68 Million uninsured out of 310 Million represents 22% Obama votes. The Supreme Court can hand the November 2012 election to the Democrats. Interesting.
68 Million uninsured out of 310 Million represents 22% Obama votes. The Supreme Court can hand the November 2012 election to the Democrats. Interesting.
The Bare Facts wrote:
There is a legitimate constitutional question on the individual mandate part of ACA. But I believe Congress has the power under the commerce clause to enact an individual mandate because no citizen will ever opt out of getting health care their entire life. Right now they just get to opt out of paying for it.
The analogy Scalia used about food and broccoli is bogus because Congress isn't dictating the type of health care everyone should get, just that they have to contribute to the third party paying system we so love in this country. The fact is no one knows what kind of health care they'll need until they get sick or hurt, aside from routine preventative care.
Of course everyone needs food. And there is no constitutional question that the Congress needs to raise revenue through taxation to ensure the food we buy and eat is safe (through funding the FDA, etc...). The fact is that if Congress simply passed a tax to fund medicare for everyone, there would be no constitutional question at all. Well folks, the individual mandate is just a tax by another name. Our politicians are just too big of pussies to admit that we need more revenue to fund a health care system that isn't wildly overpriced and inefficient.
Youre wrong on a few parts. Yes no one opts out of healthcare, but there are many people who could easily go their entire life without needing health insurance. This idea that you WILL get SICK and WILL run up tens of thousands in bills eventually, is erroneous.
And yes, they actually ARE dictating the type of healthcare you can get. Because the "major medical" type of insurance that I currently get (doesnt cover doctors visits, medications or anything under $3K), will be illegal and I will have to pay about three times as much for normal insurance or pay a giant fine. For healthcare I DONT NEED. So yes they ARE dictating what type of healthcare I should get.
Also this isnt really about affordable healthcare. This wasnt healthcare reform. This was health insurance reform. Putting everyone on insurance only makes healthcare less expensive for the poor people, It makes it more expensive for the rich people...If they really wanted to reform healthcare they would have taken a look at tort and malpractice reform, for pay hospital reform, pharmaceutical reform, etc. (the insurance industry profit margins run around 6%, well below the 12-18% profit margins that for profit hospitals and HMOs, medical suppliers and pharmaceutical companies make)
Actually the HMOs and ins cos pay themselves ridiculous salaries then claim the profits are small.
Hey my names Alex, 16, currently A Lesbian, and my family knows my secret.
Growing up I didn't really care what other people thought and I didn't really know who I liked until I turned 14 that's when I considered liking girls so far any relationship I've been in with a guy usually ended pretty quickly and what's sad I wasn't sad or heartbroken when they ended, but when I fell for one of my closest friends I tried to hold it in trying to convince myself that could never happen and we wouldve broken our friend ship. So I holded it in for a few months till I finally broke and told her how a felt but it turned out to be how I imagined she didn't feel the same way and I couldn't be around her without crying.. i havnt come out in school at all I'm too scared how people would treat me and I would lose all of my friends... I've yet to wonder if I'll ever find a girl I could fall in so much in love with like the love stories u heard when u were a child.
luv2run wrote:
When the court strikes this down, no media sympathetic to Obama should ever mention that he once taught a constitutional law class and any students who took that class should have to take it over from someone who knows the constitution.
Don't be inane. If the judges rule 5-4 does that mean that four of the judges are ignorant of the constitution? The constitution is a complex document and if an unconstitutional law is passed it doesn't necessarily mean that those people know nothing about the constitution.
Actually its not. Read it then draw your own conclusion just like the other 99% of people. Otherwise, you are no different than Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who get something TOTALLY different.
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
Don't be inane. If the judges rule 5-4 does that mean that four of the judges are ignorant of the constitution? The constitution is a complex document and if an unconstitutional law is passed it doesn't necessarily mean that those people know nothing about the constitution.
who get something totally different when reading the Bible.
M.C. Confusing wrote:
Putting everyone on insurance only makes healthcare less expensive for the poor people, It makes it more expensive for the rich people...
Please justify this statement. The way it has been explained to me is that when the millions of people who are uninsured go to the emergency room, eventually that cost gets passed on to people who do have insurance in the form of higher premiums.
If we can get everyone into the same risk pool, premiums go down for everyone. So...to me it seems like poor people go from paying no insurance to some insurance; and for the insured, their costs will go down. It sounds like the opposite of what you've described, so please explain further.
The Bare Facts wrote:
There is a legitimate constitutional question on the individual mandate part of ACA. But I believe Congress has the power under the commerce clause to enact an individual mandate because no citizen will ever opt out of getting health care their entire life. Right now they just get to opt out of paying for it.
The analogy Scalia used about food and broccoli is bogus because Congress isn't dictating the type of health care everyone should get, just that they have to contribute to the third party paying system we so love in this country. The fact is no one knows what kind of health care they'll need until they get sick or hurt, aside from routine preventative care.
Of course everyone needs food. And there is no constitutional question that the Congress needs to raise revenue through taxation to ensure the food we buy and eat is safe (through funding the FDA, etc...). The fact is that if Congress simply passed a tax to fund medicare for everyone, there would be no constitutional question at all. Well folks, the individual mandate is just a tax by another name. Our politicians are just too big of pussies to admit that we need more revenue to fund a health care system that isn't wildly overpriced and inefficient.
Congress isn't dictating the type of insurance you have to have? Really? You can have whatever you want except it has to cover pre-existing conditions, must not have a lifetime limit, must cover preventative care, must cover your children until they are 26, and must cover all forms of birth control. And this is just the list we know about now. Wait until this is ruled constitutional. Suddenly everything will be covered and private insurance companies won't be able to afford to sell the product to anyone because they can't differentiate costs between high risk and low risk clients enough to make it economical. Businesses will quickly figure out that the penalty for not offering insurance is less than providing the insurance. Eventually the government will "have" to step in a create national healthcare to "save" the system, a system they are determined to destroy at this point.
Every person should pay their own insurance premiums out of their own pockets. Taxpayers should not pay the premiums for civil servants, Pentagon militants and contractors, police, fire, teachers, President, Congress, judges, clerks, college professors, VA workers, fighter pilots, etc.
Oftenrunning52 wrote:
Congress isn't dictating the type of insurance you have to have? Really? You can have whatever you want except it has to cover pre-existing conditions, must not have a lifetime limit, must cover preventative care, must cover your children until they are 26, and must cover all forms of birth control. And this is just the list we know about now. Wait until this is ruled constitutional. Suddenly everything will be covered and private insurance companies won't be able to afford to sell the product to anyone because they can't differentiate costs between high risk and low risk clients enough to make it economical. Businesses will quickly figure out that the penalty for not offering insurance is less than providing the insurance. Eventually the government will "have" to step in a create national healthcare to "save" the system, a system they are determined to destroy at this point.
That sounds terrible! This is what's happened in Switzerland???
M.C. Confusing wrote:
Also this isnt really about affordable healthcare. This wasnt healthcare reform. This was health insurance reform. Putting everyone on insurance only makes healthcare less expensive for the poor people, It makes it more expensive for the rich people...If they really wanted to reform healthcare they would have taken a look at tort and malpractice reform, for pay hospital reform, pharmaceutical reform, etc. (the insurance industry profit margins run around 6%, well below the 12-18% profit margins that for profit hospitals and HMOs, medical suppliers and pharmaceutical companies make)
I'm no expert on the U.S. healthcare system, but FWIW in 2007 as part of a graduate program I spent 5 months in a seminar examining the healthcare industry. At the outset, I was very much in the less government is better camp.
But after visiting hospitals, big Pharama, clinics, government agencies like the FDA, foreign nations like Switzerland, Tunisia, and the UK, I came to appreciate just how complex this issue is. I also came to the conclusion that some sort of public/private mix is the best solution. The fact is that Americans spend far more per capita on healthcare than any country on earth and we don't get the best value at all.
apathetic person wrote:
The government forces things upon us all the time. I didn't sign up to have FICA taken out of my paycheck. I didn't agree to the posted speed limit on this road. Hell, you don't have to go back very far to find a military draft where people were given the option of join a war or go to jail.
At least this time the thing being forced on us addresses 1/6 of our national spending and helps millions of people.
To me this should be a nonissue. The government already does whatever they want. So they passed a law to try to fix the healthcare system. Ok.
You don't understand the issue. Look up commerce.
Care to explain a little more than that?
In a nutshell, the government is attempting to make all citizens enter into a contract with a private company.
Of course, what with our lack of border enforcement, our government doesn't even keep track of who the citizens are.
If Obamacare does stand, will hospitals hire ICE agents to discourage non-citizens from seeking treatment? That alone should keep costs down.