grandparents? Were they outraged that they didn't have governmental forced health insurance?
I say, despite the consitutionality of the matter, forcing everyone to purchase health insurance is not going to solve the problem... - also, there will still be TONS of people that go into a hospital without insurance and still receive care.
I agree something needs to be done, but the way to fix a boat with a hole in it isn't to bail water faster.
Nobama,
Why not, I'll have insurance when I end up in the emergency room.
Ask,
Sorry I was on my lunch break. I'm gonna see if I can break this down anymore...
The healthcare industry -
The two major things that are really wrong with healthcare in this country are 1) The fact that the industry is exempt from the Sherman Laws, which allows them to have monopolies. Most of the monopolies are regional. Your insurance, is pretty much determined by what state you live in. 2). It works off of a fee for service system. That means the industry only makes money off of figuring out what's wrong with you and ordering tests/treatments, as opposed to keeping you healthy.
Politics -
What's really wrong with our government is that we have allowed money to equal speech and corporations to be people. This has allowed industries like Big Pharma and the health insurance companies to basically buy our legislators and yes our Presidents too. Our politicians are pretty much dependant and hostage to their cash, which means their wishes.
The Constitution -
A lot of people who have issues with the mandate, are in favor of limiting our federal government to ennumerated powers only. They forget about all the loop holes in the Constitution that allow for the expansion of federal power. Things like the necessary and proper clause, the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, the general welfare clause. As society has progressed and learned about things like sociology, psychology, criminology, class status, social injustice, basically all the social sciences, we've become more in tune in inequality. We also live in a world that shrinks by the day. The number of people you effect through your actions pretty much grows exponentially each year. There's about 70 years of SCOTUS precedent to back up the expansion of the federal government. Furthermore, the 10th amendment is not the be all/end all for "state's rights". The 10th amendment was important when the Bill of Rights only applied to the Feds and not the states. The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states as well. In fact, I believe a case pertaining to the 10th hasn't come before SCOTUS since they tried to use it to fight desegregation.
Now, when you add all this together, you have a situation where we understand the need for universal healthcare, but the easiest solution, which is single payer, is not possible (see politics and healthcare above). So we go for the mandate which brings us back to this...
The mandate isn't forcing you to do anything, it's regulating what we already do, so that those with insurance don't grow broke.
1. You're not being forced to engage in commerce or buy anything, YOU ALREADY DO. Inevitably you will seek healthcare, ergo you're already engaging and not being forced to. And because healthcare crosses state lines, it is interstate commerce, and subject to regulation by the feds. This isn't about how they can regulate, it's about the effect on nationwide commerce.
2. The insurance market only works if everyone participates. That's not true for any other example you can give. The vegetable market doesn't need 100% participation, does it? If we continue to allow health insurance to be voluntary, while not allowing for discrimination against preexisting conditions the healthy people will exit the system and only reenter it when they're sick, CRASHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
And this is why the slippery slope isn't applicable here...
Let's use floods...
First, if your house floods and you don't have insurance, no one is obligated to build you a new one or replace the old, and the cost of replacing it will not be put on the backs of those who DO have flood insurance. Right now, doctors are obligated to treat you regardless, and it is inevitable that one day you will need treatment.
Also, it is not inevitable that there will be a flood. It is inevitable that we will all use healthcare.
Dennis-816242
One thing you may not realize is that there are many companies that are already planning on dumping their employees on the market, and paying the fine because it is less than they are paying now. Perhaps, go onto esurance and find out what that will run you.
Like I said, people are not that stupid and if you believe that the majority of people will put their families at risk for yours, I think you are a little unrealistic.
askaboutet
I think we have a similar view, with just slightly different leanings.
As you stated, there is a difference between government run, and the government requiring us to buy private insurance. I agree, this is not the best solution. Personally, I blame the rising costs on these private insurance companies whose only goal is money, above all else. The fact that insurance companies use 80% of our funds on executive salaries, and still refuse service to people (like children with preexisting conditions) is wrong, from a moral and ethical standpoint. So, like you, I think a government run system, like the police, could have potential.
Our difference lies in the idea of throwing the entire thing out, versus changing certain parts. There are parts of the bill that I fully support: the preexisting condition clause, allowing children to stay on parent plans, requiring private insurance companies to use 80% of our funds on health care instead of bonus checks, and requiring everyone to contribute. I agree with these parts, and would not want them thrown out because I don't agree with the details of the mandate.
Witnessing the debate over this bill, the emotions, the anger... I highly doubt that we can "start over" and get anything. Both sides are vehemently against anything the other side does, even if they agree with it. Look at Republicans... even when Obama does what they want, like loosen gun laws, they hate him. So do I think we can "start over" and have the GOP agree with any idea from the President, even if it was their idea in the first place? Hell no. They will oppose it on the very basis that it came from him. That is the reality that we live in.
So, instead of "starting over", I prefer to keep the parts that are good, and work on changing certain sections of the bill. If the mandate gets thrown out as unconstitutional, maybe we can talk about getting private insurance companies out of the game, and look at a government run program similar to other developed nations. Of course, private business lobbyists will fight this, and I doubt our government will stand up to the lobbyists... so it probably won't happen. But it's a thought.
Basically, that is our difference. I don't want to give up the parts I like, because of the part I do not like. And it sounds like you want to throw the whole thing out and start over. I don't have faith that our two parties will be able to start over and accomplish anything.
Yikes, Sarah, I don't know... I might actually just have to stop and agree to disagree, which I hate doing!
I still don't understand why the mandatory treatment by doctors is your focal point... do you think this is what the judges are discussing? And if this IS the focal point, what about the fact that costs are still going to be split for the people that don't have insurance?
the justices were “very concerned” about the effects on the insurance industry of leaving intact the obligations imposed on it to offer coverage to all who seek it without the source of income from the individual mandate.“They are very worried about saddling the insurance industry with that"
So let me get this straight - our concern here is that the insurance industry might be saddled with higher costs? The insurance industry that makes millions off sick Americans every year? Insurance has become big business, it's all about profits. They are profiting off of sick people - or more commonly, NOT sick people who still have to pay high premiums for the privilege of coverage IF and WHEN They actually get sick or injured. And then even when they get sick or injured, they are still saddled with ridiculous out-of-pocket responsibilities and/or deductibles.
There should be more regulation on the insurance industry to avoid this for-profit BS. My employer pays several hundred dollars PER MONTH for my insurance. For the last 8 years of working for them, I have used my insurance ONCE per year (for my annual exam/pap smear), with maybe a handful of other visits to urgent care (once I couldn't keep down even water for over a day and I was getting dehydrated to the point of them almost wanting to hospitalize me with an IV; I recovered without any of that, just the single urgent care visit). So thousands of dollars multiplied by 8 years - now I am pregnant, and I'm looking at $1600 out-of-pocket JUST to my doctor for global maternity/prenatal care, PLUS I will end up with a hospital bill on top of that. I think over the last 8 years my employer has more than paid for that. And with a child on the way I get to have these additional expenses?
Meanwhile, uninsured get automatic medical treatment - but then are saddled with ridiculous medical bills that end up in collections because they are overwhelmingly insurmountable, made even more so when you add interest. The whole idea of collections is beyond me - you can't pay your bill, so let's add interest to it and see how well you pay it then.
Then as a result of all these "unpaid" medical bills on the books, even though they are slowly getting paid off through the horrific collections process, they look bad from a financial record point of view, and the providers want to raise their rates, and the insurance companies keep hiking premiums to offset those debts.
The system is broken. Those who pay for insurance usually pay way too much. Those that need it the most get the most screwed (insurers trying to cancel coverage, or denying coverage due to preexisting conditions - imagine all the people that had a health issue but lost their jobs in the economic meltdown, that now can't get coverage because they have "preexisting conditions"). And everyone else just avoids the whole scam, but ends up with huge bills or games the system to an extent that it costs everyone else more and more. This whole (primarily Republican) idea of less regulation, let the free market work, blah blah blah - doesn't work. The free market is no longer a free market, it is a greed market. It is all about profit, more and more and more of it. And the rest of us can go to hell.
I believe in the ACA, although I do think there are problems with it, because I think it needs to be paired with massive regulations on the insurance industry as a whole. It seems like certain parts of it do work to keep insurance costs down, but we're already in such a hole with premiums, more needs to be done. This idea of not wanting to saddle the insurance companies with higher costs is a joke - they are making billions because they are in the business of NOT paying claims if at all possible. Allowing them to raise premiums so higher costs don't cut into their bottom line is ridiculous - there is no NEED for billions in profits, they can make a few less billion to help people out - isn't that the underlying goal of healthcare, after all? Or at least it was until it turned into such a money-maker? I'm sure the CEOs of the insurance companies don't have so many healthcare cost issues....not that they'd have a problem affording it if they did.
Indy - I am actually just as against the pre-existing part as the individual mandate...
But you might be right in the sense that you want to keep the parts you like... I guess I just don't like almost the whole thing! haha.
Also, sarah, in my humble opinion, I think it is very hard accept the argument "health care is inevitable" as a reason for equating healthcare with health insurance mandates. Is that something that is actually being argued by the people defending the bill? Just saying that doesn't make it so, and I'd say the fact that a lot of people that don't want to have to buy health insurance because they don't use health care is a testamtnet to that - you saying "healthcare is inevitable" is as strong as me saying "healthcare is not inevitable."
Ask,
You first say we should just live the way we always have throughout history, then say something needs to be done. Which one is it?
That article is a fake. Vaknin is not a psychologist, his Ph.D. is in Philosophy and although he has written about Obama, he did not write that.
Do your homework before posting Right Wing Propaganda. You embarrass yourself.
Everyone has at least some risk of needing health care during a lifetime. Accidents and illnesses happen to many who thought they would always be healthy and never need care or coverage.
Sarah,
We all use energy correct?
If we don't all buy solar panels they are more expensive correct?
If you answered yes to both of those questions by your logic the Government can force us to purchase solar panels as our source of energy.
We all breathe correct?
The EPA has said carbon dioxide is a pollutant correct?
If you answered yes to both of those questions by your logic the Government can force us to purchase an breathing apparatus that filters our exhaled breathe.
Obesity causes medical issues correct?
Obesity can us the rest of people more money correct?
If you answered yes to both of those questions by your logic the Government can force us to purchase whatever food they feel is best for us.
and your example with the flood doesn't hold water, we all pay for people without flood insurance, take a look at the Red River valley in MN and what happened have Hurricane Katrina.
I could go on and on with examples that are justifiable unlimited Government power!
(and guess what some day your side/party will lose and the other side will force you to do something you don't want to do and yet you begged the Government to have this power, think about that for a while)
and FYI throwing out the women will never get coverage is pretty sickening
Hi Bart Conner,
I don't know what CBO report you saw, but the one I saw showed a near doubling of the costs for the next ten years compared to what was predicted. But rather than try to debate whether CBO says what I think it said, or what you think it said, can you instead riddle me this...What significant and/or major program has come it at or below costs predicted while still providing the benefits promised? CBO, imo, will have underestimated the cost of this program the same way they have underestimated the cost of every major program. And it isn't CBO's fault, per se. CBO can only score bills/programs based upon the assumptions and facts given to it by Congress.
Which is just one reason, btw, for opposing more governmental programs.
Ask,
The mandatory treatment by doctors is the focal point, because that's what makes this industry unique and that's what leads to the cost burdens on our fellow citizens. There is no other area of commerce where people are required to treat, see, service, whatever you regardless of your ability to pay. Like I said, a starving man doesn't walk into a grocery and automatically get free food, and the cost of that food is covered by those of us who shop at groceries all over the country, right?
If we don't go with single payer, we have three options...
1. What we have now, where treatment is mandatory, insurance/payment isn't, and those who don't have insurance or can't pay get covered in the premiums of those who can't.
2. Neither treatment, nor insurance is mandatory. This means, you can be denied care.
3. Both treatment and insurance are mandatory and those who can't afford it are covered under Medicaid.
It's the mandatory treatment that you're wondering about which effects other citizens and limits our options here.
In terms of payment for those who still don't pay or have insurance...
First, they will be levied with a tax penalty that will help cover their costs. Second, because the pool of insured will have spread so wide, they will lower and not be so burdensome.
I believe that I'm owed a great deal of restitution here. I've been mandated to carry insurace that I've never had to use for most of my adult life. That's a lot of money. It's the state that made that unconstitutional demand on me at the behest of insurance companies, and they owe me money back. I could pay a lot of bills with that; start a business, live a better life. How dare they stomp on my last shred of freedom like that.
I want my money back, New Mexico.
Not my family, only me. If I lose my coverage for a day, I lose it for life, under the current system. I will have to be employed until the day I sign up for medicare. Having been unemployed twice over the last few years, it fills me with fear. So what the ACA offered me, personally, was freedom from fear. The ability to purchase health insurance from a helth insurance company, despite my pre-existing condition. So, as for being stupid, if you are in the same pool I am in, then you are already paying to help cover my costs. What killing the ACA will do, is give you the chance at dumping me should I become unemployed again, and then I'll just end up dying faster so as to not be an annoyance.
Is that the kind of America you want?
Time to drop all my insurance and let those who want this to fail to have to pay for me and my family. Let the flood of middle America into the ER for their medical needs, and let the naysayers pay for it. Let see how well corporate America does with large percentage of their workforce out sick because there isn't any preventative care for the average Joe. The ER is the best place to go to get a doctors note for sick leave.
Sorry - I'm saying I think things would be better if something was done, but I don't think it's outlandish to go on without this mandate. If nothing changed, we'd be we ALWAYS were. Talking about letting people die because God wants people with pre-existing illnesses do die quicker, instead of saying we'd be the same way we are now, is a bit rash, that's all.
To all of you who keep spouting unconstitutionality regarding the individual mandate. What's the difference between the health care mandate and the fire and police protection mandate? I am currently being assessed fees on my property bill for fire and police protection. I have never used nor needed either; so why do I have to pay for these services when I don't need them? If the individual mandate is unconstitutional then so is the mandate that I pay fees to support services I don't need.
So, all of you constitution experts, explain why I should have to pay for fire and police protection when I have not used either during my entire life??
Indie, what Guns laws has PBO loosened? Please provide link
Cause from what I see he hasn't actually done that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html
I have a friend that believes this, like you do. She does not buy health insurance because she does not think she needs it... rarely goes to the doctor.
A few months ago she suffered a head trauma due to an accident, and required a cat-scan. Guess who paid for you? You did. She did not pay a penny, instead we all funded it through our taxes. She says "thank you", by the way.
Lusatania and others: President Obama does NOT get free healthcare. He has a choice of healthcare options (just like the rest of us who have employers who offer healthcare plans) to choose from, and he pays for the one that he chooses. No one in either the Senate or the House or Congress get free healthcare. This is a myth that the Republicans would like you to believe, but it isn't valid!
As for the healthcare mandate, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting tired of MY healthcare dollars going to pay for people who are so irresponsible that they don't get healthcare insurance. I can understand if they are not working or can't afford it, but if they get an option to purchase healthcare insurance at a lower cost from a cooperative, it behooves them to do so. Whenever I go to an ER, and I do it VERY infrequently, I pay through the nose because 80% of the people in the ER with me don't have insurance.....guess who the hospital charges to make up the loss? Trust me....it's you and I! If you don't care where your healthcare dollars go....then you'll be happy if the Supreme Court knocks out the healthcare plan...but, if you do, then you should NOT be happy that they are even considering this!! And, if it is thrown out....all those kids over age 26 who were getting insurance through their parent's policies will no longer be insured, plus those who have pre-existing conditions will be cancelled. I find it difficult to think that most of the citizens of the U.S. actually want to go back to the days when the insurance companies decided whether or not our health was important!
Yo-Ho,
While I agree that the mandate IS Constitutional, I think the difference between your situation and the mandate is taxes.
Police and fire protection are paid through our taxes and Congress, in it's enumerated powers, has the right to tax and spend.
I think I'm right about that.
Since when did it become the job of the supreme court to save congress some work? Why is the court trying to decide severability issues when the dems want it as a whole. The dems wrote the law fully expecting it to withstand the scrutiny of the courts and have fought for it remain so. I'm guessing they never heed old adages like "be careful what you wish for".
Sarah, I really enjoy reading your posts.
They are thoughtful and concise. Please don't stop posting!
The Insurance industry is in the business to make money. If a line of business is not profitable, they can shut down that line and concentrate on the lines that do make money. If Insurance companies start dropping Health Insurance coverage...you are left holding a policy you've paid thousands into that will no longer provide coverage. They really don't care about your health.
This act relies heavily on a private industry's product. To ignore the affect that removing the mandate would have on that private industry would be negligent.
Well Yo-Ho the first question you will want to ask yourself is. Is it the State or Federal Government mandating you fire and police protection.
Then the next question you will need to ask yourself is are you really be mandated or are you being taxed?
Sarah - sorry, I understand the difference between currently paying for people's food vs. paying for people's healthcare because of mandatory treatment, but are you saying that is what makes this constitutional? I guess you're using the argument "healthcare is inevitable" to say we're already paying healthcare, and the government can regulate health insurance becasue healthcare is interstate, and then they can make us pay health insurance because Sarah thinks healthcare is inevitable?
I agree with the argument that the payment by everyone for the costs of currently uninsured, but getting services anyway people is what the problem is, but I don't see the jump from that, to forcing people to buy health insurance as being constitutional. I can understand if people think it is a good solution, just not that it's constitutional, I guess.
Fire and police are based on state/local taxes, not federal.
Belfast lad,
Once again you are mistaking abortion as a women's health issue instead of the murder of an innocent life. Just because the fetus is in the uterus of the woman does not make it a women's health issue. It is a life that is being killed legally because it is percieved as an inconvience to the woman. this is an atrocity that the Supreme court incorrectly ruled as being legal in January of 1971. Because of this, we have had 41 years of inncocent blood being spilled and you wonder why our nation is in such a mess, God is punishing us just like he punished the Israelites for the death of innocents and then said in II Choronilces 7:14 "14If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." Until we as a nation see that Woe Vs Wade was wrong and get the SCOTUS to reverse that decison, we as a nation are doomed for more chastisment from Our Father in Heaven, Almighty God, Savior, and Lord, Jesus Christ!
Indie -
1. That's crazy for your friend!... but doesn't mean that healthcare is inevitable (just that someone used healthcare)
2. Just because I paid for her healthcare doesn't mean that it is inevitable, or that the mandate is constitutional, just that the system should be fixed.
Indie, I find your story hard to believe, unless your friend qualifies for Medicaid or filed for Bankruptcy. The ER still sends you bills even if you don't have insurance.
My friend is in construction (didn't have insurance) and fell on the job broke and an arm and fractured a rib, they brought him to the ER and guess what he got a bill for around $3000 and he paid it and said it was still cheaper than having insurance. He since has gotten insurance because he is obviously getting older and the calculated risk isn't' as good anymore.
I personally am against the mandate- not because i dont believe it to be a viable option, but because i dont trust congress enough to not abuse it. The examples ive been reading, imho - are not good examples. Floods? Thats not something that every person has to participate in, Auto insurance? not everyone drives. A better example would be one that the Justice's used- burials. Everyone dies, you cant change that. So since everyone dies, then i could see Congress then mandating that everyone purchase burial insurance because if you dont have it, and cant afford a burial - then everyone else picks up that tab. And speaking of health, if everyone is affected by health insurance - who its to say that the govt. cant mandate what you eat, drink, exercise etc.
People can say that im being paranoid - whatever, thats your opinion just as this is mine. Our Congress is moving further and further from the center and are becoming largely an extreme left or extreme right political body. Sorry, i simply dont trust those A-holes enough for them to not walk down that path. And once precidence is set, to me - its only a matter of time til they abuse it in the above fashion. I will be glad if it gets struck down. If you want everyone to pay, make it a Health care tax- but no politician will have the cahoones to do that, because they would never get re-elected.
As much as I am against the government telling me that I have to have insurance, it the court finds for the mandate I will cancel the insurance I currently purchase. It will be far cheaper for me to pay the penalty and just drop into the ER for care. Based on the current definition of the penalty I look at it as a pay raise. The penalty is less than half of what I presently pay for insurance. My take home pay will go up.
to those people that spout the 10th amendment: yes you are right, the power not given to the federal government remains with the states.....and then you say the commerce clause is only one line: "for the benefit of the welfare of the people." and he can not use that....
.then explain why a president did use it. to get us out of the great depression,
this president used it to create welfare, social security, and america corps, he used it to fix the highways and the bridges, he put people back to work with it.....
now you don't here anybody saying that welfare or social security or america corps or its brother organization job corps as unconstitutional and why is that? because people like these programs (or put up with some of them)
is the health care bill written correctly of course not, can it be written better yes it can, and would universal health care benefit us? maybe?
but this is why you voted the people into office: remember we live in a republic, (say the pledge: and to the republic for which she stands) don't like them then vote for somebody else, but don't sit their and gripe about what people are doing, get out there and vote it is your right to vote and your obligation to vote.
Tom
In May of 2009, President Obama singed into law a measure that would allow Americans to carry loaded guns in national parks. The reason the Tea Party was able to attend their rallies, fully armed and ready for battle, was because of this law. The “Restore the Constitution” rally was the armed protest in a US national park, made possible by Obama signing that law.
Executive director Chris W. Cox (NRA-ILA) commented: “This step brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA will continue to pursue every avenue to defend the American people’s right of self-defense.”
There are literally HUNDREDS of links about this story, so go pick one.
Turn off Fox News for one God Damn minute, and you might actually learn something. For instance: did you know that your precious Koch brothers funded a study to disprove global warming? Fox News gave ZERO air-time to the results because their results proved it was real. Again, a Koch brothers study, funded with the sole intention to disprove global warming, proved it was real... and Fox News did NOT report it. Change the channel if you want the truth.
Yo-Ho (1.146), it is easily explained. This brazen anti-health law overreach and illegality by the central planners is a violation of the US Constitution, which is nationwide in scope. By contrast, Yo-Ho, your fire and police protection are strictly local, not nationwide, assessments and having absolutely nothing to do with the US Constitution. If you do not like, need or want your local fire and police then that is a matter that you need to take up with your local government, NOT Nancy-Pee and her fellow central-Soviet airheads...Face it, the anti-health law is just the signal anti-accomplishment of a man (and his fellow academic henchmen/socialists/utopians/never-worked-a-real-job-a-day-in-their-life crowd of cling-ons) who in any sane society would have had a hard time getting a city councilman's seat. He has no qualification for this office, has no leadership aptitude or temperament and apparently is so out of touch that he thought thinking Americans would fail to recognize, or would roll-over for thug-fool, bully-brat force. No. Not even close. And whatever the court does real Americans are finally beginning to wake up and that's good. Bottom line, vote out all incumbents in Nov. 2012. With new faces we could not do worse than now.
Also, what if the government made it mandatory for grocery stores to give out food to people that are starving? Coudl the govenrment then make everyone buy food insurance?
So there we have it....in black and white....in their own words for all to see...
The the conservatives on the SCOTUS are more concerned with the effect of the law on insurance companies rather than how the law helps THE PEOPLE of the United States of America.
America, when will you wake up?
If you don't make enough money, from what the government can see, you don't get the bill. You think everyone reports their real income? Ya, and we all ride unicorns to work each day too.
Indie, I don't watch Fox News can't stand Sean Hannity, I have watched O'Reilly a few things but that is it and not lately. They are like the left they defend their team no matter what, even if they do something stupid and that makes me sick to my stomach.
I see it was a rider in the credit card bill of rights acts of 2009. I will give PBO credit for allowing that to stay in that bill.
@the thinker (obviously not)
Yes...your pay might go up, but if you ever went to the ER, you would be forced to bear the full out-of-pocket expense as well as paying the penalty...so I don't think you're thinking too clearly...but that's the trouble with your lot...half-brained ideas masquerading as plausible policy...
Hey JLS,
I don't think there is much disagreement with your general claim that our present system is flawed. I don't agree with you exactly how it is flawed, and to what degree, but I accept your general complaint. What puzzles me about you, and about really all leftists on this issue, is that rather than look at what created those flaws and wonder about how to fix them so that the flaws can be dealt with, you instead look to the very cause of those structual defects, the federal government, for a solution. And, in this case, a solution which highlights just how far afield the feds have gone from what is a constitutional application of the commerce clause.
Maybe, consider this is you will, the tax preferences for employer paid for insurance are a major reason insurance isn't portable? Maybe, consider this too please, the fact that Congress disallows insurers to compete across state lines reduces competition and so increases prices? Maybe, help me here if you will, tort law increases insurance prices both directly (people suing their insurer) and indirectly (doctors raising prices to cover increased operating costs). Maybe, and this one is a biggie, so work with me on it please...but MAYBE the fact that Medicare and Medicaid, both to be sure, shift their costs to private actors in the market since they pay less for procedures performed (causing a direct economic subsidy from private payers) and because of this they also create an artificial increase in procedures performed (volume theory) which creates greater overall demand, which therefore creates higher prices.
I don't get the concept of my leftist friends in this country to seek help from the very cause of most of their problems. But, hey, I'm just thinking this out as I go, obviously.
Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand but how did this loosen the gun laws? On the GW issue, so what if the Koch brothers funded a study? Environmental groups fund studies, the government funds studies and all have an agenda. It is the science that matters...proven by the scientific method. There is no "truth" yet on this issue.
Indie, I can't believe a Dem would ever hide money not to pay taxes. That is just crazy talk they love taxes!
So that must mean your friend is a crazy Republican.
Sarah-3043284, Tom - Plymouth
Mandated! Taxed! We're splitting hairs here. My property tax bill distinctly separates the fees for fire and police protection from the property tax. Also, whether it's the state or the federal Government making me pay these fees is inconsequential. The fact of the matter is that I'm being forced to pay for services I don't need and have never used. So, why is this mandate constitutional and the health care mandate is not? They both are in place to address the possibility of needing these services in some future occurrence.
Why can't I pay for these services when I do need them, just like the argument I've been reading here regarding paying for health care when one needs it?
The republicans were for the Individual mandate first, both at the national level and at the state level; but, when the democrats passed such a law, it’s now poison. What kind of mentally challenged individual can’t see that his is purely political? You can't have it both ways.
We can't have double standards here just because one political party wants to out do the other. I hope the Supreme Court is aware of what can of worms they may be opening up....
I've never like the mandate and wanted a single payer. The mandate was a REPUBLICAN idea - you know, that old 'personal responsibility' thing? To pass the reform the dems included MANY republican ideas - in fact, most are more republican than democrat. Things are so bad with our current system ANYTHING was better than doing nothing. Now we have republicans repudiating their entire preferred plan of old. Keep in mind, we ALL currently pay for the uninsured. Every premium is higher (to individuals AND employers) BECAUSE of the uninsured. It is one of the big reasons for our high healthcare costs (currently over 17% of our GDP and rising). We pay more than anyone in the world for less than everybody else gets. That is money NOT going to jobs, wages, growth, etc. Now we have a knee jerk "stop everything Obama does" attitude in the republican party. WTF are we going to do with NOTHING? EVERY republican plan of late does NOT solve the problems and costs more to insure less people. No costs containment whatsoever. And for everybody who doesn't have insurance, what happens when you or a loved on is in a terrible accident? Who pays? We do. What if you or a loved on is struck down by cancer or another disease? Who pays? Well, we do. So what IS your answer? I don't think our current reform is as good as it could have been, but it is WAY better than nothing (which has been going on for decades). It makes me sick to think my son will be tossed off our healthcare insurance (he's a student on the GI bill). If we lose our employer based insurance, I'll be uninsurable because of my previous melanoma diagnosis. Our 'golden years' will be @!$%#ed up too, because republicans are doubling down on privatizing Medicare - and anybody who thinks they will benefit (unless you are an insurance company) is ignorant. We will be screwed, all of us in the end. Be careful what you wish for republicans, the unintended consequences will be devastating for all Americans, and it will be too late for a do-over. This whole issue is making me sick.
Rick, best post of the day/Week/Year
People don't get that for a $100 procedure Medicare only covers $30-$40 dollars.
So for the rest of us that is no longer a $100 procedure.
(the UN-insured that we also pickup the costs for is actually less than the cost the insured cover for Medicare0
Yo-Ho
The distinction between the two is that one is you paying taxes for public service, the other is mandated paying to private companies. Two entirely different things.
Caligula,
If he goes to the emergency room every 10 years, and would normally have to pay 3,000 a year, and the penalty is 800, that's a savings of 2,200 a year, x 10 years = 22,000, which might be WAY more than he pays at the emergency room. Maybe he goes less, maybe he goes more. But I don't think it's fair to assume it's a BAD idea. I'm sure there are plenty of people that have NOT paid money for insurance, and not used much (if any medical care).
Yo-Ho, "whether it's the state or the federal Government making me pay these fees is inconsequential"
Um, no it is not it is exactly the opposite. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the history of our country.
"The republicans were for the Individual mandate first, both at the national level"
Any Republican that was for it at a national level (Newt) was wrong and shouldn't be considered for a Federal office. (IMO)
As for the state mandate it is completely up to the state constitution and if you don't like that state move to one that has more of your views.
Sarah, I am waiting for you answer to why the Government wouldn't have the right to do all the things I mentioned above?
The YOUNG who do not need large health care sums will be paying through the nose though, and what about those that just want to pay out of pocket?
SE, I haven't needed large healthcare sums but I still have health insurance. Does that mean I've been "paying thru the nose though"? Yes I have, but that's the nature of insurance...that I may need to make a claim, but I may not. Even though I don't need the large claim, I have the insurance that I will have coverage if I need it. That's why I don't pay the same for insurance as I might need coverage for. The insurance company spreads that risk among many, so they can pay larger claims than premiums those policy holders paid, because the others do not need to make those claims.
The problem with self-insured people comes when those people don't have the funds (or enough funds) to pay for a large loss. We other policy holders end up paying for that loss.
For those that say insurance premiums have gone up dramatically over the last several years...I help buy the health insurance for our organization. In 2011, our premiums went DOWN 10% (we switched carriers from Guardian to Cigna). For 2012, we went with the current carrier (CIGNA) and the rates went up 7.87%. I know BC/BS is the most expensive carrier around, but 30% increases sounds like someone twisting something.
Also, people keep saying to allow insurance companies to operate in other States, but who's to say they (or other companies entering the insurance market) will have the funds necessary to pay claims. There was just a case in the news where policy holders paid health insurance premiums and then when it came time to pay claims, they didn't get them paid because the insurance company didn't have the funds. Having insurance companies cross State lines might cause regulation problems in different States not knowing which company is solvent and which is at risk of failing.
If Congress hasn't fixed health care costs and insurance over the last 200 years, why do you expect them to repeal this current law and replace it with something else that fixes these things? I guess the same could be asked of anything else Republicans claim they can fix...if they haven't fixed it yet why would we expect them to do anything to fix things now?
Of course we really don't know where the Court is on this. The base question is whether or not the commerce clause applies regarding the mandate. If it doesn't then maybe the manadate is unconstitutional. Whether or not the law is practical without the mandate, is not for them to judge. Whether or not it hurts the insurance industry has nothing to do with the constitutionality. If they take practicality or impact on the insurance industry into account, they are overreaching. It is that simple.
Deciding that the mandate is unconstitutional actually does have other implications. If a mandate in unconstitutional, than every other mandate, Federal or State is unconstitutional. Federal law superseded State and local law. State can't do something that is Federally unconstitutional. You see a lot of people using the 10th Amendment defense, but in reality what the 10th Amendment actually means is that States get to decide things that are unimportant on a Federal level. The Commerce Clause in fact gives Congress a large amount of authority on virtually every issue that has some impact outside of State borders. When one looks at case history involving the 10th Amendment argument and the Commerce Clause, the very large vast majority of rulings come down in favor of the Commerce Clause application. This is Constitutional reality whether people like it or not. When the Federal government wishes to step in on far reaching issues, it does have the Constitutional right to do so.
People seem to forget that participating in the health care system is already mandated. Medicare and Medicaid taxes aren't optional. Health care providers are required to treat patients regardless of insurance status. If you are laid out in a traffic accident or simply drop somewhere in public, emergency services are required to treat you by law. Your unconscious and dying body is in fact mandated to participate. If you are laying on the street bleeding out from and accident or gunshot wound and the attending medical personnel determines that your life is in peril, you might refuse treatment, but they are required to treat you anyway. Technically, you are mandated to comply, even if you may want to die. When you are in need of immediate care, they don't wait to see if you are covered by insurance. They don't ask if you want your life saved or not. Even if you have a religious objection to medical treatment, you are required to get it, at least up to the point that your immediate condition is stabilized. If you are in critical condition and you try to refuse, you will be treated anyway under the assumption that you are not of sound mind.
So even if you decide not to have coverage or can not afford coverage, you are still under many circumstances obliged to participate. These laws make good sense.
I will admit that the idea of being forced to pay for insurance through a mandate. is on the surface somewhat objectionable, but part of that comes from it being a new requirement. We are mandated to pay taxes, like it or not. We are mandated to pay into Medicaid and Medicare. You are mandated to participate in Selective Service. (Contrary to what many believe, even though the draft has been "temporarily" eliminated, you are still subject to Selective Service law.) No doubt, there are some differences between those examples and health care, but from a principal standpoint, mandates can be made and have been constitutionally supported.
The SC has not always stuck to strictly Constitutional applications of law, but have often over reached. Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v the FEC, are recent examples that have a lot of people upset.
I would much rather see the single payer system funded by taxes. It would actually cost less because no profit margin is involved, even if it weren't ultra efficient. For those who decided to have coverage above and beyond the single payer "standard", private insurance companies would still have room to operate for profit. During the last couple days, the SC has already indicated that the single payer approach couldn't be constitutionally challenged. Ironically, the very same political voices who are crying foul now are the very same ones who developed and pushed the mandate concept through insurance companies.
Only time will tell as to how the SC decides, the hearings are only the beginning and don't always give clues as to how things finally get decided. The real issue needs to stay focused on the issue of whether the mandate is constitutional, however it is likely that they will attempt to overreach and go beyond that and try to fix things from a practical standpoint. That issue is for Congress to fix.
Tom
Well Tom, I will give YOU credit for not being as psycho as the rest of the Republicans who state that the bill was a giant "conspiracy to let our guard down so he can turn around and take our guns when we are not looking"... f***ing conspiracy theory morons.
Since we do not care about protecting our neighbors (and really ourselves and our families), the other course will be to deny them service unless full payment is received in advance. Similar to those who do pay dues for the fire department - their house burns down to the ground while the fire department sits on the sidelines (to prevent the fire from reaching a paid customers house).
If you have a heart attack and do not have $100,000 in cash, we just want you to stay home and die.
If you are poor and get a highly contagious disease - oh we don't care, just go around and spread your influenza, tb, polio, hepatitis, malaria...
Forget about immunizations - hey that is for the rich people.
The other option is to keep the status quo. People losing their house, retirement - becoming bankrupt.
OR
We all pay a little to help our neighbors, friends, family and possibly ourselves - so that we do not end up bankrupt or dead due to denied medical services.
FYI - I do not have a dog in this fight, as I have medical coverage for life (military). However, I have a moral and ethical duty to my fellow Americans.
Tom - which things are you talking about?I just tried to look but didn't see - unless they're from a long time ago.
zztopps - I completely agree that it would be great if everyone had coverage, and that I wish everyone would pitch in a little to healp everyone out. I think the world would be a better place if that were the case. AND, I think a lot of people who are opposed to this mandate would agree with us.
However, I think you need to take it one step further and decide whether the law is constitutional or not. If not, then yes, obviously most people are not opposed to people receiving medical care, they're just opposed to the government violating the constitution.
Yo-Ho
There is a significant difference between being mandated to pay fees for fire and police protection, and the mandate to purchase Health Insurance. The fire department and police department are not private industries...they provide a public service. Insurance Companies are in the business to make money. If they don't make money, they can drop Health Insurance coverage and continue with insurance lines that make money...like liability, home owners, auto, life, etc.
If anything changes the driving factor of this ACT which is the Insurance Industry, the number of uninsured will rise significantly...and the healthcare concerns will multiply immediately.
caligula (#1.169)
When people go to the emergency room they can claim they don't have the money to pay and still receive services. But your comment doesn't make sense. I said I would pay the penalty and pocket the savings from insurance premiums. Therefore, when I get to the ER I will just tell them about the government coverage because of the penalty.
Last night on the news a reporter was in an ER about 2 miles from the supreme court interviewing a doctor. He said there are less than 10% of the people who don't have insurance. For those w/o insurance, they are treated and sent on their way.
With no "severability clause" .... the entire Obamacare act should be FLUSHED. It smelled bad from the beginning, was sold on bribes, kickbacks, and horrendous cost assumptions ....... and it fails miserably in its stated goal of reducing health care costs in this country.
In military terms, it wa$ an expen$ive clu$terf_ck from the beginning !
Tom,
I've already answered those questions so many times I'm going to take Nobama's advice and toss myself off of a tall building if I have too type it all again. Pssst, I'll give you a hint...The reasoning is the same for each one of those examples.
Plus, I already told you, specifically, the answers a couple days ago.
Go read my old posts. If you still don't get it, I don't know??? Take a Con Law class???
One thing I do know... When the horse is dead, you can stop beating it. If you don't get it, I ain't gonna be able to teach it to you.
ask - #1.139
One of the main arguments reoccurring here for the bill seems to be that the costs of those without health insurance impose on the rest of us with insurance. Just to play devils advocate, and recognizing that this is not a tax yet, how is this any different from income taxes in general? Everyone uses/benefits from spending from taxes yet not everyone contributes thereby costing those of us who pay to pay more. So everyone for this bill because of the impact and added costs is for everyone at all levels of income paying income taxes as well?
Sarah, the reason you use for saying it is constitutional is the same I reason I used, yet somehow you believe them to be different.
If I was to agree with you based on your opinion would you have the courage to agree with that if your side ever losses a election the Government has the power to pretty much do want it wants?
Fed - I would bet they wouldn't or couldn't agree with your statement at all, I truly believe that most on here would say that if you don't make 133% of the poverty line you shouldn't pay any taxes. Without even realizing that most anywhere near that would instantly drop down that level.
Yo-Ho -
The difference is that for police/fire you are being taxed to be provided a service by the government.
The ACA is forcing you to purchase a product from a private entity.
The proper way for the government to do it would be to institute a Tax and then provide Government Healthcare.
The way it's written now would be like the government doing away with the local police department and telling everyone they needed to subscribe to a private security company or they would be fined. People who lived in low crime areas, like farmers or other rural dwellers would still be forced to pay for a subscription, even if they felt they didn't require police protection to offset the costs of the higher crime urban centers.
Tom -
Sarah believes that healthcare is a different category from every other thing (energy, environment, food, etc.) because if someone cannot afford healthcare services, private individuals (hospitals, doctors, etc) have to provide services without being paid for them, which therefore drives up the costs for everyone else( *I THINK this is her argument) Let's take energy - If someone wants to open up an NSTAR account, doesn't pay their bills, their energy is shut off, as opposed to NSTAR providing the services, which would then increase the price for everyone else. With solar panels, people can't go get solar panels for free, and then have other people be forced to pay more for their own solar panels because the solar panel companies are forced to provide solar panels to people who don't use them.
But to be honest, I get lost because she uses a combination of
1. It's the only area with these requirements, so there won't be a slippery slope (which I disagree with 100%)
2. Healthcare crosses state lines, which means it can be regulated, BUT
3. Using the "Regulation" power to FORCE PEOPLE TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT is OKAY *But only here* because people "inevitably" pay healthcare at some point (not true), so having them purchase health insurance is NOT forcing someone to purchase something. It's just "regulating" it.
No one is required to sell you energy. Doctors are required to treat you if you wander into an emergency room. Your premises are incorrect and it undercuts the rest of your argument.
Also, I have taken con law classes, and passed the bar *although I have to admit I have not used it since!
Byron, in MN if you have a house they have to provide you with energy in the winter.
maybe in southern states it is different, but that still doesn't undercut my argument.
But the Government could force energy companies to give everybody energy even if they can't afford it and then mandate the rest of us to buy.
Ask,
Everybody will die which equals the need to be buried or cremated which equal the right for the government to regulate.
Honestly I can't understand how her argument is and different than mine, but what truly can't understand is somebody willing to give that much power to the Federal Government and not truly believe they other party won't abuse it worse than their party.
(For example the patriot act, the dems were 100% against or close to it, but man when they got the power they were able to find even more reason to use it, and my guess, when the Repubs take over they will push it even further)
Byron - I agree with you that that is different and that is what Sarah is saying, but, out of curiosity, in your opinion, does that somehow make it consitutional? Or are you just pointing out the difference?
On a totally different note - am I correct in thinking that if I decided I liked insurance more than my current job, I'm good with numbers, actuarial stuff, etc, and I decided to move home to my small town hometown and open up a cute little local insurance shop, and I offered a bunch of services, including health insurance, and thought this would be a good way to support my two children and wife, then someone walked into my office that was dying and said- hey can I pay you a small amount of money each month just in case I were to need medical coverage, and then if I do, you'll pay for my payments? Obviously, as a business owner trying to support my family, I would not want to pay for a terminally ill person's upcoming "possible" medical expenses if she starts paying me a small sum each month, - but wouldn't I have to? Then, say, I'd be paying her $100,000's of bills, then my family would lose their house and starve? (just trying to figure out if this is how the law would actually work).
askaboutet
I do have to agree with Sarah about one thing. And that is her issue that it is not forcing commerce. Insurance companies do not sell a product regardless of what they tell you. They are selling and spreading risk. If you are forced to buy health insurance, and you don't use it, you might as well be buying air.
I just wish that she would understand the difference between health insurance and actual health care.
Tom - ya, still trying to figure it out, but I THINK one huge diffference betweeen me(us) and her is that she thinks the "regulation" by the government can force people to purchase insurance (a product) from a private insurance company, because it will be paying for separate services from a different, private source that we will all "inevitably" pay, so it's just "regulating" it, not forcing it...?
John - so are you saying that health insurance is not commerce? If that were so, wouldn't that mean the government doesn't have the right to regulate?
It was a joke.
But in actuality, if they had balls, they would be better off to regulate it than throwing our hard money at an insurmountable problem.
What I find interesting is the stark contrast of the protesters. One is grass roots and the other Astro Turf. You can tell which is which by the signs they carry. One side has pretty manufactured signs that express the sentiment of the collective special interest the other homemade signs that express the individual's opinion.
What I don't understand is the willingness of the Progressives/Liberals to throw their freedoms away. If the PPACA is found Constitutional then what is to stop the government, at the whim of the party in power, from requiring citizens to purchase whatever.
The federal government has overstepped its authority. This power is delegated to the states.
haha - oops!
Sven,
First they don't think that they are losing freedom, secondly they are so stubborn they don't believe the other side would use the argument they used and win.
The example is the patriot act, I was against it from the get go and said so many times, why because I believe it to be unconstitutional and secondly I don't trust politicians to abuse power to gain power.
The left was against it but actually expanded it when the took power, promising us safety. The same thing this law is promising us.
Also if you didn't know the definition of extortion here it is: (Hence all the citizens of the state pay federal taxes of some sort but don't get any of the benefits unless they do as the Government demands, and the libs see nothing wrong with this?)
"The states contend that the law threatens them “with the loss of every penny of federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program in existence -- literally billions of dollars each year -- if they do not capitulate to Congress’ steep new demands. There is no plausible argument that a state could afford to turn down such a massive federal inducement, particularly when doing so would mean assuming the full burden of covering its neediest residents’ medical costs ... .”
But the Obama administration argues that it isn’t forcing the states to do anything. States “are free, as a matter of law, to turn down federal Medicaid funds if they view program conditions as sufficiently contrary to their interests,” Verrilli says in his brief."
R. P. - 2012
haha
Otherwise R. I. P. Constitution 2013
No, not inevitable. I can easily come up with scenarios without even trying where mandatory health care would go unused and be money flushed down the toilet by the payee. Mandatory insurance is just another way of lining the pockets of insurance companies and the medical profession.
Doctors used to be in what was considered a "noble" profession...now it's just a very lucrative one.
WOW! I know most people are gone, but if you're trying to understand what Sarah is talking about, here it is, almost word for word...
Sarah - do you know this guy/Did you go to SMU?
This pretty much sums up Sarah's argument exactly.
oh man, I hope people read this!
First, the guy uses the argument that "inactivity" in insurance is "actively" choosing to pay out of pocket your medical bills. EVEN IF THIS WERE NOT RIDICULOUS, in the example he uses the person is still NOT ACTIVELY BUYING INSURANCE he's trying to show that government is not forcing you to act by buying insurance because you're actively chosing to pay out of pocket. Unless buying insurance and paying out of pocket are the same thing (they're pretty much opposites) I don't know how he's making this jump... isn't it like saying the government can make me take public transportation to work, which I choose not to do, because I actively chose to walk...?
Then he cites the old seaman thing (that I think Sarah cited yesterday) - if the employers didn't want to pay they insurance, they could close up shop. this is SORT of close to our example, but not really spot on. THEN, he brings up the wheat example. Unless there's a part of this case that I forget, this does not have to do with making everyone in the U.S. purchase wheat... right?
He doesn't really prove/argue anything, just states both sides...
and uses "inevitable" a lot.
None of you have even read the bill, not even Sara, and I couldn't get past page ten (10). No wonder most of the representatives never read it before they voted on it and it became law; I'm certain that the President didn't read it before he signed it, and the Judges don't want to read it either. The ramifications are staggering and if left in place it will fundamentally change the we that we live our every day lives, and yes it opens the door to the gov deciding all kinds of things for us; it will mean the loss of freedom and more gov control and intrusion into our lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs&feature=share
@Ask - I have only been alive 29years, but in this short span of time I have never meet a person that has never once been to the hospital, doctor's, or dentist. At some point everyone will need medical treatment or will simply drop-dead (this appears to be your solution). I have been driving for around 12years and have never been in a car accident, but for some reason I get a damn check in the mail from Esurance. If i decide that I don't wanna pay it, then I can't drive. The healthcare system is set up differently though in the fact that even if you don't have coverage you still get treatment. NJ can refuse me a license but Princeton Medical Center emergency room cannot refuse me treatment. Treatment that if I'm not covered all of my neighbors will be paying for.
Sorry I took so long getting back I had to work today unlike some, ! You know to pay for health care like I have been for umpteen thousand years ! Sometimes I wonder why" because I keep losing more and more benefits and my deductible keeps getting larger and my premiums keep getting more expensive even though I "never" see a Doctor or anything of the sort, "Hmm" And then you want to force my son to pay and continue this vicious cycle..There's only one freeloader here "yourself"
escientist
I just noticed your comment and I thought it deserved a reply.
Only in my opinion, if Dick Cheney paid for the surgery himself I don't have a problem with it. If we did, I do. Something that bothers me about our system is that you can have $100 million in the bank, never touch it and use the system for you care. Then give that money to greedy children who will do the same. Making it need based would actually solve part of our problem, rather than dumping it on the young people to pay for.
He has had heart problems for thirty years, and has been on a transplant list for two. Personally, I think it should have gone to someone younger with their life ahead of him, regardless of whether he was our VP. And I think that is the moral high ground he should have taken if someone else needed it.
Get rid of Obamacare.A system like Obamacare is the very thing our founding fathers wanted to get away from.A person should not be forced to pay for anothers healthcare.Thankfully the supreme court will destroy the worthless Obamacare.
stew - I'm not saying I haven't been to the doctor, don't go, etc. I'm just saying that legally, "it's inevitable" doesn't usually fly, and more importantly, are you saying that because you THINK that everyone will use medical care at somepoint in their life, the government can make everyone buy health insurance?
Also, Sarah, didn't mean to come down hard - just got excited when I found that article and thought it cleared everything up. I guess we'll just agree to disagree
Rude but true....
You F**ktard Republicans are the same as the F**ktard Democrats as far as wanting anything to happen. This Supreme court has the following morons on it: Alito, Roberts and Sotomayor, all idiots put their by your F**ktard party. I can say you, I don't even need to know which party you worship, and be 100% correct in calling the party a F**ktard party.
What will happen is Obama will have killed Bin Laden as his accomplishment once this gets shot down by the *ssholes who sit on the 'High' court. And then what will happen is the idiots who fake being conservatives will run Santorum, the butt head, and he will lose, because he is a butthead. Then there will be 4 more years of getting nothing done, and the F**ktard Republicans will be happy nothing happened, and the F**ktard Democrats will still try to word a law without it including the word tax in it.
The buffoons of America, fortunately, who are blind in one eye so they can't see that one political party is AS bad (equal, not even slightly different) than the other, won't make any difference to the sucky life of your average citizen. I say sucky by virtue of comparison to how well people in the US lived over a decade ago. Its better than China, because you can still die from getting your *ss nice and fat, as opposed to dying starving.
Eat a Big Mac, America, made with pink slime. Its what you want.
Hi Sarah,
Out of curiosity, are you an attorney? I am just curious, since I will be taking the bar over the summer, and you bring up key points such as "interstate commerce", the "workings" of it, and other verbiage. If not, I am impressed.
Andrew
Derek-381097
Angry much?
Actually, you can never count on a military victory to win an election in the US. If that was the case Bush 1 would have had a second term for orchestrating Desert Storm. In and out in a couple of months with half a million enemy dead in the sand of Kuwait. Though most probably don't even remember how well he ran that one. So Osama might seem like a prize, but failures will override.
The saddest thing about this whole issue is that Republicans claim they don't want to pay for welfare but this would be an ideal plan to achieve that. This whole negative campaign isn't about the law it's about the fact that Obama will have it as a legacy for his time in office. That's why they labeled it "Obamacare" to scare those who follow the extreme conservative side without sight, the same side who were frightened by Bush's threats of future terrorist attacks are frightened by it. Republicans claimed years back when Clinton was in office that they wanted to rid the U.S. gov of welfare but the problem in doing that is that those who need it will still get free service and won't have to pay anything and won't be held accountable after service because we as taxpayers will be forced to pay for them anyway. Republicans want it anyway they can get it as long as they are the ones who come up with it. Most people don't realize that a lot of the law was inserted by the Republican side and now they are even flip flopping on their own addendums. If a democrat has the privilege of being responsible for it's passing then they claim they don't want it. You can't have it both ways...C'MON!
wow - rude but possibly true! haha
Phineas - I'm just against this from a constitutional perspective, but you know that this mandate doesn't apply to people who make below a certain amount of money, right? They still get care without paying anything...
Sadly, none of this was necessary. Two simple changes that do fall within the power of the federal government would fix healthcare.
1. Allow health insurance companies to do business across state lines, increasing competition and driving down costs. Before anyone says it wouldn't work, it already has. Auto insurance.
2. Give the tax break for health insurance to the individual instead of the employer.
Do these two things and the whole system will become more affordable. But no, that would make too much sense.
JimP - I've been on here all day. I think this is the closest thing I've seen to take care of both the people who are against this for constitutional reasons, and the people who are for any alternative from a humane reason. I assume you are not in favor of it as is?
askaboutet,
Nothing as complicated, divisive, and misleading as the ACA can be a good thing. Why use a hammer when a scalpel is best? The ACA is misnamed because it does nothing to make healthcare affordable. It merely changes who pays and adds an expensive oversight layer. Justice Ginsberg got one thing right: there are some very good things in there, but the conglomeration is just a mess.
Millions of average Americans will be affected by this healthcare law yet the Supreme Court is worried about insurance companies being stiffed out of premium money if the individual mandate is struck down? That figures! These elite people are always much more concerned with their peers for sure!
You don't need to read it, just pass it....Nancy Pelosi
WHOOT WHOOT!!! We said that ALL ALONG!!!! Another FAILED Obama policy!
Short memory Rod? They tried…they were locked out of the room! So much for all that TRANSPARENCY he preached about…
Then it came time to govern, and President Obama has negotiated major parts of the health care bill behind closed doors. Earlier this year, he announced deals his administration had cut with drug companies and hospitals after brokering them out of public view. And now his top lieutenants are working in secret with leading Democrats to craft the health care bill that will be debated on the Senate floor.
On the campaign trail last year, Obama promised an unprecedented level of transparency.
“I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table,” Obama said. “We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we’ll do is we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of drug companies or the insurance companies.”
In recent weeks, negotiations, particularly in the Senate, have been anything but open. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) have been meeting with top White House aides to draft the bill Reid will bring to the Senate floor. The private talks have been held around Reid’s conference table, and participants have been tight-lipped about the proceedings.
“When it’s done behind closed doors, it usually gets torn apart, and the final product that’s offered to the public is something that’s been negotiated with lobbyists, special interests and the lawmakers with something at stake and is not always in the public’s interest,” said Craig Holman of the government watchdog group Public Citizen.
Sloan said that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are being held to a higher standard of openness because they campaigned on a promise to deliver it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28750.html
On a side note askaboutet,
It also fixes the religious debate about health insurance. If the employer isn't paying for it, what do they care what their employee buys from the next Geico (of health insurance)?
I hate re"pig"licans and "con"servatives and especially ones in the "pee" party. I'm sorry (not), I meant the tea baggers who tea bag. I am not a democrat either and despise communism and socialism and fascism, mainly because "con"servative politics and the re"pig"lican philosphies (brainwashing and greed) are fundamentally and equal in so many ways to communism and socialism but hide behind walls of lying and deceit, which are paid for by lots and lots of money, especially are taxes. And, if Obama was white, many re"pig"licans would have definitely voted and supported for this wonderful and amazing health care plan (I mean LAW). It is interesting that the re"pig"licans helped to create medicare and medicaid and social security, which by the way forces and makes every single American have a social security number and pay taxes and get social security. So, re"pig"licans are HYPOCRITES. They are just upset because they did not think of this wonderful health care plan first. It's ok for them to make every American do something, which is "unconstitutional," but when a wonderful and amazing democrat creates something fabulous for the country and people who need insurance, they oppose it just to be difficult and uncooperative. That is stupid and horrible. Re"pig"licans are vile evil devils who do not deserve to be in this beautiful and wonderful country. It is interesting that democrats try to help others and make policies to support the positive growth and development for everyone, but the re"pig"licans just want to take advantage of others, lie to others, cheat others, and focus on their only true goal, which is to get rich, not matter what the cost is to most of the country. In addition, re"pig"licans are so racist, sexist, and biased because they are filled with hate and anger. Health care is a very important topic and the re"pig"licans do not care if our citizens are without health care as long as they can get rich. That is the biggest reason why re"pig"licans do not like the wonderful health care LAW (besides just them being pure racist) is because they cannot make any money off of the LAW. If they LAW helped the re"pig"licans and their insurance companies get rich, they would support it in a heartbeat, but it probably would still have to be created by a white Christian re"pig"lican.
Wake up America!!!! Re"pig"licans are your enemy. All they want is your money, to be rich, and to make everyone else like them (except for the rich part). They are pure evil and need to be shipped out in the middle of the ocean on an island.
If we all have to get a social security number, pay taxes, get car insurance, and register to be in the military, then what is the problem with everyone having to get health insurance. It is amazing and beautiful to think that everyone would have health insurance. That is awesome. But because the re"pig"licans cannot make money off this idea, a white person did not think of it, and a re"pig"lican did not think of it, the re"pig"licans do what they do best in these situation. They cry and whine like little babies and claim that this law is "unconstitutional" even though all of what the re"pig"licans do is unconstitutional because they try to pass laws that are based on religion and making them rich.
America, please do us a favor and stop electing ignorant and stupid re"pig"licans into office. All they are doing is stopping and hindering the positive growth and development of our laws, our great country, and our citizens. Stop the madness now.
Thanks Tom, Sarah didn't like my analogy of having to buy flood insurance but definitely glossed over your response to us all inevitably having to pay for those that didn't, after the Red River floods or the millions after Katrina, Hugo... Like I said not against coverage, just how they did it is unconstitutional.
ha - I just realized my link didn't show up! haha. I know everyone must be done with this post, but here it is again (can you post links?)
if the link doesn't stay in, it's www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/smu-law-professor-why-obamacare-is-constitutional-1864328.html
In defense of Sarah's point about the inevitably of healthcare:
If you were born in a hospital, you've used the healthcare system. Most publics schools require that a child be immunized. Most states require a physical before one can get a driver's license. Many colleges require a meningitis vaccine before attendance. So, even if one never gets sicks and then falls over and dies suddenly (a highly unlikely combination of events to begin with), that person has probably had to use the healthcare system at least at some point in their lives. The likelihood (in this day in age) of someone NOT being born in a hospital, NEVER getting a vaccine, NEVER getting a physical, NEVER falling ill AND dying instantly without an EMT being called or being rushed to a hospital has got be a ridiculously minute chance. Of course, I don't have the numbers on hand (it would be great if there were numbers out there somewhere), but let's use a little logic here. It is essentially inevitable that a person will use the healthcare system at some point in their lives.
On top of those things, it's suggested that a female start seeing a gynecologist by the age of 18. That they get mammograms by the age of 40(? I think that's the suggested number..). There are also suggested ages for men to get certain tests at certain ages so that they can maintain their health. So, it's in fact to the benefit of each individual to USE the healthcare system during their lifetime.
Whether or not I agree with Sarah's overall point that this should mean the mandate is constitutional, the point is -- her claim that using the healthcare system is pretty much inevitable is quite likely true.
Tell Yo-Ho to pay her fire bill:
No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn Tennessee house in ashes after homeowner 'forgot' to pay $75 fee
Agree also that use of healthcare more than likely going to happen. As to constitutional no. Making some one buy a private service is wrong. You want to entice with tax credits have at it. More like the Energy Star program or Cash for Clunkers. I do believe system is flawed but this is not the answer. Certain points are good and should be wrapped into another law, such as pre-existing conditions, portability to name a couple. Liked idea of not making employee based. Why am I stuck with the company my employer picks and the two options he gives. Have my employer just pay who I pick. Like JimP said this also fixes the religious debate about health insurance. Didn't like forcing someone to do something against their beliefs.
I dislike the line of thought that says if we're not for this it is somehow akin to us wanting are fellow man to suffer, become disease ridden, and bring a pox on all of us. This just untrue. We believe there is an acceptable way of doing this without messing with the constitution. Also the line that goes -this is the best we got- please. That's about as good as -here is a Band-Aid- when we need a tourniquet. Fix it right.
Several here add to the discussion like Sarah, I don't agree with her much but she can make a point without name calling and being crass. Those that just bash republicans or blindly stand up for either party I don't really listen to. Zen would best be served by not posting. Your "It is interesting that the re"pig"licans helped to create medicare and medicaid and social security"
shows how badly informed you are. They all happened on democratic presidents watch.
Tom I also disliked the patriot act.
I believe the court got Kelo v. City of New London wrong.
Given that Congress routinely adds severability clauses to the other monstrous laws it passes, one might think that the absence of such a clause in ObamaCare would be treated as intential - which it surely was.
Throw it all out with the rest of the garbage.
As rumor has it, there was a severability clause in the early drafts of Obama-care. Somewhere along the way it was removed before the Democrats shoved this thing down our throats. In the end, it may work in the country's favor because this whole debacle will have to be thrown out. We can only hope. Then maybe Congress can actually replace it with some legislation that actually lowers the cost of health care instead of raising it like Obama-care does.
This law is unconstitutional in so many ways. Do you really want that much government interference in your life, as to what kind and what type of medical coverage you're entitled to? Do you really want a panel of 15 chosen administrators deciding what type of health coverage is "Cost Effective" to pay for; and what coverage to decline (effectively a death sentence for those with that illness)? Do you really want the government mandating medium size businesses, to carry this coverage, while allowing others to be "deemed exempt"? Have any of you considered the rise in unemployment this bill will cause, by employers laying off employees to keep costs down? Finally, Social Security and Medicare are NOT government funded programs, they are funded by employee/employer contributions via payroll deductions. However, Obama plans to pull 500 Million from Medicare to fund the start up costs for this ObamaCare plan. With that said, their is no guarantee in this plan that Seniors, who are losing Medicare funding, will have equal coverage under the new plan.
Finally, look at this ObamaCare Bill from a constitutionality issue. Do you really want to begin giving up your personal freedoms and allow the government to start choosing what medical coverage you can have, and like it or not, what insurance you are forced to pay for? Many of you will say, what about the poor who can't afford medical insurance? Look at your question. If the poor couldn't afford it before, who is going to pay for those mandated premiums now? Easy answer, it will be absorbed by the middle class and small struggling businesses. Nothing really has changed, only more government control over your daily lives......
1. The law is NOT unConstitutional, but count on the partisan hacks (like Alito) to 'vote' against it anyway.
2. Government interrference? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does NOT limit the type of care you are entitled to, but it REQUIRES you to pay for the care you recieve.
My mother signed up for 'privatized' Medicare when George W. Bush made it available. The 'private' company sold her contract to another, and when she was hospitalized with a stroke, the new company (Humana Health Care) sent a representative EVERY DAY to disrupt sessions with doctors and therapists trying to get my mother kicked out of the hospital. Eventually, Humana wore the octors down, and my mother was discharged long before the doctors had originally prescribed. That weekend, no longer being under proper care, she suffered another stroke that killed her.
Government run Medicare would NEVER have deliberately engaged in actions that killed my mom just to save a few bucks.
Ronzwyf,
If Obama-care is unconstitutional then so are all the laws currently being passed that force a woman seeking a LEGAL procedure (abortion) to undergo an unnecessary ultra-sound (or worse the transvaginal ultra-sound) AND make her pay for it. Aren't these laws FORCING women to "purchase" something they neither want or need? Why is this forced payment different that Obama-care? (that's a rhetorical question because there is no difference).
If you are that numb in the head to not see the difference between these things....you are an idiot. What is the difference between me using a gun to make you give me your money or just stealing it from you because you are an idiot?
Commonsense of course it would. Just like the bean counters at Humana and the government boys will follow the same actuary tables. To hold cost down they will move you out of that hospital bed quickly, oh and your doctors not gonna even be able to put up a fight with government thugs. Look at other places with national health care. Ask yourself why does someone from Canada come here for a procedure they can get at home for free? Maybe they don't want to wait 10 months.
The law is blatantly unconstitutional. Making the generally very healthy 20-35 year olds buy coverage so as to offset the senior population. The problem being they are the ones just starting out an least able
to afford or need this coverage.
all you idiot conservatives would love for those conservative so called judges of the people who are bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and the big corporations. They havn`t made a fair decision on anything since they screwed this country and all of us in 2000 when they refused to count all the votes and gave the election to Bush. Who clearly lost the election to Gore in the state his brother was the f#@!@#@ing governor. That was the first taste of what we were about to get from the party of the rich. They took away any f#@#@#ing hope of ever having another fair election when they put the elections in the hands of big corp. and the billionaires of the world. And now they are trying to supress the vote of millions of people who would vote democrat. And now these same conservative hypocrite`s want to strike down the affordable healthcare law because they say that goverment can`t make you do or buy something that you don`t want but yet every f@#@#ing GOPTP governor in this country wants to make a woman pay for an altrasound or a vaginal probe but thats OK for goverment to force that on anyone cus they f@#@#ing want that. Now if Obama was for that they wouldn`t be for it would they? Does anyone think that thier vote will be any different then before. I never thought i would ever see this country become the China of the west but i guess if i live long enough i`ll see the rich take over the rest of this country and nobody on either f@#@#ing side will WTFUP and take it back after all it is ours ain`t it.
You are sharp to point out the fact the separability cause was left out on purpose. In addition, if the law had stated you pay a tax instead of a penalty it would have passed muster. But our chicken sh-t representatives were too worried about re-election to impose a tax unless it was on millionaires.
This fighting among the Democrats was going on while the economy was tanking.
We need term limits badly.
So you are against a healthy population or caring for the poor altogether.
A let them rot position?
Or would you like to see that in the 1990's that Republicans introduced bills, in response to Clinton's health care plan, to have an individual mandate.
Take your time, look it up.
Maybe there was less hate then, or maybe it truly is a better idea to have insurance for all. Because if nothing is going to change, that means that if the law passes, that it will not matter; nothing will change.
But, the arguing is over now. Justices will be swayed by news and politics now. So scream louder, they'll hear you.
By the way, you forced to pay for insurance now. (Medicare and Social Security) It comes right out of your check, and the employer does pay a percentage.
See, coming from a small business family you learn these things, not by listening to rhetoric.
Commonsense - Firstly, I am sorry to hear that you feel your mother wasn't cared for properly.
I do have to take exception with the statement about Government run Medicare. It's not as good as the other options. From someone who works with hospitals, especially with government run programs for VA, Geriatrics, and low-income families, hospitals prefer dealing with private insurance over government providers because there are fewer hurdles and restrictions on care.
Every company uses what is called a Standard of Care. They require the use of methods that work the most, but not necessarily the best. It is up to the doctors to control the information presented to the company as their amended or adjusted care plan if there is information that leads them to believe another avenue is necessary or more beneficial.
That being said, the doctors are responsible for the care of a patient. We see doctors go against the standard of care all the time to save patients. If your doctors felt there needed to be more done, then I would take exception with the doctors. We all have to remember that in the end, we all have the choice. If the doctors gave you no other options and felt that your mother was in danger, then that's the issue.
Too many times doctors use the insurance companies as the scapegoat to deflect the blame.
Regulation is the only way to deal with the healthcare fiasco. Hospitals, insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry....... all have been fleecing the system the past 30 years and congress needs to put the brakes on. Obama's scheme does nothing more than encourage these industries to carry on as usual.
Commonsense,
Sorry about your mother, but that is really naive. Medicare payment rules force hospitals to discharge patients as early as possible every day. ObamaCare include another $500 billion decrease in Medicare payments. It will only get worse.
Obamacare is an attempt to get people that are irresponsible to act responsibly. As we've seen from the GOP debates, the GOP answer to people without health insurance is "let them die". Only when our streets have the rotting corpses of those that we allowed to go without insurance will people see the value of Obamacare. Only when they themselves, or their family members need medical help will they see the value. Everyone needs medical assistance sooner or later.
To those of you that think that you will never be turned away from a medical profit center because you can't pay, think again. Once the medical corporations see this law overturned, they will become emboldened enough to deny coverage to the uninsured, underinsured, and those already sick and uninsurable. The fact that so many people harbor the false belief that they are immune to any decline in health is what's truly tragic. You are one small stroke, cancer cell, or heart attack away from having no coverage....may these diseases at least have the decency to hit Republicans first..
You people keep me mystified, either republicans are elitist rich guys or they are ignorant backwoods hillbillies toting guns and bibles around. Well, being more of a libertarian myself, I follow a sound fiscal policy which puts me in with the republicans more than dems. The thought that everyone is going to be on this health plan is ludicrous. An estimate of over 11 million illegal immigrates makes that clear. Last time I checked anyone going into hospital for care had to be cared for by law. Who eats that bill?
When my mother was sick they order her a couple things, Shower chair, walker and the like. When they got here my mother was past using them, asked the hospice nurse where to send back, told us just keep them Medicare already paid for them. Walker was at a price above the same model in store. Medicare billed what's allowed. You would think they could at least get a group discount.
It's time to reign in health care cost, but leaving it to the government doesn't look like the wise alternative unless we all want "free" scooter chairs.
"The people are the only guidance of u.s constitution " as what the forefathers intended.
The duties of supreme court judges are to ensures as "The people wishes and interpretations" are being carry out,binded not to the Individual,Military,Corporations or Politicians.
Time to repeal many of those that are NOT Constitution but being written as "Constitution's law" which many of those written law actually don't benefits the people at all.
Mike: Please provide a link that supports your assertion that the GOP plan is to let people die. I would be all that I have that you will not be able to do it.
We ALL know what's in the law now--and it's pretty good. There are projects for prevention, medicare fraud, malpractice reform, improved quality, decreased costs, etc.
Without the law, we would go back to the status quo--people with preexisting conditions would have to give up there insurance as would those under age 27. Medicaid would go back to covering only the extremely poor. Insurance rates would continue to go up, up, up as the companies reap tons in profits.
The Repubs have no intention of replacing it with anything. If you're not rich, you're screwed...
Biggie--you have so many things completely wrong in your last post.
First Republicans are fiscally responsible? The Bush Tax cuts, two wars, the Medicare drug bill were all completely irresponsible.
Second, there are about 10 million illegals, only about 5 million are uninsured.
Finally, the only reason the government has to enter into the healthcare system at all is that the private sector has made a complete mess of it. The private sector, based on profits, is doing all it can to NOT pay for healthcare.
If you want your personal freedom and not buy health insurance, please exert that personal freedom when you're in an accident and don't show up to the Emergency Room to demand free care.
@ bart conner
please move to Mexico, you are not an American. :"about 10million illegals , only about 5 million uninsured" REALLY?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!
Brian-
Why don't you check the actual statistics on immigrants before you speak. America has about 30 million immigrants total, 10 million illegal, about 5 million uninsured.
Just because you "DON'T THINK SO!" doesn't mean you are correct. PS, A true American is one who actually relies on facts.
Nice argument Bart. You are aware that the cost of both wars is significantly less than what Obama has already spent are you not. Also, we will be back in the ME again if our domestic energy policy does not get fixed soon. But alas, those are separate issues.
Every figure I have seen is significantly higher than 10 million and you really think half of them are insured?
There is nothing wrong with the healthcare system based upon profits. Maybe you can explain what government agency is so effective that you want to either put it in charge of healthcare or model the new system after. All that money Obama has spent, we are now at 16T in debt, has to be paid back from somewhere. Once it is illegal for you to contract with an outside physician for care maybe then you will remember Obama's comment that at some time you have to recognize that you have lived a full life and take a pill and go home.
Sounds like a better system to me already.
MkeMike,
You can not get the irresponsible to act responsible any more than you can make self destructive people change their behavior. As much as I dislike the higher premiums, the existing solution is by far better in my opinion than trampling individual rights. You need to expand your boundaries on the sites you get information from because there are several issues/options that have been discussed other than letting people die in the streets. There are many issues which affect the overall costs of healthcare in this country included but not limited to: demographic splits, federal regulation of insurance, malpractice insurance, FDA application and clinical trials process, the extension of life through better (more costly) treatments which result in additional costs/care, trial lawyers, as well as poor diet, lack of exercise, and on and on. The whole system can't be fixed until all of the associated factors can be addressed. They want you mad at the insurance companies...just like they want you mad at the banks...it gets them want they want, more control.
I'm amazed at the number of Constitutional Scholars commenting on the SCOTUS hearings here on First Read.
Some are livid in their view that the ObamaCare law is Constitutional, while others feel it is not.
Already various liberal commentators are stating a 5-4 vote. Some on the Vine are critical of the conservative members of the court, and if you can believe their posts, the court is taking money from the insurance companies to defeat ObamaCare.
Where do these types of opinions come from? Left field?????? No one can read the minds of the court.
But I can't wait to hear the opinions of those when and if the law is found to be at fault.
If the individual mandate is struck down but the rest remains intact, the main problem is that the primary source of funding from the individual mandate funded the rest of Obamacare. Being denied this funding, the remaining components would not be implementable unless Obama could find another source of funding, unlikely.
Considering that the healthcare provisions under Obamacare comprised only a few hundred pages and the over 2000 other pages dealt with the stealth implementation of controls, regulations and taxes on people and businesses, the whole thing should be struck down.
Already the left is attempting to portray the striking down of Obamacare to be a very good thing for Obama. We shall see.
Bart,
I like the tax cuts, if you made $300K why should you have to pay a larger percentage than someone making $30K like me. Your going to pay more than me just becuase you made more. To change the rates is not treating all equell. I'm a flat tax kinda guy. Plus when I hitt lottery, I'll make/create jobs with the difference.
Last I checked only congress has the power to declare war. Wern't they mostly Dems?
Medicare Drug Plan did suck. Could of done alot more with that but AARP and a lot of other special intrest help screw up.
11.2 million illegas was last 2010 figure. No idea where you get 5 million have insurance. Latst I checked you needed a social security number for that.
"Finally, the only reason the government has to enter into the healthcare system at all is that the private sector has made a complete mess of it. The private sector, based on profits, is doing all it can to NOT pay for healthcare."
Tend to agree with this.
Read the Preamble to the Constitution (you know, the reason it exists)...the whole Preamble. As to health care not being cited in the Constitution, nether is cell phones, AK-47s, nuclear warheads or the space shuttle...so what's your point?
The government is not forcing you to buy a cell phone or an AK though it is allowed. Nuclear warheads and the space program would fall in the provision for the national defense...if it matters.
Supreme Court Justice (Dem) Kennedy is the "Wild Card" in preventing Obama's
Healthcare Plan to go through.
He is talking against it now, but he may be blustering until the very end,
when the vote is taken, voting Yea.
A good Majority of Americans do not want the new Health Care Bill. The Book
of 2,500 pages or more was thrown to the Senate to read overnight. What a
surprise now, that there are more expenses to all Americans if it should go
through; now after it has been thoroughly read.
No one should be made to buy a "Product" by the Government. This is a country
of Freedoms. So many people will be paying for those who do not care to go the
doctor for fear, or those who never wanted insurance---The ER rooms will be
jammed; and to get a doctor's appt, it will be just about impossible. We will
need thousands and thousands of new doctors. It take at least 11-15 years to get
a Medical Degree going through a quality Medical School. It is also extremely
costly. "Student Loans"?
Where is the money for this program going to come from? Many factors exist
re: who pays.
Supreme Court Justice (Dem) Kennedy is the "Wild Card" in preventing Obama's
Healthcare Plan to go through.
He is talking against it now, but he may be blustering until the very end,
when the vote is taken, voting Yea.
A good Majority of Americans do not want the new Health Care Bill. The Book
of 2,500 pages or more was thrown to the Senate to read overnight. What a
surprise now, that there are more expenses to all Americans if it should go
through; now after it has been thoroughly read.
No one should be made to buy a "Product" by the Government. This is a country
of Freedoms. So many people will be paying for those who do not care to go the
doctor for fear, or those who never wanted insurance---The ER rooms will be
jammed; and to get a doctor's appt, it will be just about impossible. We will
need thousands and thousands of new doctors. It take at least 11-15 years to get
a Medical Degree going through a quality Medical School. It is also extremely
costly. "Student Loans"?
Where is the money for this program going to come from? Many factors exist
re: who pays.
CJ Roberts couldn't even give proper oath to Obama. I do not trust he will honor congress' will.
He should resist the temptation to play his role in what otherwise conservatives would've called "Judicial Activism".
It needs to be. The decision to buy health insurance should be left in the hands of the individual. Mandatory car insurance makes sense because the operation of a vehicle will undoubtedly bring you across the path of another driver. If a person doesn't have health coverage, it mainly affects them. Mandatory health insurance is an oppressive measure to force Americans to do something they should have responsibility enough to handle themselves.
We must protect the Insurance Industry at all cost, right? That seems to be the latest reasoning coming from the Supreme Court's point of view. God forbid the insurance companies will have hardship put them. Affordable insurance for the country is not as important and protecting the insurance industry right to run the show. People have no one else to blame except themselves when it only gets worse and more expensive for all of us. This freedom conversation should include what it is going to be like when corporations run all of our lives. The idiots who yelp that their rights are going away vote for ass holes like Ryan who want everything to for profit and run by corporations. The idiots hate Obama so much they sell out they would whole damn country to ALEC and the right wing's desire to privatize every thing. That is very ignorant to sell fear of loss of liberty while you are giving the whole damn country over to the like of the Koch Bros. What fools!
Maybe the SC will support the will of the people of this country rather than this ridiculous liberal hodge podge of a bill that we "had to pass to see what's in it".
Fine....don't pass it. But I want to go to my appraisal district and show that I have full coverage and quit paying taxes for the hospital district. Then I want my insurance premiums to return to the cost they were prior to the Obamacare talks and freeze at that amount.
Those of you without insurance...you figure it out. I'm SICK OF PAYING FOR YOU!
The Supreme Court Justices are masters at the game of Devil's Advocate. I'll wait until they actually issue a decision to decide what they think of this law.
I think that all of this should be explained to the public when the President and my congressman go over the health care bill, "line by line", as the president promised that he would with all proceedings being televised on CSPAN.
Before the law was passed, and without conditions, the President promised to go over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman and any other law maker in Washington who requested it and that all proceedings would be televised on CSPAN. I hope that when they go over the bill, "line by line", as promised by the President, that they will analyze it in terms of constitutionality, the health care related promises that the President made to the American people, the economic implications, the legal implications, and how the new law is going to effect the practice of medicine in this country. The President said that he will do this therefore it will occur. Does anyone know when the broadcasts are scheduled to begin?
Why does everyone think government madated things are so terrible. Doesnt every state in the Union require you to carry a certain level of vehicle insurance in order to drive a vehicle on the roads? Also most states have Seatbelt/Helmet laws in place (once again mandated by the government.... even if it is state government). I dont hear a giant "this is unconstitutional" cry going out about these things are imposing on our personal freedoms.....
Truth is, people are afraid of this because they are afraid of paying more money... not because they feel some threat of their "Constitutional Freedoms"..... please people, just own up to what you really care about!!
Biggie, to be precise, Republicans are elitist rich guys who exploit the ignorance of backwoods hillbillies toting guns and bibles around so that the hillbillies vote against their own interests and unwittingly support the interests of the elitist rich guys.
gfannin (2.4) you may not like the broader answer to your question about "required" ultrasound in the murder mill procedure you reference. You will not like it because the answer just points up the many layers of waste, abuse, fraud and corruption ALREADY inherent in existing central-Soviet mandated health schemes, in this case HIPAA. It boggles the mind that any Americans would be crying out now AGAINST their own interests and asking the central-Soviet-statists to make their lives even MORE unmanageable, by TAKING what LITTLE money that most Americans have left at this point through the pending power grab masquerading as healthcare. And you thought a transvaginal ultrasound invasive!
Here's the problem, gfannin: In the corporation-profiteers and their government well-rewarded lackeys' business model the only way everybody inside that shell game wins big is if a LOT of unnecessary and expensive tests and procedures are done; and if the per unit price is not all that great, then the big bucks come only from economies of scale. If there's no $300,000 procedure to do, then you need many, many $300 buck procedures (easier to hide those, too, in the billings) to make the same take.
How this practically works, in a neutral example, not the intentionally-emotionally charged setting you chose above: Let's say the private-public cartel loot recipients are looking for $3,000,000,000 profit, and they of course want to do nothing that could backfire and cause harm, costly hospital stays or lawsuits. So what does HIPAA already allow them to do? Require EVERY woman who enters an emergency room to have a pregnancy test as SOP. A $12 over-the-counter item that the hospital bills at $300. There's no downside in corporate-government liability exposure from a woman peeing in a cup for a drop to put on the pregnancy test. But from the tens of millions of women each year who have the unnecessary pregnancy test, there's big big bucks for CEO and Czar ski trips to the Alps, and lots for offshore accounts and campaign contributions. And you want MORE government intrusion/corruption into your life, gfannin? Are you insane?
This bogus pregnancy test garbage is just the tip of the iceberg. It is real. They even try to pull this with post-menopausal women. And the only way to remove the charge is to threaten to whistleblow. This is happening daily in every state in the US. And this is just one, small example that is easily understood.
Actually there is a difference, the abortion requirements are a "State" law whereas Obama-care is a "Federal" Law. That is a huge difference and the primary reason we are now before the Supreme Court. If you don't like the State rule, you can go across State lines to get the procedure. You're not forced to have the procedure in your State. You are free to chose, get the ultrasound & pay for it, or drive across state lines and don't deal with it. One cannot do the same if that Law was Federal, there is nowhere else to drive within the US get a choice.
"5 Conservatives, what Else" How did l know this was going to happen. This was a set up from day one. The conservative partisans of the Supreme court knew what they were doing weeks ago, Who do they think they are kidding. This is just another set up like they did back in 2000 with "W"
lynseypug, of course you are right and of course all this "Supreme Court expresses skepticism" (yesterday's headline) and "Court signals entire health care law might be struck down" (today's headline) is just posturing, nonsense and the exact opposite of what will take place between now and June. The court is geographically located in the central-USSA-planners' homeplace; the government gets what it wants in 99 per cent of cases that go before the court. This is all just a show. And a distraction.
What is key is incrementalism. No matter what happens now the ultimate destination is a one payer system that will ensure both individual and national failure.
The GOP Supreme Court Justices are afraid of saddling the insurance and health industries with costs of care because, as we all know, the middle class are more able to pay for them than the insurance and health industries.
I hate re"pig"licans and "con"servatives and especially ones in the "pee" party. I'm sorry (not), I meant the tea baggers who tea bag. I am not a democrat either and despise communism and socialism and fascism, mainly because "con"servative politics and the re"pig"lican philosphies (brainwashing and greed) are fundamentally and equal in so many ways to communism and socialism but hide behind walls of lying and deceit, which are paid for by lots and lots of money, especially are taxes. And, if Obama was white, many re"pig"licans would have definitely voted and supported for this wonderful and amazing health care plan (I mean LAW). It is interesting that the re"pig"licans helped to create medicare and medicaid and social security, which by the way forces and makes every single American have a social security number and pay taxes and get social security. So, re"pig"licans are HYPOCRITES. They are just upset because they did not think of this wonderful health care plan first. It's ok for them to make every American do something, which is "unconstitutional," but when a wonderful and amazing democrat creates something fabulous for the country and people who need insurance, they oppose it just to be difficult and uncooperative. That is stupid and horrible. Re"pig"licans are vile evil devils who do not deserve to be in this beautiful and wonderful country. It is interesting that democrats try to help others and make policies to support the positive growth and development for everyone, but the re"pig"licans just want to take advantage of others, lie to others, cheat others, and focus on their only true goal, which is to get rich, not matter what the cost is to most of the country. In addition, re"pig"licans are so racist, sexist, and biased because they are filled with hate and anger. Health care is a very important topic and the re"pig"licans do not care if our citizens are without health care as long as they can get rich. That is the biggest reason why re"pig"licans do not like the wonderful health care LAW (besides just them being pure racist) is because they cannot make any money off of the LAW. If they LAW helped the re"pig"licans and their insurance companies get rich, they would support it in a heartbeat, but it probably would still have to be created by a white Christian re"pig"lican.
Wake up America!!!! Re"pig"licans are your enemy. All they want is your money, to be rich, and to make everyone else like them (except for the rich part). They are pure evil and need to be shipped out in the middle of the ocean on an island.
If we all have to get a social security number, pay taxes, get car insurance, and register to be in the military, then what is the problem with everyone having to get health insurance. It is amazing and beautiful to think that everyone would have health insurance. That is awesome. But because the re"pig"licans cannot make money off this idea, a white person did not think of it, and a re"pig"lican did not think of it, the re"pig"licans do what they do best in these situation. They cry and whine like little babies and claim that this law is "unconstitutional" even though all of what the re"pig"licans do is unconstitutional because they try to pass laws that are based on religion and making them rich.
America, please do us a favor and stop electing ignorant and stupid re"pig"licans into office. All they are doing is stopping and hindering the positive growth and development of our laws, our great country, and our citizens. Stop the madness now.
WHAT .... is Justice Kagan doing still on the bench for the SCOTUS deliberations ?
Would you put a criminal who is facing charges in court on the jury to decide his/her own fate ? NO !!!
Then, why is Justice Kagan still on the bench when she fought for ObamaCare when she was HIS Solictor General ? Answer from Liberals: Another vote to keep the Unconstitutional Health Care legislation in force. Oh, now I get it.
This is a complete and total SLAP in the face for the American people...and it doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican.
Zen Love....Your post is very contradictory to your screen name. Filling a book with hatred will get you nowhere. You have just received my "inflammatory" vote. And, BTW.....the Mandated Universal Health Care Reform legislation, loving called ObamaCares by the Left, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
All I can say is GOOD, it's about time! The Obama administration should never have tried to force this illegal and unconstitutional law down the throat of the American people. While the principle behind it was sound in theory, the man in the Oval Office and his minions went about it all wrong. This country just is not ready for the socialized medicine followed by European and British Commonwealth countries. The varying views of the Supreme Court Justices were interesting. The only one not surprising was that of Justice Kagan, who will do anything and everything possible to please her main political benefactor President Obama! Good thing not all Americans are the mindless sheep the administration wants and thinks we are!
Looks like obama and pelosi shouldn't have been so quick to sign off on all phases of obamacare before reading it. Big whoops to them.
The paid health insurance company trolls are all over this story trying their best muddy the waters but all their lies are meaningless. If the right wing Supreme Court justices do kill this law it will positively prove that their just corrupt political hacks that actually report to the Koch brothers.
The affordable care act was written to help not just average Americans but also the economy. I really hope they do the right thing because if they don’t and vote to strike down this law then that would justify massive nation wide demonstrations demanding the immediate resignation of these corrupt justices. These judges are not gods their people and they work for the American people. If at some point it is proven that their loyalties are with traitors like the Koch brothers then they should expect the full wrath of the American people that could lead to possible charges of treason…..
Everyone already knows their Bush v Gore and Citizens United decisions were politically motivated. So I say; enough is enough. They may think their above the law but their not.
Does no one in the GOP over 65 use Medicare???!!! "Obamacare" will be like a Medicare for all! If no one complains about Medicare, then no one should complain about "Obamacare"! And I put "Obamacare" in quotations because actual name is PEOPLE PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT! I bet half of you idiots reading this article (ahem, conservatives) don't even know the entire name of the law. I'm so sick of reading dumb comments from people who don't even know what they're talking about. Online media needs a filter against the stupid.
Hawaii2 Going to the ER and being treated free is Socialism..I buy health insurance .. I pay for those that dont buy health insurance .. is that fair to me...would I be penalized if I just dropped my coverage and when sick just go to the ER and get treated for free .. why do I pay and others dont or wont .. will the governments mandate to buy Auto Insurance be struck down ..how about Medicare part D
All of you on here that are republican bashing, take heart...we are not about being rich we are about a higher moral standard for this country. The only reason you all complain about the rich part about republicans is it somehow makes you feel better about yourselves when you hold no moral values at all. In reality you are just trying to take the focus off of your dirty lives. Let's learn to get along so we can better this country...if we dont' it we all fall apart and it won't be because we are being "conservative".
kimposibl, the ignorant talking about ignorance is not a good mix...you obviously haven't looked at the "fine print" of this law. The weekend is coming up, pull up a chair and a magnifying glass.
How hypocritical is it that we demand hospitals and their caregivers to take of patients who come into the ER without any ability to pay but when we ask that all people take responsibility for their own care (i.e, pay fully out of pocket or have their own insurance...not Medicaid) then all of a sudden, its imposing on an individual's rights? This country is screwed when people can talk with two tongues on the same issue. What other industry operates in this manner? Certainly not the car insurance industry.
Its okay if Social Security is taken directly out of my paycheck which provides me no security...in fact, it only provides for somebody else's security with no guarantee for me. Somehow that is constitutional but asking society and thus an individual to own up to its own healthcare needs in the here and now is constitutionally objectionable? Its okay to force a private industry (i.e. some hospitals) to have to take pts regardless of ability to pay but we can't make the consumer responsible for their own actions and needs...What hypocrisy!!!
If the SCOTUS finds the mandate unconstitutional but leaves the rest intact, you can bet that premiums will skyrocket because insurances are forced to cover people for longer and without considering pre-existing conditions without the support of the mandate money. If they dissolve the whole thing, people will lose their coverage immediately and will probably have no ability to gain coverage elsewhere. Insurance companies are ready to hit the button to terminate those people it feels are high risk or raise premiums so high that they will be unaffordable...Choose people...choose!! Those people who are raling against this law...you better not get sick!!
This type of laws won't work in this country until 60% or more of the people become poor; as long as there is a sizable middle class that dreams one day to become rich, they will vote for politicians that represent big business and despise the poor.
We cannot force people to pay for something they don't want or can't afford, but we let the government to pay for weapons and wars that we don't need and the Supreme Court doesn't question that.
To itsiwhatitis-your statement, comparing car ins to med insurance is true until you said If a person doesn't have health coverage, it mainly affects them" That's totally untrue. Who pays for their care if not you and I thru our own insurance premiums?
fab five, I don't think republicans are rich. obviously there's mix of every income class in each political party. most republicans are rich but most are also ignorant butt-backwards fools. taking the constitution too literally is your forte just like the religious sects that try to interpret the Bible word for word.
and since you'll like the last say, please feel free to "put me in my place".
None of you have even read the bill, and I couldn't get past page ten (10). No wonder most of the representatives never read it before they voted on it and it became law; I'm certain that the President didn't read it before he signed it, and the Judges don't want to read it either. The ramifications are staggering and if left in place it will fundamentally change the way that we live our every day lives, and yes it opens the door to the gov deciding all kinds of things for us in the future; it will mean the loss of freedom and more gov control and intrusion into our lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs&feature=share
The difference is that SS is a tax, the healthcare bill is not...or it is? I get confused depending on who is speaking (not a tax...sarcasm intended).
Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect ... taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." I really wonder if some of the Supreme Court Justices have read this document.
There can be no areas of "providing for the general welfare of the United States than Food, Water, Shelter, Health Care and Education. These always seem to be the things that right wing nut jobs, including those wearing black robs, object to the Federal Government to be involved with.
The Federal Government has long had an "Individual Mandate" concerning Food, Water, Shelter, and Education. These are called "Taxes." Every individual who has enough income to have what the Government likes to call "Discretionary Income" is mandated to pay these taxes. To provide for these general welfare (welfare meaning well being, not unearned handouts) items for Senior Citizens, there is Social Security and Medicare. The right wing nut jobs like to call these "Entitlements". Of course, they are not Entitlements. They are contracts for income and health care that were sold to us, through an "Individual Mandate" Contract that the United States of America made with it citizens. This contract is no different than any contract made with any insurance company that provides Annuity Programs or Health Insurance.
The Government, properly following Article 1 of the US Constitution, made the decision that the best way to provide for the general welfare of Senior Citizens, as it relates to Food, Water, Shelter and Health Care, created an "Individual Mandate" contract that says you will give us money in the form of Social Security Taxes and FICA taxes during your working years, and the we, The US of America will provide you an annuity income and health care, just like an insurance company would if an insurance company would provide such policies to everyone, without discrimination for anything that an insurance company would choose not to cover.
Social Security and Medicare are not "Entitlements". They are CONTRACTS. Newton Gingrich got a lot of Republicans elected once by throwing out a "Contract with America. What Senior Citizens have is a "Contract with America" as well. I am 65. I kept my part of the bargain. I started paying Social Security when I was 16 years old. I started paying Medicare when the Contract was first made with me, as an "Individual Mandate." The only "Entitlement" that these "Entitlements" have to them is that I am truly "entitled" to these benefits because I paid for them for nearly 50 years. And, in fact, since I chose to keep working rather than retire, I am still paying for them.
Health Care should be provided in exactly the same way. Obviously, to provide health care to all that need it, which is everyone, everyone must be "Individually Mandated" to pay into it. That is the entire premise of Insurance. That by providing the income pool based on ability, we can pay for the liability based on need. Do you know what we should call those with the greatest ability who never experience the liability? We should call them LUCKY.
To those right wing nut jobs who say, "We can't afford it", any idiot knows how much of a lie this is. Of course we can afford it, using the simple formula above. The income pool is based on ability and the liability is based on need. For Social Security, the solution is simple. Eliminate the cap. All discretionary income pays Social Security taxes. If someone is so blessed to with talent, ability, and skills to make ten million dollars a year, good for them. And good for everyone, because they would pay social security on ten million dollars. And all discretionary income counts, including passive income.
The same should hold true for Medicare. And since everyone is paying for Medicare, Medicare should be the Single Payer Insurance. If that sounds like a Socialized Medicine System, that is what it is. Socialized Medicine is THE system that provides 18 of the 19 wealthiest nations in the world with health care. Guess which is the 19th? Of the 20th wealthiest Nations, guess which one has, by far, the most expensive health care system in the world. Whoever you guessed as the Country without Socialized Medicine is the same Country that has the highest expense.
Maybe they can read the damn thing next time around!
If the SCOTUS rules against the entire Act then this will be a boon for the Democrats, the Republicans have been the ones calling for the ACA to be struck down since it became law, what the Republicans haven't realized yet is that striking down this law will make 50 million Americans angry and that anger will be directed at them, why, because they will be without insurance or the ability to get insurance, the donut hole for seniors will return, the kids who have been enjoying being on their parents insurance until they turn 26 will not be on their parents insurance any longer, and the part of the law that states that you cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition will be gone, everyone who was covered by these points in the law have one thing in common they vote.
By the very nature of the legislation, the entire law must stand or fall together. If the personal mandate is unconstitutional, then the provisions demanding coverage of prior conditions must go too.
...and it looks as if the court is leaning strongly towards declaring the personal mandate unconstitutional.
So, what comes next? Currently, in the U.S., our health care costs are between 20 and 50% higher than that of other modern, developed countries, and that is only getting worse.
The status quo is not working well, and will only get worse with time. I know we don't we don't want to do what the godless communist drones of Western Europe and Canada do. So what is Plan B?
to it's, Yes ppl without health ins does affect us all in cost. Let me tell you what i have seen as a bus owner. People start a small buss they keep 2 sets of books and claim a loss, they do not have health ins their money is hidden . If they become ill they go to the hosp and claim they are unable to pay apply for all the charities they can and then have a face lift of go on vacation. I have seen this over and over again and we are the ones paying for this in our premiums and increases out of pocket expenses there are so many that can afford something but they would rather spend their money on the fun things! I am not saying all business owners do this there are honest ppl out there but i can start counting them on all my fingers and toes x's 1000's. We have laws mandated by the gov federal and state that we all must abide by.
Come on people!!! Are we really this uneducated to not be able to understand that this type of argument is not relevant to this particular case! The key word in your statement is STATE. It is STATE law to wear seat belts, helmets etc. Not FEDERAL. Health care should be left up to the individual STATE, just as all the laws you and most have used as their example in their discussion on why this law should stay. And if it doesn't follow the STATE'S CONSTITUTION, then it too should be thrown out.
So folks, name one FEDERAL law that "pentalizes" you (Healthcare verbage) for not purchasing a product. Key word "pentalize", which is not to be confused with "taxes". So don't say SS & Medicare, those two products are a TAX, not a Penalty.
Since the basis of the argument for the bill seems to have changed recently to those not paying for these services are costing those of us who are, could we not extrapolate the same argument to those who pay no income taxes yet take advantage of all the services provided by those dollars?
Clb you are so wright, the only thing most idiots don't get it,do not understand reality ,and follow garbage fromGOP mouths. Everything suddenly about- like you said is " unconstitutional ".
Thank you, thank you republicans. I like the health care laws like they used to be. My girl friend and I have 5 kids and rent our apartment. When one of us gets sick or hurt we go to the emergency room for treatment. When the bill comes we just throw it in the trash cuz we don't own anything so we don't have to pay it and we like that. Obamacare would make us buy insurance and why should we do that when the republicans can give us health for free! That's good and that's why we will vote republican cuz we want to go to the emergency room to get better and it's good when we don't have to pay for it. We like when the republicans want pay for us that's good. Thank you, thank you get rid of obamacare once and for all ok so we won't have to pay.
Fedup? The answer is NO, because those persons or families who do not earn enough income to pay Federal taxes are paying many other taxes. Sales tax, property tax, license fees, gasoline tax, liquor tax, ad nauseum. Please do not pretend that a large percentage of Americans pay "no taxes" when you know very well that it's a false premise.
And someone up above was on some horrible rant about their disdain for conservatives? I counter, no, they are not evil, vile, monstrous....what ever. They are our friends, co-workers, neighbors, family, cousins, acquaintenances....and they are no different than us. Having differences of opinion does not make one evil or nefarious.
I conclude there is no issue or challenge in my community that we cannot overcome when we work together with common purpose.
It is amazing that a president that majored in constitutional law would even sign such a law. Obama clearly has no respect for the constitution. He sees it as an obstacle instead of trying to uphold and defend it. Who appointed him to define what the common good is.
If the healthcare bill is struck down, I'll be damned if I will listen to the republicans and start back where they said they wanted to start just days before the bill was voted on. We were there in that same spot 60 years ago. I will not live in fear of even using something I already pay 598$ a month for. I will cancel my policy and do exactly as G-MAN says and stick it to the tax payers. They deserve to be stuck with it if they support these commservatives. I'd just as soon keep the $6,000.00+ per year that I pay for already. All this will do is open doors for the crooks to charge many times more and raise deductibles beyond the ability to pay for anything to begin with. Their big oil companies are already draining us dry as it is.
So if the HCR bill is struck down in June what will the Republicans run on? The HCR bill being struck down is likely to energize the Democratic base. However if the Republican platform is only repeal the HCR and it is stuck down by SCOTUS in June then what is the platform. I am still supporting American's Elect.
clb,
The State vs federal law argument is BS. Those laws are still deemed legal or not by the courts. There are times when the Federal Government needs to step in. Medical Care should be a federal issue as everyone in the USA should have the same rights to Health Care.
As for the mandate and it's wording, that issue can be severed from the Bill. However it is becoming obvious that is not what the Right wingers on this court are concerned with they are looking for a way to throw out the entire package. The rational that is being given for tossing the entire package is that it would become an undue burden on Corporations to have to insure everyone without the money from Mandates. In striking down the entire law based on this precedent. They will unleash all Corporations from any Government laws that place an"UNDUE BURDEN" on them.
If it is an "undue burden" to serve blacks in your restaurant, screw the Civil rights act!
If it is an "undue burden" to provide basic safety features in your cars, the Government has no right to tell you to do it!
If it is an "Undue Burden" to make sure you are not releasing to much arsenic in the local water systems from your mining operations, to bad!
This is the road this court is heading down, people must realize our laws are based in precedences and this is a massive one!
wait if this is declared unconstitutional, and those who pay auto insurance sue on the the same ruling. You folks will rethink it again as your auto rates rise.
Just a point, 1993 the GOP all wanted a mandated health care plan, now since the DEMs and Obama wants a mandated health plan it is unconstitutional. What changed??? Just because it now a DEM plan, now it isn't constitutional???
Secondly, since Mitt's plan in MASS was also a mandated plan will it also be considered unconstitutional??
Yup, and people like you would probably ignore the insurance mandate too, as it requires only the most limited penalties in the form of reduced tax refunds.
But if you're living in an apartment with 5 kids, and don't own anything, you're probably one of those who pay no taxes and receive no refund.
So its a wash. Either way, you're paying nothing, zippo, squat.
The idea that the government can force you to purchase something you do not perceive a need for, should be anathema to all American citizens. I've no idea if the mandate is or is not Constitutional, but if it is not, then the Constitution needs to be amended.
I voted for Obama in 2008, and yet still my blood boiled when I saw the smug faces of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as they congratulated themselves on the passage of this abominable law.
Yes, the health care industry in this country is in desperate need of reform. No, doing the wrong thing is not better than doing nothing.
The Truth that ,the PEOPLE are frustated they have DECIDED NOT about
entire health care law might need to be struck down. But to Stuck the ENTIRE Corporation corrputed compiracy law.
They've Decided this on NOVEMBER by Voting ALL Democrates.
I wonder how many people got married just for the benefits? My ex and I both did this; I married my long time girlfriend for medical benefits - her work insurer just covered my most recent hernia operation - the same insurer who turned me down when I tried to enroll with them (and pay out of my own pocket).
My recent hernia was caused by a State ordered Physical Capacities Evaluation to determine if I could return to work. I warned the PT person not to push me due to my history of re injury - she judged me like a book, by my outward appearence, not by my medical history. Sure enough she caused my old mesh to pull away. Now I look like I was blasted with a shotgun, and get to suffer with two months of pain levels over 8.
Yep; good job people, you pay either way, we either go broke and pass the cost on to you the tax payer - or - we get married and pass the cost to your employer insurer. Asking politicians to look after people...hahahaha, you make me laugh. I may be a throw away to the insurance companies - but I'm not going to the glue factory without costing the greedy stingy tight-wads first :P
Every one of you will be unhealthy at some time in your life - we'll see if you are as tough as me (12 operations and more needed)...talk is cheap when you are healthy.
you all are unconstitutional for collapsing my post. have you ever heard of freedom of speech? you all can put down obama and threaten him but when I speak the truth about the evil and horrible re"pig"licans, you collapse the response. You suck.
I hate re"pig"licans and "con"servatives and especially ones in the "pee" party. I'm sorry (not), I meant the tea baggers who tea bag. I am not a democrat either and despise communism and socialism and fascism, mainly because "con"servative politics and the re"pig"lican philosphies (brainwashing and greed) are fundamentally and equal in so many ways to communism and socialism but hide behind walls of lying and deceit, which are paid for by lots and lots of money, especially are taxes. And, if Obama was white, many re"pig"licans would have definitely voted and supported for this wonderful and amazing health care plan (I mean LAW). It is interesting that the re"pig"licans helped to create medicare and medicaid and social security, which by the way forces and makes every single American have a social security number and pay taxes and get social security. So, re"pig"licans are HYPOCRITES. They are just upset because they did not think of this wonderful health care plan first. It's ok for them to make every American do something, which is "unconstitutional," but when a wonderful and amazing democrat creates something fabulous for the country and people who need insurance, they oppose it just to be difficult and uncooperative. That is stupid and horrible. Re"pig"licans are vile evil devils who do not deserve to be in this beautiful and wonderful country. It is interesting that democrats try to help others and make policies to support the positive growth and development for everyone, but the re"pig"licans just want to take advantage of others, lie to others, cheat others, and focus on their only true goal, which is to get rich, not matter what the cost is to most of the country. In addition, re"pig"licans are so racist, sexist, and biased because they are filled with hate and anger. Health care is a very important topic and the re"pig"licans do not care if our citizens are without health care as long as they can get rich. That is the biggest reason why re"pig"licans do not like the wonderful health care LAW (besides just them being pure racist) is because they cannot make any money off of the LAW. If they LAW helped the re"pig"licans and their insurance companies get rich, they would support it in a heartbeat, but it probably would still have to be created by a white Christian re"pig"lican.
Wake up America!!!! Re"pig"licans are your enemy. All they want is your money, to be rich, and to make everyone else like them (except for the rich part). They are pure evil and need to be shipped out in the middle of the ocean on an island.
If we all have to get a social security number, pay taxes, get car insurance, and register to be in the military, then what is the problem with everyone having to get health insurance. It is amazing and beautiful to think that everyone would have health insurance. That is awesome. But because the re"pig"licans cannot make money off this idea, a white person did not think of it, and a re"pig"lican did not think of it, the re"pig"licans do what they do best in these situation. They cry and whine like little babies and claim that this law is "unconstitutional" even though all of what the re"pig"licans do is unconstitutional because they try to pass laws that are based on religion and making them rich.
America, please do us a favor and stop electing ignorant and stupid re"pig"licans into office. All they are doing is stopping and hindering the positive growth and development of our laws, our great country, and our citizens. Stop the madness now.
Lets turn this around a bit to see if people really have an issue with the law in general or with the penalty vs tax issue.
As the law is now, people who do not have coverage would pay some amount of money for not contributing to healthcare financing. These people would be able to purchase healthcare on the open market with some at a subsidized rate. Right now, many people who are against this law are calling it a "penalty" as opposed to a tax which Congress can levy.
What if instead the law along with the tax code raised taxes on everyone and deducted it from your paycheck like SS and Medicare...but for those who provided proof of coverage would be able to get a refund for carrying their own coverage. I have no idea how all of this would be collected and given back through our enormous tax code or apply to those who earn their income by profit sharing vs payroll deduction but lets assume it is true. Because it would be deducted by percentage of earnings like SS and Medicare, would that make this law okay by those who are currently opposed to the law? Would that put the issue of tax vs penalty issue to rest? Somehow I doubt it and I believe the tax vs penalty issue is just a proxy for wanting this law overturned. Its not really about the tax vs penalty issue...its really about people not wanting to have to pay for their own healthcare on their own dime because it really is so much easier to suck on the taxpayer's boob.
The constitution does not protect you against the censoring actions of other citizens on a privately run forum with access to the public.
I would never collapse your post, Zen Love. But after scanning it's "piglican" content, neither would I spend much time reading it, and I haven't voted for Republican Presidential Candidate in over 30 years.
Yes, please, we need another national entitlement program, with underestimated costs and big balloon payment due sometime in the indefinite future.
GOOD IDEA!
SUPER!
Next, let's paint pedestrian crosswalks across the interstate highways.
re: 433rivers
Term limits are a false panacea. As it is now, elected representatives spend about 40 minutes a week during the few weeks out of the year that they are in not in recess in actual chamber session, or in layman terms "working". The rest of your representatives' time is spent fund raising and self-enriching. If the length of time they can lie out of both sides of their mouths, give favors to their friends or family and rob the general public blind is limited in length, the few minutes they spend now pretending to run the country will be entirely squandered.
In addition, there would be a politically controlled pathway to every elected office available only for "chosen" party line representatives. Outsiders and challengers would find the pathway to office exclusive and impenetrable. The results would be a government more Stalin-esque than the socialist government currently in place.
To find solutions to the quagmire called Washington D.C., assume that everyone there is a crook. Then design a process that is immune to corruption, such as: minimally 5 major political parties, representatives that are required to meet and correspond with their constituents, elected officials must follow the same laws as the proletariat, no fund raising M-F and Saturday mornings, public time cards at their offices and chambers, schedules and itineraries published online, proof those who vote on bills have actually read every word of the bills or they cannot vote, require each bill be on only one topic avoiding the pork barreling of non-essential items, require budgets to be no greater than the funds collected two tax years prior so there is a real number that cannot be exceeded, have the Navy build yardarms along the streets of Washington to remind elected officials who really runs and owns the nation, eliminate all lobbyists and the dullards they call "experts", no Representative including the executive can have more than 3 staff, make lawmaker pay equal to the pay of a private first class in the army and the president salary the same as a staff Sargent; Representatives' pay raises require a constitutional amendment, no perks for public office holders, require ballots for every elected office have the choice of "none of the above" on the ballot and if none of the above wins the others on ballot cannot run for that office again, hold elected officials legally liable for what they do... Almost forgot, jail all journalists who are not critical of the fed.gov.
Those are just a few improvements that would put D.C. in its place. Dealing with the Supremes is a much greater task. As you can see from this article, the current jurists are not so supreme. This is one of the weakest courts in history. So the correction is huge.
If the entire law is thrown out, hundreds of thousands of victims of the health insurance companies refusal to insure "pre-existing" conditions, will quite likely be driven into bankruptcy. Moreover, the provision to allow parents to insure their kids up to age 26 will also be thrown out too.
In my own case I have hepatitis-c due to a botched dental operation that required oral surgery and a blood transfusion in 1987, four years before there was any test available to test the transfusion blood supply with for the hepatitis-c virus, and back in the era when blood banks routinely paid junkies by the pint for their blood. Because of this, I am a pre-existing condition through no fault of my own.
So now, because I lost my career driving semis due to declining eyesight, as well as my medical insurance that I paid into most of my adult life, now my only chance to get health insurance for the next 10 years until I am age 65 is ruined even though the Democrats won a 60-40 margin in the US Senate in the 2008 election.
Not only that, but my fiancee's 18 year old son, who was a preemie and has already had hundreds of thousands of Dollars in surgeries due to being born prematurely, and who currently has central sleep apnea requiring oxygen as well as several other expensive medical issues, will also lose his eligibility to stay on his dad's health care plan through age 26 if this law is thrown-out too.
Maybe the conservatives on the court are hoping that us losers will be forced to try to emigrate to another country which covers the healthcare needs of all of its residents instead of the healthcare sham that exists here, where insurance companies get to cherry-pick the lowest-risk customers while excluding anyone who will cost them profits.
Right now between my fiancee and I we are earning a combined salary of $75K annually, and between both of our own healthcare needs as pre-existing conditions, on top of my fiancee's youngest son's healthcare needs, we will hardly be able to afford to eat on what is left over, as healthcare costs have risen an average of 25% per year ever since 1999 here in Colorado.
How much is a colonoscopy these days? Three years ago it was $9600.00 here in Colorado, and you are supposed to have three in your life. A year ago my cracked rib cost me $2500.00 to see a doctor on a weekend just for an x-ray and to get a pain prescription. My fiancee was t-boned by a drunken illegal Mexican with no drivers license or insurance two years ago and incurred $250,000 in medical bills. I can't believe that anyone (except healthcare insurance profiteers) thinks that the best thing to do is to vacate this law and very likely never have the opportunity to pass another law to replace it with ever again!!!
You cannot force people to pay for something they cannot afford, then fine them when they do not pay!
According to what I heard on a news broadcast yesterday, if you are fined and you do not pay, nothing is done to you. So why have this in the bill if you are not going to enforce the penalty?
This is the iceing on the cake ==if they can't afford it than those who can will pay for those who cant and this is where the people on welfare ,illegals come into play for they will have to be payed for also.
@Pink Floyd
Because it has nothing to do with getting Americans healthcare.
It has everything to do with the expansion of Government control over the American people. It opens the door for more regulation and Government access.
Get the Socialist out 2012 !
Didnt you learn in the 2000's that a lack of government regulation is just as bad as too much?
" if you are fined and you do not pay, nothing is done to you. So why have this in the bill if you are not going to enforce the penalty?"
Oh, it'll be enforced, it just won't be the one who can't afford it that they will go after. It will be those who can afford it that will pay the tab is my guess. The system is setup so that if there is money out there, they will find it and get it, but, at the cost to those who may have a couple of bucks left over at the end of the week. It will ruin those who may be making it, sooner or later, this whole system will implode when there is nobody left who even has spare change, and everyone is under the thumb of the government(like they aren't now?).
" if you are fined and you do not pay, nothing is done to you. So why have this in the bill if you are not going to enforce the penalty?"
Oh, they'll enforce it. They'll take it out of your check. If you don't pay your fine they'll take your house and everything you've got, steal some of the proceeds and give the rest to the "plan" to put toward paying for some illegal "citizen" or useless entitlement bum's health care. At least you'll be in prison where the health care really is free to you.
I've always said this isn't about "Healthcare" or the care we receive. It's about paying for healthcare. Everyone complains about the insurance companies running up premiums. So of course we're going to punish them! We're REALLY gonna SOCK EM with this new healthcare law! It's going to DESTROY THEM! And this is how we're going to do it...ready?
WE'RE GOING TO GUARANTEE THEM 30 MILLION NEW CUSTOMERS!
Wait...that doesn't seem like a punishment.
Here's the rub. Healthcare is overpriced because we perform SO MANY USELESS and NEEDLESS TESTS! We have doctors prescribing antibiotics (used to fight bacterial infections) for a cold (a virus). We have emergency rooms used by people as their primary care facility. The ER is the most expensive place to get healthcare. But it is the most used.
Healthcare is expensive because it is provided IMPROPERLY! And we are at fault just as much as anyone! I'm not a doctor or a hospital administrator, but I work WITH hospitals and I am in a medical family (Nurses, Doctors, and a PA). I am around it ALL THE TIME in many different areas and capacities.
This healthcare law does nothing to address the real problems. It simply addresses how to pay for the rising costs. They will keep rising because there are millions of very smart people out there (doctors) who need them to in order to pay for their practices to stay open and provide you with the care you "deserve".
We have to fight the people taking advantage of the system. But in the process of trying to control that, care is sometimes applied unevenly. That causes poor care. Poor care causes increased costs. Increased costs are usually fought by increasing the number of patients a doctor sees. which increases the number of people they see that are trying to take advantage of the system. And each time this process revolves, the care gets worse and worse because the doctors are more and more overworked and more likely to make mistakes.
How do we fix it? Not by paying more. Because eventually that won't be enough either.
All I know is if this is struck down I am going to drop my insurance and just do what everybody else does. Why should I pay and pay and these people don't. I think everyone in the country should have been put on medicare and if you want more then buy it.
Nick P,
"You cannot force people to pay for something they cannot afford, then fine them when they do not pay!"
If you can not afford it, you DO NOT pay for it or you will be subsidized to help you pay for it depending on your income level.
this is very good news. i cannot help but wonder how this was even allowed to get this far. it is clear and obvious that the mandatory purchase is unconstitutional, so how did they and why would they even pass it into law? this federal governement is corrupt and broken.
That's right...let's make sure those children on public assistance die, think of the money we can transfer to the wealthy. And the statement regarding "illegals" is a bold fact lie! Try reading the law!
If the law is so great then ALL government employees should be required to have it---this includes Congress but we all know that isn't going to happen. There is a cure for the poor that don't have insurance---get a job like most of us have done instead of expecting those working to pay your expenses.
Wouldn't that also mean the Massachusetts law would also go down? Poor Mittens.
Bigfinn, I dislike Mit more than most, but you are ignorant!
So would those of you against mandatory health insurance be in favor of optional car insurance??? Same deal -- the rates for the insured go up to cover the uninsured!!!
Excusing young, healthy people from buying coverage is really ridiculous!!! In the blink of an eye, someone can go from being healthy to severely disabled in an accident or a sudden onset health issue! Then what?
The bill has some flaws, but to leave the insurance companies in charge and escalate rates even more, is irresponsible. I work very hard at staying healthy and watch my premiums jump up each year. I pay over $400/mo. for catastrophic coverage. I have to pay for my yearly physical, screenings and any medications out of pocket. I asked my agent if there were any discounts available for working out every day and eating healthfully. He said not to even try as running and biking could be considered "higher risk" activities! So there you have it
Oh, and huge kudos to Michelle O'Bama for her programs encouraging kids to be more fit and to make better food choices!!!!! Establishing fit and healthy practices early is key to raising adults with healthy lifestyle!!! Kids need to have PE classes (or athletic activities) every day of the 12 years in the school system!
stressedinnebraska - I think everyone in the country should have been put on medicare and if you want more then buy it.
You are exactly right. All these people who talk about "socialized medicine" are ignorant. We already have socialized medicine so let's just put everybody on it for basic care and then for those that want and can afford more, simply buy private insurance. That way, we can get rid of Medicaid and Part D and everything else.
Republicans should read the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like. For instance, in article 8 it's says to provide for the common defense, they like this because it ensures a continual flow of money to corporations who of course own them, but, provide for the general welfare, not so much. You know it says welfare in there, and "I ain't given my money to them freeloading welfare people". Corporate welfare good, citizen welfare bad. Haven't the American people had enough of tinkle down economics. The "free market" has f...ked up health care in this country. What you are saying is the people have no recourse, if the free market destroys peoples lives, oh well it's their fault. You know if you're not a millionaire it's your fault. The greed machine is fixin to run us over. The SC(R)OTUS is fixin to legislate from the bench again, having received their marching orders from the Federalist Society.
No, because that is a "State" issue and each State has their own Constitution. So it would depend on what their Constitution says. Which I am sure you haven't read Mass's Constitution. Most people don't even know what's in the Federal Constitution let alone their own State's Constitution.
Again, we are here because the Fed Gov cannot do the same as a State and mandate something with a penalty. Oh if they would have written into the law the word "Tax" instead of "Penalty", we wouldn't be here, because the Fed's have the right to tax. But the Dems knew full well, their ass would be grass the people the lawnmower come election time if they even came close to using that word. As it was the people mowed out most of the House and rightly so for passing this in the first place bill.
Well pat using the common defense for this give the Government unlimited powers, hey if you are OK allowing other team to do whatever it wants to you when the win next time, go ahead and use the argument.
"So would those of you against mandatory health insurance be in favor of optional car insurance"
Weird the federal Government doesn't mandate car insurance. Try google!
I hate re"pig"licans and "con"servatives and especially ones in the "pee" party. I'm sorry (not), I meant the tea baggers who tea bag. I am not a democrat either and despise communism and socialism and fascism, mainly because "con"servative politics and the re"pig"lican philosphies (brainwashing and greed) are fundamentally and equal in so many ways to communism and socialism but hide behind walls of lying and deceit, which are paid for by lots and lots of money, especially are taxes. And, if Obama was white, many re"pig"licans would have definitely voted and supported for this wonderful and amazing health care plan (I mean LAW). It is interesting that the re"pig"licans helped to create medicare and medicaid and social security, which by the way forces and makes every single American have a social security number and pay taxes and get social security. So, re"pig"licans are HYPOCRITES. They are just upset because they did not think of this wonderful health care plan first. It's ok for them to make every American do something, which is "unconstitutional," but when a wonderful and amazing democrat creates something fabulous for the country and people who need insurance, they oppose it just to be difficult and uncooperative. That is stupid and horrible. Re"pig"licans are vile evil devils who do not deserve to be in this beautiful and wonderful country. It is interesting that democrats try to help others and make policies to support the positive growth and development for everyone, but the re"pig"licans just want to take advantage of others, lie to others, cheat others, and focus on their only true goal, which is to get rich, not matter what the cost is to most of the country. In addition, re"pig"licans are so racist, sexist, and biased because they are filled with hate and anger. Health care is a very important topic and the re"pig"licans do not care if our citizens are without health care as long as they can get rich. That is the biggest reason why re"pig"licans do not like the wonderful health care LAW (besides just them being pure racist) is because they cannot make any money off of the LAW. If they LAW helped the re"pig"licans and their insurance companies get rich, they would support it in a heartbeat, but it probably would still have to be created by a white Christian re"pig"lican.
Wake up America!!!! Re"pig"licans are your enemy. All they want is your money, to be rich, and to make everyone else like them (except for the rich part). They are pure evil and need to be shipped out in the middle of the ocean on an island.
If we all have to get a social security number, pay taxes, get car insurance, and register to be in the military, then what is the problem with everyone having to get health insurance. It is amazing and beautiful to think that everyone would have health insurance. That is awesome. But because the re"pig"licans cannot make money off this idea, a white person did not think of it, and a re"pig"lican did not think of it, the re"pig"licans do what they do best in these situation. They cry and whine like little babies and claim that this law is "unconstitutional" even though all of what the re"pig"licans do is unconstitutional because they try to pass laws that are based on religion and making them rich.
America, please do us a favor and stop electing ignorant and stupid re"pig"licans into office. All they are doing is stopping and hindering the positive growth and development of our laws, our great country, and our citizens. Stop the madness now.
So ZEN tell us what you really think about people that have a different opinion than you?
So much for the party of tolerance!
czar-o-truth - Not all healthcare professionals push meds and treatments, it is the patients looking for the "quick fix or cure". I see a specialist for my eyes and when I discussed obamacare and medicare with her on costs she made the observation that many of her patients and their kids insist on using the costliest meds and procedures because "if it costs a lot it must be good".
Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say PROVIDE for general welfare? Last time I checked it said PROMOTE general welfare. There is a huge difference in providing for something and promoting it.
What another waste of our money and people lives for two years. The machine keeps turning. I do not care what affiliation you are of this stinks and if you defend it you are out of your mind. Regulate the industries in place set caps for charges. Deal with the sucking sound of immigration and do something important.
America needs change not what ever it is you want to call what we have now. Grrrrr
Can anyone explain how the mandate of Obamacare is unconstitutional but the mandate of Romneycare(the very same thing ) is constitutional? Both of these healthcare plans have their roots in the GOP alternative to Hillary's 1994 healthcare plan.
If it is struck down do we then work for a single payer (Medicare for all) plan or do we go back to the broken plan that caused hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies? Tort reform as a healthcare plan is BS because it is only 1-2% of the problem and limiting it opens customers to even more abuse by for-profit insurace comapines w/o recourse.
Why is it that many people think that corporate for-profit healthcare insurace is better than a plan that gets rid of the incentive to deny necessary treatment to increase profits?
I find it ironic that every time something big is happening that casts the public's attention on Mr. Obama's actual performance...he can be found about 10,000 miles away, I'd guess to be anywhere on Earth where he won't have to answer more than a snippet of questioning. The Supreme Court reviews the largest initiative of his presidency...and he's half a planet away. When the national elections were held in 2010 and the Democrat Party was taking what the president termed a "shellacking", I believe he was camped out in Australia.
Amazing that someone whom we are so often instructed is so smart and glib, obviously wants nothing to do with answering questions about items that are central to his job performance.
I'll bet he's hoping that there's one of those commercial outer space trips is taking place in November 2012 so he can get his butt as far away as humanly possible...he and Ashton Kutcher can 'twitter' about all the fun they are having up there !
epist...
The Supreme Court will explain why the mandate is 'unconstitutional' for you. As far as I can tell, the health care industry in Massachusetts isn't on the Court's docket.
In defense of Sarah's point about the inevitably of healthcare:
If you were born in a hospital, you've used the healthcare system. Most publics schools require that a child be immunized. Most states require a physical before one can get a driver's license. Many colleges require a meningitis vaccine before attendance. So, even if one never gets sicks and then falls over and dies suddenly (a highly unlikely combination of events to begin with), that person has probably had to use the healthcare system at least at some point in their lives. The likelihood (in this day in age) of someone NOT being born in a hospital, NEVER getting a vaccine, NEVER getting a physical, NEVER falling ill AND dying instantly without an EMT being called or being rushed to a hospital has got be a ridiculously minute chance. Of course, I don't have the numbers on hand (it would be great if there were numbers out there somewhere), but let's use a little logic here. It is essentially inevitable that a person will use the healthcare system at some point in their lives.
On top of those things, it's suggested that a female start seeing a gynecologist by the age of 18. That they get mammograms by the age of 40(? I think that's the suggested number..). There are also suggested ages for men to get certain tests at certain ages so that they can maintain their health. So, it's in fact to the benefit of each individual to USE the healthcare system during their lifetime.
Whether or not I agree with Sarah's overall point that this should mean the mandate is constitutional, the point is -- her claim that using the healthcare system is pretty much inevitable is quite likely true.
Using a bathroom is 'inevitable' too...it doesn't mean we need the federal government dictating every flush.
How about a free choice handout! Oh wait that only works if you are a minority. Wait I am a minority now. So wheres my free @!$%#?
In the middle...
Please don't tell me you're a white Christian male. That makes you a nobody. Join the club.
Become a defense department contractor... They get all the free @!$%#.
TO: In the middle too who wrote:
Wrongheaded thinking based on biased opinion and NO facts.
I wonder if making foolish, uninformed statements is helping the Republican Party?
Probably, when it comes to Republican Politicians getting people to vote for them, the dumber the better.
Obama/Biden 2012
So ironic when White Christian Males start the "woe is me" complaining. America has evolved to increase your comfort so please do shut up.
"America has evolved to increase your comfort..." lol! White Christian males built America, Bart. Welcome aboard.
This was never about health care. If you want to reform health care then let individual consumers purchase their own insurance much like car insurance. If I want a $5,000, or $20,000, $30,000,or even $50,000 deductible because I am very healthy or am young then that is what I should be allowed to do, and get a tax deduction for what I pay for my health care insurance. For anything under my deductible I pay for it out of pocekt and still get a tax deduction for ALL Medical Bills. I choose my insurance AND whom I go to for care. If Dr. A, or hospital XYZ do not treat me how I want or like I go to someone or somewhere else.
This will reduce costs for health care. The real problem to fix is the economy so young, or old all have JOBS and making Health Care Costs low enough that EVERYONE can afford to PAY for it. This ruse of making others pay for someone else's needs is nothing more than SOCAILISM where the lazy, freeloader types live like parasites on others labors. I have my own family to take care of and do not want or need to take care of you or yours. I CHOSE to only have 2 children because I DID NOT WANT THE EXTRA EXPENSE of raising more children. Just because you have 7,8,9, 10 or even 3 or 4 does NOT make taking care of them and their needs MY RESPONSIBILTY!
So, this health care bill WAS NEVER ABOUT HEALTH CARE. It was/is a government POWER GRAB to CONTROL YOU and TAKE AWAY your individual rights and freedoms.
It is MY RIGHT to NOT have to PAY for your or others NEEDS. What about MY RIGHTS to NOT PROVIDE for you or others? These RIGHTS of MINE the inidividual are constantly now being TRAMPLED by illegal immigration, the immoral, and the plain lazy.
I don't want to pay for your defense against people who you consider enemies, I don't want to pay for Police for you and your families protection, I have no kidds why should I pay for schooling for your 2.
The point that you are missing is; you pay for people who do not buy insurance, get ill or injured, and go to emergency rooms, where they cannot be denied, and receive treatment. They cannot pay, refuse to pay, it goes uncollected, then gets forced on everyone else to pay.
Think about that and now how do you feel about being forced to pay?
Military Defense is a NATIONAL issue not a PERSONAL one numbskull. I do not want public education and do not need it. There are home school option and charters schools as well. Try thinking something through for once in your pathetic loser, freeloader life.
Rod - that is only deception. If a person cannot afford healthcare NOW they will still NOT be able to afford it later or with this bill or without it. Those unable to pay due to lack will still PAY NOTHING. The YOUNG who do not need large health care sums will be paying through the nose though, and what about those that just want to pay out of pocket? You liberal nuts apparently ONLY want others to PAY for YOU. You don't give a rats butt about others needs, or health care. You are Judas Iscariots who talk about how the oil should have been sold and the money given to the "poor" while all you really are about is dipping into the funds for YOURSELVES!

someone,
The point being, I dont want to pay for freeloaders. Let them pay for it themselves.
Usually the ones who cannot afford healthcare, can afford cigarettes, booze, drugs, tattoo's, fat food and the like.
hey euro sorry but national defense is part of the constitution it is there to protect us all, and polica is a local matter so unless your nieghbors with someoneelse, you dont pay for his police.
helth care is not part of the constitiion. and some people have it right. make health care affordable so we dont need insurance except for major medical. why should our government force us to write a blank check to mega insurance companies just so the rich can keep getting richer. get them out of the way and let prices drop.
How can you force someone to purchase something they might desire but cannot not afford and then enforce their "violation"? What are you going to do then --- take them to court, fine them and assess them the cost of court which they cannot pay. And don't forget their court appointed attorney which they are not paying for. This is not about health care, it's merely about Government control and intrusion into our lives. The working class will always be paying for the medical costs of freeloaders, or the indigent, no matter what medical system we're under. Obamacare does nothing to prevent this from happening. It merely complicates the mess with new rules and regulations that no one will understand and increases the financial burden on the working class. Government is more often the problem rather than the answer.
Rod_Father - Then REDUCE health care COSTS! That is INEVITABLY the ONLY real solution. Just forcing more people onto a sinking ship to row or bail water WILL NOT KEEP THE SHIP FROM SINKING. You Must Fix the PROBLEMS.
Individual mandate? How about INDIVIDUAL Insurance options instead of empowering insurance companies and corporations? WHY does your employer get a tax deduction for paying your insurance? Why does your employer CHOOSE who your insurance company is, and why does the insurance company decide ultimately what doctors you can see???? POWER and CONTROL the government can place on the employer and insurance company.
Insurance is a scam the way it is now. INIDIVIDUALS should get to purchase their insurance from whom they want, and get the tax deduction for insurance and ALL MEDICAL EXPENSES. That is the SOLUTION to the HIGH COSTS, and NOT just FORCING MORE PEOPLE INTO A BROKEN AND GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED SYSTEM.
Actually Rod_Father, the government doesn't pay for the people who don't pay their ER bills. The other patients of the hospital do. There is no slush fund in the government that a hospital can go to and say "Well, John Doe isn't going to pay his bill. Go get the money from the government..." Nope. They write it off as a loss. Then the price of their other services go up to account for the loss. So regional prices of healthcare are based on the population that inhabit those areas. Yes, there are a few people from out of town that can cause issues. But the majority of the population of the hospital is comprised of locals.
So, if you don't use that hospital, you don't pay for other people. And it's not a hidden cost. It's right there for you too see. It's still your choice right now.
What a dumbass if you or any other idiot thinks that the healthcare industry is going to lower thier cost without the goverment making them then your just another idiot that still f#@#@#@ beleaves that Obama wasn`t born in this country and the rightwing is not racist scumbags who are running this f@#@#@ country in the ground WTFUP
NC Vet,
The mandate was put into the bill by the insurance companies. They were the ones who wanted it as a hedge against covering people with pre existing conditions.
It makes sense since some pre existing conditions are because people did not have insurance.
Our country put men on moon, 67 years ago our country helped defeat three aggressive nations hell bent on world conquest, yet it's not possible to provide affordable health care for every citizen. I will NEVER forgive conservatives for dismantling the first law that would have done this if that is the end result of the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare. All my life I read that the SCOTUS was the authority on the constitution, I no longer believe in the impartiality of the Supreme Court.
@ Wade
So don't forgive us...just don't make me pay for your stupid health related decisions.
Here's another possible solution; ban all healthcare insurance for everyone. Make everyone pay for everything out of pocket.
We'll either see a big drop in healthcare costs, or a big drop in the population.
Either way we win, right?
I've run a small business and paid my own way my adult life (as a writer). I started by paying $250 a quarter to cover my two children and I for health care. Then my son died, and there were two. Then my daughter left home, and there was me. I leaned toward holistic care, stoicly lived with pain, and grew older. Now my insurance reached its cap and my payments, when that happened, were at 2500 a quarter for one person who had barely used it ..... until, it all got used up. I was so happy the day the cap was removed. It meant I didn't have to die yet.
I'm not very happy today. The cost of health care may be part of the problem. I never minded paying for insurance for myself; I just didn't think I'd go through a million dollars of it -- and still need more to stay alive and have a quality life. I work. I take care of myself and I pay taxes.
Now, I'm left without insurance and no company will touch me with a ten-foot pole. I make too much for medicare. I was declared totally disabled on my first visit to the State's doctors, but make just a little too much to qualify for disability (all I wanted was insurance) but not enough to pay all my medical bills without going broke.
I was so happy when that lifetime cap ayas removed. Truly happy and grateful.
Today, I can't stop crying.
My insurer will probably be happy -- I've made payments for 25 years. I didn't complain when the rates went up. Now, I have nobody to complain to (sorry for dangling that).
Just wanted to let someone know how I felt, although I realize this isn't about feelings -- or people.
I'm not even sure what it's about anymore.
Oh and everyone else is "lazy now" and wants to have a dozen kids? FTR: This law is anything BUT socialism dude so stop being so bloody SELFISH.
@ Melody
I'm sorry. I felt that as a person that disagrees with Obamacare I should respond.
Your concerns are exactly why this cannot happen. Your statement "It meant that I didn't have to die yet." says it all.
If we inexorably link our taxes dollars with ultimately futile attempts to prevent every Americans death we will go bankrupt.
We can't afford it.
@ Teresa
No, this law is EXACLTY Socialism.
I hope you remember your previous comment when you get sick and are denied coverage. You will get sick with something in your life unless you are hit by a bus on your way home. Maybe you should re-read the persons post where she said that she paid premiums for insurance for 25 years and try and project your life and your needs 25 years from now and how you would feel when someone tells you tuff luck can't afford you.
The notion that you should not have to pay for things that you do not directly benefit from is just plain anti social and wrong. We all pay for things that do not directly benefit us. My wife and I had no kids but pay for public education the same as a couple with 8 kids. We pay for roads, police and fire protection because we live in a society the same as you.
People are fond of using the slippery slope arguement against any govt program that is intended to provide for the needy. Try thinking about the slippery slope of what happens when the social compact in a society is destroyed and everyone is left to fend for themselves.
We will continue to subsidze the Insurance Industry through higher premiums and deductibles/copays, the Medical Care Industry through cattle-like processing with little attention paid to the individual(as many bodies as can be processed with as little time/care afforded each), and the US Government Branches which receive premium care/attention on our dime, as long as we live.
Regulation of fee increases will not be tackled, partially due to the disconnect between these Legislators, partially due to the involvement of many of the same in ownership/investment in the Insurance and Healthcare Industries.
Look at Rick Scott, Governor of Florida, as a Prime Example.
Rick Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The education of Florida governor Rick Scott - Fortune Management
corybud...
We have been doing that for years. Even our tax structure is set up to negate any effective social compact. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are always willing to spend money on grandiose schemes to get votes. As long as the voters kept their heads up their collective azz we have always had unsustainable programs.
Without sustainability any wishfull social compact is illusory at best.
a euro, if you do not want to pay for police or fire protection, a LOCAL matter that has zero to do with the US Constitution that is NATIONAL in scope, you can take that up with your local government or you can move out into the exurbs, boonies or another state where you may pay little or nothing. If you do not want to pay expensive school taxes for a bunch of teachers who can't teach but are paid big bucks because of their union and for a bunch of kids who know all of the Kardashian sisters' favorite restaurants but could not name the US Secretary of State or recognize the Vice President in a photo - and for a complex of expensive buildings to house this mess of downdrifters, you can move out into the exurbs, the boonies or another state. However, if Americans get saddled with this unconstitutional central power grab which has LITTLE to do with healthcare and everything to do with an intentioned failure of individuals and of this country, there is no exurb, boonie or state to which the persecuted, fleeced and hounded can escape. What's next - showing our "papers" as we drive our car out of state A and into state B? Oops - that assumes we still have the civil right to drive a car. The current central statists and their cling-ons want everyone not part of their faux-elite group of insiders on a bicycle like China.
Individuals who do not have insurance can only go to the hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicaid. If it is a private hospital who does not accept these payments then they can be turned away and they are. That said, the Hospitals get some reimbursement for those individuals through Medicaid/Medicare even if the individual is not on either one of these plans. Although never enough to cover the costs, but they do get something.
You act as if this law when it goes into effect that you all the sudden are not going to have to pay for these things. The fact is, if you have insurance your premiums have already risen the first year after this bill was passed to handle the expense of Parent's covering their "Adult" children till their 26. You will also pay in higher taxes eventually. The money has to come from somewhere, so you are just taking it out of one pocket and shifting it to the other. The only problems is that it will more than likely be more costly to you then paying for the few you have to pay for now. Why? As companies start dropping their insurance and forcing their employees on "government" insurance the uninsured pool get bigger and up up up goes your taxes to pay for it.
Nothing, nothing is free. One is just cheaper than the other. Obama care will not be cheap.
Why don't you get that you're already paying now? Mandating people get their own would have removed that burden from you!
What!? Making people get their own health insurance is Socialism?
Fools....
Emmanuel - More like big brother or a dictatorship.
I hate re"pig"licans and "con"servatives and especially ones in the "pee" party. I'm sorry (not), I meant the tea baggers who tea bag. I am not a democrat either and despise communism and socialism and fascism, mainly because "con"servative politics and the re"pig"lican philosphies (brainwashing and greed) are fundamentally and equal in so many ways to communism and socialism but hide behind walls of lying and deceit, which are paid for by lots and lots of money, especially are taxes. And, if Obama was white, many re"pig"licans would have definitely voted and supported for this wonderful and amazing health care plan (I mean LAW). It is interesting that the re"pig"licans helped to create medicare and medicaid and social security, which by the way forces and makes every single American have a social security number and pay taxes and get social security. So, re"pig"licans are HYPOCRITES. They are just upset because they did not think of this wonderful health care plan first. It's ok for them to make every American do something, which is "unconstitutional," but when a wonderful and amazing democrat creates something fabulous for the country and people who need insurance, they oppose it just to be difficult and uncooperative. That is stupid and horrible. Re"pig"licans are vile evil devils who do not deserve to be in this beautiful and wonderful country. It is interesting that democrats try to help others and make policies to support the positive growth and development for everyone, but the re"pig"licans just want to take advantage of others, lie to others, cheat others, and focus on their only true goal, which is to get rich, not matter what the cost is to most of the country. In addition, re"pig"licans are so racist, sexist, and biased because they are filled with hate and anger. Health care is a very important topic and the re"pig"licans do not care if our citizens are without health care as long as they can get rich. That is the biggest reason why re"pig"licans do not like the wonderful health care LAW (besides just them being pure racist) is because they cannot make any money off of the LAW. If they LAW helped the re"pig"licans and their insurance companies get rich, they would support it in a heartbeat, but it probably would still have to be created by a white Christian re"pig"lican.
Wake up America!!!! Re"pig"licans are your enemy. All they want is your money, to be rich, and to make everyone else like them (except for the rich part). They are pure evil and need to be shipped out in the middle of the ocean on an island.
If we all have to get a social security number, pay taxes, get car insurance, and register to be in the military, then what is the problem with everyone having to get health insurance. It is amazing and beautiful to think that everyone would have health insurance. That is awesome. But because the re"pig"licans cannot make money off this idea, a white person did not think of it, and a re"pig"lican did not think of it, the re"pig"licans do what they do best in these situation. They cry and whine like little babies and claim that this law is "unconstitutional" even though all of what the re"pig"licans do is unconstitutional because they try to pass laws that are based on religion and making them rich.
America, please do us a favor and stop electing ignorant and stupid re"pig"licans into office. All they are doing is stopping and hindering the positive growth and development of our laws, our great country, and our citizens. Stop the madness now.
@Emanuel
It's clear that you are the fool and no matter how desperately you want to sit back and let everyone else pay for all your bills...the Constitution will not allow it.
Perhaps another country may suit you? A country in Europe... where things are crumbling already for rolling over to wishes from people just like you.
@CoryBud
You act as if I've never been sick before. Absurd.
Second, if I get hit by a bus (like anyone) you will be treated for life threatening injuries regardless of insurance coverage existence.
All the attempts to help me reflect on my comment through "threatened karma" arent going to keep Social(ist) health care from bankrupting our country.
@Zen Love
You may want to start your meditation before the SCOTUS throws this Socialist Healthcare plan in the garbage where it belongs.
Zen Love...
Your angry and vicious written words are a universe away from anything that could be termed as related to either "Zen" or "Love".
I'd suggest a new name !
And I guess this "wonderful and amazing democrat's" health care law isn't turning out to be so "wonderfully and amazingly" crafted...it was built about as well as a house of sticks and twigs.
Liberals have been arguing that mandatory health insurance is no different from mandatory automobile insurance. If that is true, then insurance companies CAN charge higher premiums for individuals with a history of poor health. And they can discriminate based on age as Allstate had done. I recall being turned down because I was under 20.
And they should. Its called risk management.
Then the pemium for people with pre-existing conditions should match what will be doled out immediately for the sickness. For instance, if a person has cancer, buys insurance and immediately bill the insurance company $5,000 for shots each week, the premium should be high enough to cover the cost or else the insurance company will go out of business.
@ In The Middle Too
Bingo!
...and in an Obamacare world that risk assessment will culminate in death panels...or whatever politically correct name is created for them. The same tough decisions familys have to make now..but the Government will make it for them. Gee.. thanks big brother.
Get the Socialist out 2012!
Insurance companies do increase premium due to a person health. I was getting health insurance for my family when I was told I couldn't be on the policy because of a pre existing condition(high blood pressure) and then when I got treated for the hypertension and showed I was treated for three months straight, then I could be added to the policy but at a higher rate than normal. And they doing it now without the Affordable HealthCare Act.
Most states require mandatory LIABILITY insurance, which covers only the other vehicle in an accident.
If you borrow money to buy a car then the lender requires comprehensive insurance to cover them in cas of a loss.
Not quite the same as mandatory health insurance.
It's a false comparison to say that health insurance is like auto insurance.
One, you only need auto insurance if you drive a vehicle. That is a choice. Health insurance is being mandated by the simple fact that you are breathing.
Two, health insurance would be more affordable if it actually were like auto insurance. Your auto insurance doesn't cover routine maintenace on the vehicle. For example, it doesn't cover tires, windshield wipers, brakes, washer fluid or oil. Can you imagine how expensive auto insurance would be if all of those things were covered? You also choose what types of coverage you want. With health insurance, if I'm a single woman, I still have coverage for prostate exams in my policy.
ecroz,
Read the article. It said under ObamaCare, premium will NOT vary as it should be for individuals with a history of poor health, or pre-existing conditions as liberals like to call it.
In the Middle Too;
Not exactly, Risk management is what individuals, families, and businesses do to determine the best techniques for managing their loss exposures.
Actuarial Science is the discipline that insurance professionals use to determine rates that will result in a profit for the insurer. They may use any determining factors that they wish to use as long as the factors are not discriminatory, as defined by their regulatory authority.
This is still risk management, at least that was the title the insurance company had on my card.
Of all the things we could pay for, I would think the general health of its citizens should be pretty close to #1 on the list. We are the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have government run healthcare yet we do not live longer than other countries nor enjoy lower infant mortality rates. In other words, we do not have the best healthcare system in the world. It's mediocre. Yet, we pay a ton of money for mediocre healthcare.
What Republicans are saying with their opposition to their own plan is, we are not concerned with providing for the general welfare of the people, "let them die". The American people have gone to their government for help with what is going on in healthcare. That is that companies no longer want to pay for it as a tax deductible benefit, they don't want to increase pay as well to cover it. Insurance, always a losing proposition anyway, or do you think you win money in Vegas?, takes an exorbitant monthly cut and then tries to deny your coverage, you end up paying more anyway you look at it AND YOU CAN ONLY GET SICK ONCE. Why, when you pay cash does your doctors bill cost more? Why can't you get a price for a service before you get it? Please don't question why your doctor and the hospital charge $10.00 FOR AN ASPIRIN. Is there any wonder why the AMA, the pill pushers, the insurance companies and of course the Republican party are lining up to defeat this. Lets all instead give them a tax cut and drown the government in a bathtub. Good luck going up against the benevolent corporations, remember in the ultra-fine text is their right to screw you, they told you. The "we don't want government control" crowd are more than happy to be slaves to the "free market". I hope they stick it so far up your asses you gag.
Pat since SoCal is generally a nifty place and some there see the big pix, your comment 6.11 is off-note.Are you not aware that this pending legislation has LITTLE to do with healthcare (since we all know the end game on that is a one payer system, and that's a one payer who can only provide for relatively few in a bankrupt system, and that one payer system is coming no matter what happens in this case) and the real central motive here is the intentioned, assured failure of individuals (who are not insiders/cronies/pets/hand-selected winners) and the failure of this nation (which must begone to satisfy the narcissisms, hubris and greeds of the one world crowd.)
Surely someone from SoCal is sufficiently sophisticated to understand that whatever the caption of the law is is the exact OPPOSITE of what the law is really about. An education bill is to ensure that America's dumb get dumber, through re-education. A healthcare bill is to ensure the financial health of the CEOs and Czars on the inside of the public-private shell game, not to ensure the physical health of the citizens. Did you fail to get the memo?
As several have written here in so many words, under the BEST of circumstances "health insurance" is really just a DISCOUNT card. You have the club card, so you get preferred guest and not rack rates for your stay. It means that you get the $3000 test for $600, just as the man from Alaska was lucky enough to wrangle with cash. And that's because the 20% you pay was really the truer cost of what you got (ie, you pay all) and the 80% has gone into the corporate CEO and the government Czars pockets (ie, both co-dependents share the loot) to pay for their ski trips, mansions and land, designer clothes, jewels, cars and other toys, just as in the central-rich-Euro/Asian-system that is the model and the aspiration for all those currently, and for the last 70ish years, sitting at the table and selling every everyday American out.
This is not about getting healthcare for you and your little family, anymore than the earlier takings were about providing education, a house or anything else for you. It is all a mirage. Your kid can't read and your house is in foreclosure. There is no free lunch. The group and its straw structure that Pat and others so naively rely upon is broke and broken and as she cheered on the central delusion today, many of its power players were probably racking up their second and third paid citizenships outside this country that they are dismantling. Nice, huh?
Until there is a wake-up moment and recognition that the great social experiment of recent decades and decades has failed, a lot of people are going to be stuck. This country was in a ditch and is now heading over the cliff because of deficit spending, from which this country-as-it-was will never recover. Many young, smart, ambitious young workers from OTHER countries have NOT looked to the US as a land of opportunity since at least the 1990s and have had their sights on other countries; the US with all its insane fiscal policies, corruption, and nutty pay-outs and bail-outs of the least deserving has turned off the best and the brightest young talents and they go elsewhere. The concept of a massive expansion of healthcare now in this essentially bankrupt country was and is such a breathtaking lie that what it mostly reflects is the desperation of both the liars and their listeners.
If we everyday Americans want good health, we'd best focus on the basics: the best food we can get; adequate sleep, less stress, and as much of that less stress would be from eschewing additional public and personal debt as it would be from exercise. Exercise your right of self-reliance! Because if you are focusing on high tech devices, big toxic pharma and the government to help, protect, heal and save you, you rely on a broke and broken scheme.
The point of Obamacare is not the health of the people, it is a massive unaffordable program that will kill healthcare for everyone under the weight of the debt. The cost of Obamacare is already double of what it was and at that time it was unaffordable. Congess can fix healthcare for the poor and better healthcare access for women and indian people on the reservations and mental health care facilities without 156 new govt offices and 22,000 new federal employees plus 16,000 IRS agents to administer the program. Obamacare was being used as a vehicle to further a socialist agenda for power and control. Doctors are already fleeing the medical field and many in practices are dropping medicare reimbursements. There already is a doctor shortage and if you havn't figured it out yet it takes two to three times longer to see some doctors than it did last year. Medicaid is being expanded to the point that people will be lucky to see a nurse because most doctors wont accept medicaid assignment. Insurance providers are not going to give coverage without big premium hikes for all, because they will go out of business if they can't make a profit, then the taxpayers will foot the bill fo shortfalls and the worst part is that millions of people will lose their healthcare at work because employers would rather pay a 2000 dollar fine than pay 6 to 8 thousand dollars a year to insure employees. Its called trying to stay in business. Before you demonize republicans for this totally democratic abortion called Obamacare at least stop calling people names untiil you are engaged and got the facts sstraight. The entitlement and union whiners from Calif who demonize and denigrate other people seem to have a mentality thats lower than Whale sh_t when it comes to stating why they disagree with other peoples comments. Maybe having dialogue with respect would bring understandable solutions.
Fedup-3314606 -
Nothing wrong with a for profit health service eh?
If you have any inkling about economics you'd know that health care is what is called interelastic demand means basically regardless of price the demand does not change. That means insurance companies can - and do charge as much as they feel like. That sounds pretty wrong to me. You don't want "the govm't telling you want to do" move to Somalia
When certain individuals don't give a hoot about their own general health by taking drugs, excessive drinking, over eating etc, why should I pay for their general well being. The only person's general health I feel I should pay for are the children who's parents cannot afford good health care. See, children don't have choices in life.
And how well are those other industrial nations doing financially today? Hmmm not really good, their cutting programs, their refusing treatments, etc etc. Using the so called infant mortality rates as a comparison is actually not a comparison at all since many other factors other than health create our lower infant mortality. One, our belief system in this country. And because of our EXCELLENT healthcare system and science, we have more premature births counted in this country than any other country.
Low birth weight infants are not counted against the "live birth" statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates. According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500g is not considered a living child. But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births, infact we don't even consider weight.
The mortality rate of such babies considered "unsalvageable" outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This totally skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.
Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as "stillborn" if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. Our Stillborn is defined as dead in the womb. 40% of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life. But in the US, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.
Because of our Excellent medical care, heroic efforts by our medical teams to save newborns are common in the US while these same infants are considered "unsalvageable" in other countries and not counted against their mortality statistics.
So just because you see a statistic don't take it as face value, find out more about why that stat is what it is. You might discover that we do have the best medical care in the world.
clb...
I agree...same with 'mortality' rates, world wide education rankings, and more. To simply skim the surface and accept any given statistics is silly.
Obama has lied when he mention cost would go down. My insurance gone up so high and I am a hard working middle class American worker who is struggling as it is. Thats what happens when you rush something through it will bite back. Obama should of focused on the economy and jobs first not Obamacare. I call his way of doing things ass backwards.
Obamacare has not caused your Insurance Premiums to go up, Healthcare costs have. They have been increasing every year, but wages have not. Have you not seen the gap between the rich and rest growing in leaps and bounds.
Are you retroactively blaming Obama for your premiums going up over the passed 10 years too?
A Euro - So Obama has really DONE NOTHING, because health care costs have gone UP, and wages have NOT!!! I guess this is Bush's fault too....you are a numbskull. Only an idiot would call what you posted as "positive" or "good". You nuts that have NO JOB and WILL NOT WORK but only blame others for being successful are disgusting pigs eatinig out of the government trough of others labors. Get a freaking job and pay some taxes.
piegan,
your rates were going to rise even if Obama did nothing.
hey they love this do nothing president, he cant do thie he wasnt able to do that, you cant expect him to handle this. lets vote him into office again to do more of nothing.
jester,
he killed osama bin laden, he will sign a jobs plan in the near future, he saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy, he staved off a full blown depression, he ended 2 wars................
Need I continue?
Rod_Father: Obama id not kill Osama Bin Ladin. SEALs did. Obama did not go in with a rifle and shoot the SoB. All Obama did was tell them to go do it. I dont disagree with his choice on that, I think that deciding to send the SEALs in was a good idea, but saying that HE killed the SoB is not correct. Also, the Jobs bill will go into law whether or not Obama signs it, it was passed with greater than 2/3s majority in both houses. Him signing it merely saves a few days until it is implemented.
counter,
Obama is the commander in chief. The seals are under his umbrella of authority and responsibility.
Rod,
- Osama Bin Laden was killed with intel gathered under the Bush administration, I have no problem giving Obama credit for that as long as you give Bush's administration the same credit.
- Bush originated the Chrysler bailout in Dec. 2008.
- TARP, which was created and implemented under the Bush administration, is what is credited with staving off the full blown depression.
- The Iraq war time table for removal of troops was scheduled by the Bush administration, Obama just happened to be in office in Dec. 2011 when the troops came home. Last I checked we're still in Afghanistan so that's still going on, not sure where the second war Obama ended comes from unless you count Lybia (which he doesn't).
- That jobs plan is a bipartisan bill so not sure why only Obama would get the credit.
All that being said, I'm not sure what President Obama has done other then: a) push through a healthcare bill that doesn't look like it will survive the summer; b) put his foot in his mouth several more times than Bush did (which he did a lot of); c) host a lot of parties/concerts in the people's house; and d) take a lot of vacation time. Can't say I blame the guy for wanting another four years of that but for the good of the country we need to move past him (and this is from someone less than thrilled about our other options).
using bush's name and the term intelligence in the same breath is an oxymoron.
@Rod_Father
He didn't kill OBL that would be the Navy Seals, also that plan for attack was in the works before obama became president, funny how his ratings by the American people were hitting an all time low and poof he takes out OBL and his ratings go up, but wait it went right back down because of his poor leadership and lack of doing anything. He saved GM and Chrysler? Guess what we are a capitalist nation, if your company fails to stay afloat because of poor management and poor quality products then you go out of business, some one else will take your place, same as all those banks he bailed out, it goes against what we as a nation were founded on. Capitalism!!!!! Staved off a full blown depression???? I'm sorry I guess you live in another dimension, because they are not telling the truth about the real percentage of unemployed, and even if the number is right then nothing has really been done toward unemployment. Jobs are not being created, our money being devalued faster then ever, he just gave $50,000 for each member that was killed to each family that SSgt Bales supposedly killed. $15 million was given to Aushwitz for upkeep, $1 billion of debt was fogiven by us to Egypt so that their youth can have a brighter future without worrying about previous debt, gas prices are going up, he gave $700 million to another Solar Company in Nevada to do what $500 million was given and lost to a previous solar company that filed bankruptcy, which is funny because this new company, is in a fellow Democrat state, and the company has ties to Pelosi's brother in law. The gap between rich, middle class and poor is growing faster then ever, and with that our middle class is going away with the wind. He ended two wars???? The pull out of Iraq was already in place by Bush. How did he end Afghanistan, does ending a war mean doing a 30,000 soldier surge is ending the war? That would be escalting the war I believe. Then without Congress approving it he attacked Lybia oh but wait he got UN approval so he doesn't need our Congress to approve it. Right? Now your wonderful obama is thinking about doing a no fly zone over Syria and possibly doing what he did in Lybia? The only reason he hasn't is because Russia and China are against that idea and hopefully your Obama is smart enough to not piss them off. So yes I would love for you to continue on what he has done.
TO: Jeff-908767 who wrote:
First off Jeff, if Bush had intel on where Osama Bin Laden was he surely NEVER acted on it NOR did Bush ever advise our military to prepare to strike that compound, AND as long as Bush was in office, Osama Bin Laden was safe, probably because they grew up together and their parents are STILL long-time business partners in the Oil Business.
Second, you can NOT give Bush credit where he took NO RESPONSIBILITY. All we ever hear about Bush is that he wasn't responsibile, so there is no way he can get any credit for something that he had no responsibility over.
As far as President Obama properly getting credit where credit is due and Republicans trying to take any kind of credit by claiming "bipartisanship", well hell, that's the only thing Republicans have done to cure unemployment in the past 3-1/2 years, in spite of the fact that Teabaggers sent some jokers up to Capitol Hill some 2 years or more ago on the promises of JOBS JOBS JOBS, on which the Teabagging Congresspeople NEVER actually focused.
Obama / Biden 2012
Rod_Father,
By your own reasoning that Obama gets all the credit because the Seals are under his umbrella, Obama gets all the credit for everything since inauguration day.
Am Girl,
I am left with the adage "When you argue with a fool, you can't tell the two apart." That blinding partisanship is why we are where we are at this moment.
Rod father,
I hate to break it to you genius, but GM went bankrupt anyway, only, under Obama's "plan" the GM bondholders were royally screwed in favor of the union pensions that were unfunded.
Chrysler was bought out, in majority, by Fiat and never paid back all their loans.
So, if you want to be an Obama lap dog, I suggest you at least make your claims worthy of the distortions you spin.
Meanwhile, the highly pushed Chevy Volt is a "flaming success" .... so much so that GM franchisees are afraid to sell it.
Jeff B. -908767
|- Bush originated the Chrysler bailout in Dec. 2008.
Wrong - Bush started TARP but the bailout of the auto industry all Obama. You have a short term memory problem
No, the Navy Seals did, but he deserves credit for approving the mission.
And he signed the Shovel ready plan, which unemployment was not to go above 8%. Three years later we are still ABOVE 8%. Those are more plans we don't need.
And that helped who? Didn't help the dealerships and their employees, towns etc. Bankruptcy would have done exactly the same thing that the federal government did. The difference, it wouldn't have cost the tax payer, just their creditors. Bankruptcy isn't a bad thing, many companies have done it and came through. Amazing that Ford avoided Bankruptcy and didn't take our tax dollars. We bailed out Chrysler in the 1980's and bailed them out again. I have no doubt they will be back begging again, third times a charm, let them go under. And no neither have paid us back all our money. Just because they got a bailout doesn't mean they have solved their problems, which they haven't. They will be back. Guaranteed.
You have no earthly idea if he staved off a full blown depression. For all you know we could have been better off if they just left everything alone. No one has any idea. All we know is we are not better off today then we were 4 years ago. And that my friend will be what decides the election as it has so many times. People ask, are you better off today then you were 4 years ago. I don't think you will find too many that will say yes. Not with the high unemployment, our real estate in the toilet and now increasing gas prices which result in higher prices on every necessity we rely on.
Last I checked, we are still in the Afghanistan War and will be there till 2013-2014. Although we have moved out of Iraq and are not in combat, we still have some troops there continuing to train Iraq forces.
Please don't.................
If you want to be that way, we can also say we wouldn't have had to worry about Bin Laden or for that fact 9/11 if Clinton had taken him out in 1998. But he didn't when he had the chance. For the record, Osama Bin Laden was NEVER in his family's oil business, Never, read your history.
First off, if you would like to check the Congress website, you will find that Congress was controlled by the Democrats the 1st two years of Pres Obama's term. Republican's gained control of the House in the 2010 Election, and took office 2011. They have passed several job related bills, like it or not, in the House. The Senate is controlled by Democrats they have not voted on or allowed to come to the floor any bill that the House has sent over. Takes both the Senate & House to pass laws & changes. If you want the other side to get credit where credit is due, then you first need to look in the mirror and get your facts straight.
For the first two years of Democrat controlled government, instead of working on unemployment and a budget (one has not been passed under Obama) they worked on this Health care bill, didn't even get it right and because of not doing it right it now is before the Supreme Court and will more than likely be overturned. Now how has that helped anyone? Not much different then the two years the Republicans controlled everything and nothing got done. No energy bill, no Immigration bill, etc. Both parties have been in there far too long and that is our whole problem. Too many career politicians and some from both sides have yet to figure that out, even you. Until you and others figure this out, this country will continue to go down.
I thought Carter & Ford were bad, but this Administration & Senate are by far the worst in our life time or at least my life time.
American girl, you have no ability to connect the dots.
Lusitania, I want a fair system where everyone takes some responsibility for themselves.
I don't need Individual mandate, I pay my bill every time I go to the doctor, I pay my bill when I go to the hospital, I don't need the Government, get out of my health. Insurance companies and hospitals make millions of dollars for services we don't use . 120,000 dollars and more in ten years for a family of four. I spent no more than 5,000 dollars in doctors in 10 years. If I had insurance the other $ 115,000 will go to the big health corporations. Just make numbers.
Please don't tell me you're on Medicare.
Hope you don't ever suffer a serious injury or illness, then. Surgery for a broken leg would have cost me a little over $47,000 out of pocket if not for insurance.
And cancer; you might as well just plan on dying. You can't afford the treatment.
You say you spent $120,000 in premiums. Don't ever need heart surgery. $120,000 won't get you in the door.
Are you also planning on building your own roads, so as to avoid paying highway taxes?
Or a kidney transplant for that matter. That $120k won't get you on the waiting list...
Aflac is a good for the ones that don't want insurance and much cheaper, they pay me 5,000 dollars when I broke my tibia, however government should not mandate or penalize for not to have insurance, this is my CHOICE.
Rewrite the Damn Thing or throw it out. The lawyers are eating like pigs. This will never be over. People who work and pay will as always get screwed.
TO: So. Bx John who wrote:
Been there, done that.
Republicans don't have anyone available to "rewrite" anything because all the Republican Politicans are working for the insurance companies and are being paid MILLIONS by the insurance lobbyiests to totally deprive the American People of any kind of quality affordable health care.
First you have to elect Republicans who know how to "write".
Obama / Biden 2012
First you have to elect Republicans who know how to "write".
American Girl - I have to ask this in all seriousness. I support free speech, but what is the purpose of your posts? I see nothing substantial in anything you've written in this whole vine - nothing but slam after slam with anyone who disagrees with your thoughts. There is absolutely no value in anything you have had to say so far. If you use this newsvine as your personal scratching post, fine; but understand you are helping no one with your postings except yourself. The rest of us use this to discuss important issues.
In all seriousness I don't see much of that here. It's more a public venting of personal opinions. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.
@ "American" (questionable!) Girl : Why don't YOU learn how to SPELL! (idi*t!)
American Girl, If you believe that democrats do not get millions from insurance companies, unions, wall street, etc, you are so naive I don't know how you function in life.
There are half a dozen republican health care bills sitting on harry rieds desk he refused to put up for debate simply because they are republican and you have the NERVE to say republicans are not trying to fix this mess?
You have managed to rate LESSTHAN ZERO credibility with your posts, that is an accomplishment.
If this law is struck down, I want to cancel my auto insurance. That's a contract that I was coerced to enter by the government. What's the difference?
American Girl- keep it up. You speak the truth!
Mike from AZ, you really do not understand what you are talking about. No state requires drivers to insure their own cars, that is your investment and if you want to risk it, its on you. If you do not possess the title, the title holder can require you to cover it with collision but not the state and most definitely not the federal government!
States require LIABILITY insurance for property you own to protect OTHERS in case they are injured on or by your property. This includes cars, real estate, etc.
BIG difference.
Wednesday January 27, 2010
In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision. He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president display a gross lack of grace in doing this, but many members of Congress in the audience surrounding the seated justices threw fuel on the fire by standing and pointedly applauding the president’s remarks directed at the justices.
Paybacks are hell!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes they are - and that is exactly what our SCOTUS has become - 9 politicians working for their masters
There will be no winners here because this bill does not address the real problems with healthcare. Insurance is the easy target because they are viewed as the evil empire but they are only the tip of the iceberg. The bigger problems are complete lack of cost control by hospitals and the out of control malpractice suits against doctors, for example an aspirin given in the hospital should not cost more than an entire bottle purchased at any drug store in the country. Healthcare is the only industry that I know of where the consumer has no idea what the cost is going to be before they receive treatment and I am not talking about life or death situations but routine care. When you take your car for repair the mechanic diagnoses the problem then gives you an estimate for repairs and options if there are any so you can at least make an educated decision if the repair cost are worth it. But in healthcare the doctor will line up test after test to try to figure out the problem without presenting any options or really consulting with the patient because they have to see as many patients as possible. Not to mention that most doctors these days will not diagnose patients without test for fear of being sued if the diagnosis is wrong. Seems to me when I was younger that the doctor started with the simplist possible diagnosis then progressed from there based on symptoms instead of requiring tests to tell him what he already knew.
the vote will 5-4 against...stop wasting time and just get the stupid partisan vote overwith
and Texas voted in tort reform and healtcare costs and malparactice insurance all went up faster then the national average.....its not law suits or malpractice insurance driving up costs...its greed, just like everywhere else in american business
Don't forget the medicare fraud. And Doctors getting to the point of refusing patients due to poor payment for services. More modern procedures are being refused by Medicare. Eventhough it is what is best for the patient and stunts modern medicine. But we can go to Mars!
There is a poll running on MSN right now asking what the public wants the court to do. As of right now 57% of the respondents want the Court to dump the whole package. This is pretty much the same percentage that didn't Obamacare to start with.
Obozo didn't listen. Maybe the Court will.
Many people on medicare have allready been required to buy perscription drug insurance by the Goverment. It is taken right out of the social security check before receiptiant ever gets the money. People are not trusted to pay the premium. And hence would be taxed or punished for not having coverage. Now if that is not Socialism what is? The Govermant will progressively require retirees to pay more and gov. will provide less and require more care and financial responsibility by S.S. people. But supprise it will not work due to desitute, ill and aged for the most part will not be able to get a job. That requires the care to fall on the tax base for everyone to pay. 10,000 new medicare boomers are fileing for Social Security every day. It is hitting the fan. Get ready for bigger stink. I have Social Security Parts A, B, C, D and a suplimental medical policy and it is still not enough. And the care is getting worse by the day! For those of you under age 65 you may think this dont mean a crap. Well guess again. Because who do you think is paying for the people on social security today. So ignor if you wish, or can!
D Payne
You are not required to buy the prescription drug coverage as you stated. You have a choice, if you don't get it at the time you are first eligible then you can opt in at the next open enrollment each year no questions asked but yes, you pay a penalty but again that is YOUR CHOICE. You also have the choice to have it taken out of your social security check, but again, that's YOUR CHOICE. I would also point out that under federal law you can not have Parts A, B,C,D and a Medicare Supplement policy.
correct! but 30 million people in the USA do not have any medical coverage. Every time they and/or family members get sick it cost all of us who do more money. If mandating they have to get coverage bring my cost down than I'm all for it. Just for medical I pay almost $500.00 a month which is 50%. My employer pays the other half. Thats with high deductibles and co-pays. Every year 15 to 25% increase. It's horrible. No matter whats done everyone won't be happy but if the government can't make these people accountable for their own bills who can.
I have a coule questions that I"m just trying to clear up (for my own understanding of the law) and I hope someone can answer them:
1. If I don't pay insurance, but do pay the penalty, will I still receive medical care if I go to, say, the emergency room?
2. If I don't pay the insurance, and I do pay the fine, then I get terminally ill, can I THEN just call and insurance agent, get insurance, then be insured for my terminally ill care?
3. If I don't pay for insurance, and I don't pay fines, what happens when I go to the emergency room?
Rember Medicare and Insurances will hope you die first!! Second you do not make or have enough money to pay the 20% not covered often by the Medicare or insurance for the medical service. Hence you can't afford to pay for the rising cost. And will have to default on paying for anything, and pray to be treated anyhow. Like many foreigners (illleagals) that have no insurance and never plan to pay for care. Good luck!!
Sorry - I actually couldn't follow your answers... I didn't follow the not making enough to pay the 20% not covered part. What's not covered? Under what plan, who doesn't make enough?
askaboutet,
My understanding;
1) Yes, just like before, the entire bill is yours. Good luck with that style of risk management. My understanding is the fine increases year after year.
2) Not at this point. In arguements neither side were against what you just described and neither side would argue it as unconstitutional.
3) You cannot be denied. The entire bill is yours to pay. Good luck with that style of risk management.
Awesome - thanks this is what I was looking for. So, if the mandate passes, the real risk for someone not paying for insurance would be emergencies, not long-term illness, because whereas they would need immediate medical attention in the case of an emergency (and not have time to get medical insurance) they would theoretically have more time to actually acquire medical insurance if they found out they had, say, cancer? Is this correct?
Sorry - first, this is not about me - I have health insurance, and it's paid for by my employer, so I'm not trying to figure out my plan, I'm just trying to understand the law.
Second, the "you won't have to pay the insurance, but you'll have to pay the entire bill yourself, good luck with that" type argument - is that different than what is in place now?
Your questions used the term "I", therefore the answers were directed at you.
No different than today. If you have paid the fine then they at least got $95 out of the person when they got $0 before.
If you do not have a suplimental insurance you are left with a 20% bill owed on major medical with medicare. Most Americans do not make enough to pay for rising cost of medical care. Between premiums (medicare part B, suplimental ins. , and current required plan D) you still have copays for perscription, and more out of pocket cost if one falls into the donut hole for drug cost. So I really do not think you will be abel to make medical care affordable if you are on fixed income at retirement. Sorry for the terminology. Just wait till you get into the system to really enjoy it. Better yet don't wait, fix it now!!
askaboutet - I recently wrote a paper for college about this bill. Your second scenario is exactly why an individual mandate is needed. Theoretically, people could wait until they are literally on the way to the hospital to purchase insurance. That practice would cause both insurance premiums and healthcare costs to skyrocket. Kentucky passed a bill similar to "Obamacare" several years ago without the individual mandate, and healthcare costs went through the roof.
I've seen quite a few misconceptions about the bill in this forum (not necessarily by you). I think people should actually research it instead of just listening to Fox News. A lot of what is being said is completely untrue. "I" will not be paying for other people's insurance. Yes, Medicare will be expanded but only to those who are at a certain poverty level. Businesses will be forced to provide insurance to their employees if they meet certain criteria (over a certain # of employees). The biggest change is that insurance companies can no longer deny people based on previous conditions. Those newly insured people will all be paying, so I am not covering their costs any longer. Before, they were still guaranteed medical care, but if they couldn't pay, the hospital had to raise prices for everyone else to help defray those expenses. Also, several preventative procedures are not 100% covered by insurance. My doctor cannot charge me a co-pay for things like routine physicals. One more thing, my insurance prices have not gone up at all. I have BCBS insurance through my employer, and I am paying the exact same amount now as I was several years ago.
I hope that helps answer your question a little better.
I see! Thanks for the info! This is exatcly what I was looking for...
As I understand it, the uninsured will be "paying" for their own care through the penalty, so the hospitals won't "foot" the bill (pass it on to the insured). Also, there could be a skyrocketing insurance cost problem if people wait to get sick, then get insurance. Finally, people who are "POOR" will still NOT be paying their medical bills, because they are not mandated under this bill.... correct?
Your exactly right now can you get the idiots who live by fox news and beleave they are never wrong or that they don`t intentionally mislead, or intentionally lie to instill fear into thier viewers. Fear and lies are the rightwings only weapon and has been thier weapon of choice for a very long time. Fear is the greatest weapon there is in life. Fear will make people do things that they`ed never ever think of doing like voting against your own best intrest or watching your freedoms be taking away right in front of you and the whole time beleaving that its for your benifit. And all you idiots do is watch and attack the left while the right is taking more and more away from you and making it harder and harder for all of us left and right to climb out of poverty. And until everyone of us stops and really takes a good look at what is really going on in this country we are all (the right and the left) will suffer and the rich will be more powerful and they will make all the rules and none of us will be able to do a f@#@#ing thing about it. And if you think im wrong well you just wait and see. I just hope and prey that you WTFUP before you wake up one day and find its already to late.
so...... the constitution?
lizzie,
is your employer covering any portion of your premium and has the premium gone up and they did not pass any of the increase onto the employees?
askaboutet,
The fine is an annual fine. Not a fine each and every time you show up in the ER. With that said, very few are paying for their medical coverage by paying the fine. Hospitals will pass on any uncollected amount. Even if you pay the fine, the bill at the ER is still yours to pay.
It's against the law for any hospital in the USA to refuse to treat you so if you don't have coverage you'll get treated. If you can't pay they'll write it off as bad debt increase fees and when us foolish people paying for insurance get sick we'll be charged higher fees that will cause the insurance company to increase our rates.
ER only coverage means immediate crisis care. It does not nip minor problems in the bud before they become major problems. Who do you think pays the bill if the patient is unable too? Everyone that's who.
I HATE the TEA Party with EVERY fiber of my being for doing it's best to kill O'bamacare. Said Hatred will include every Justice who votes to kill the mandate.
I'm surprised how many people have never heard of Health Savings Accounts. I signed up last year and it seems like a great system. You can set aside up to about $3,000 +/- a year in a tax deductible HSA at a bank that offers it, and then buy an economical high deductible health insurance plan and then you use your savings (what an idea) to pay for small medical bills and if something big happens you have your back up catistrophic health plan to pay for the rest. It's easy. It makes sense and it worked great for me. Individual accountability. It's the ONLY way.
My gosh your insurance (group/private) won't cover what you need now. That stinks. And second it seems you have a great paying job, most don't (America too bad). Do you think even with that great job you can afford to keep up with the rise in medical care. You do realize what a neck surgery, or even a simple MRI cost. Do not play the game and be forced to pay for a need for care because you exist. Sorry, nieve. Just demand the same insurance that our politicians get. Now that is good stuff. We don't deserve.