Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1st

[Squiggy]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Of course the US can do it. It will just ruin the economy and provide terrible government run healthcare that will be worse for most citizens that pay for health insurance now.


There is a huge difference in looking at healthcare for 300,000,000 vs 30,000,000.

And of course you skip over how India has universal healthcare for a population of 1.2 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India

"The lack of extensive and adequately funded public health services pushes large numbers of people to incur heavy out of pocket expenditures on services purchased from the private sector. Out of pocket expenditures arise even in public sector hospitals, since lack of medicines means that patients have to buy them. This results in a very high financial burden on families in case of severe illness.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_India#cite_note-12

The quality of Indian healthcare is varied. In major urban areas, healthcare is of adequate quality, approaching and occasionally meeting Western standards. However, access to quality medical care is limited or unavailable in most rural areas"


What a model healthcare system! I'm sure everything will work out great!

There is a huge difference in looking at healthcare for 300,000,000 vs 1,200,000,000.

 

[MacLeod]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

^Touché

Living in a democracy sometimes a law is passed with which we disagree with, and of course we are free to say that we disagree with the law. However (correct me if I'm wrong on any of this) the PPACA was passed when the Deomcrats controlled Congress and as it was part of the 2008 Presidential / Congress campaign the majority of Americans wanted it, and in a democracy the will of the Majority takes precidence of the will of the minority.

Now if the PPACA is so hated by the majority that come the 2014 US mid-terms elections, the Republican Party will get a two thirds majority and will be able to repeal it. That's how democracy works.

Saying we won't pass this budget unless the PACA (which even the US supreme court says is legal) is defunded because we don't agree with it is wrong. You want to get rid of a law you don't like get elected with a majority so you can repeal it.

 

[Manticore]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Now if the PPACA is so hated by the majority that come the 2014 US mid-terms elections, the Republican Party will get a two thirds majority and will be able to repeal it. That's how democracy works.

There's no way that the majority that hates Obamacare (but favors the Affordable Care Act) is enough to elect a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate to override a veto. Evidence found here http://www.cnbc.com/id/101064954. Especially since only 26% of poll respondents approve of the Republicans over the current kerfuffle: As shown here

Saying we won't pass this budget unless the PACA (which even the US supreme court says is legal) is defunded because we don't agree with it is wrong. You want to get rid of a law you don't like get elected with a majority so you can repeal it.

I agree completely. Playing games with the country's economy is stupid.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Under what constitutional authority does the Federal Government have the power to force the purchase of a good or service on an individual?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Under what constitutional authority does the Federal Government have the power to force the purchase of a good or service on an individual?

I think the Supreme Court may have weighed in with their two cents.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

But that really doesn't answer my question, does it?

No, it really doesn't.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Under what constitutional authority does the Federal Government have the power to force the purchase of a good or service on an individual?

That would be the government's right to levy taxes, just as one pays for police and fire protection, one also pays for medical coverage. It only makes sense, really. If one house is on fire, then the next house is in danger unless there is a system by which the public can call upon to remove the dangerous element lest it endanger the rest of the surrounding population.

By levying taxation against medical coverage, it is now possible to increase the risk pool to include the healthy, and unhealthy alike, and lower overall costs, while increasing the public health, and reducing the risk of impacting the surrounding population.

 

[J.T.B.]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

But that really doesn't answer my question, does it?

No, it really doesn't.

Then you can read it yourself:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[Yanks]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

So I take it you are for single-payer universal health care.

What?

Drop the current employer-based healthcare system. Get business out of the picture of providing insurance. Sounds like a recipe for implementing a national, state-sponsored, tax-funded universal healthcare to me.

No "state lines", no government except for MEDICAID.

Competition lowers cost, not a bureaucracy.

 

[Lindley]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Competition lowers cost, not a bureaucracy.

That is the theory behind the exchanges.

 

[Avon]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

so if i was american, today i'd either be dead or my family bankrupt.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Under what constitutional authority does the Federal Government have the power to force the purchase of a good or service on an individual?

That would be the government's right to levy taxes, just as one pays for police and fire protection, one also pays for medical coverage. It only makes sense, really. If one house is on fire, then the next house is in danger unless there is a system by which the public can call upon to remove the dangerous element lest it endanger the rest of the surrounding population.

By levying taxation against medical coverage, it is now possible to increase the risk pool to include the healthy, and unhealthy alike, and lower overall costs, while increasing the public health, and reducing the risk of impacting the surrounding population.

But the federal government doesn't provide those services. What the federal government provides is outlined very clearly in the Consitution.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Competition lowers cost, not a bureaucracy.

Neither do. What lowers cost is cooperation and collective bargaining, as history showed again and again.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

so if i was american, today i'd either be dead or my family bankrupt.

Could be. If my state hadn't inaugurated something similar to the ACA -- a state-run health insurance plan for people who were otherwise uninsurable -- several years ago, I'd be dying or bankrupt now.

 

[MacLeod]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

What?

Drop the current employer-based healthcare system. Get business out of the picture of providing insurance. Sounds like a recipe for implementing a national, state-sponsored, tax-funded universal healthcare to me.

No "state lines", no government except for MEDICAID.

Competition lowers cost, not a bureaucracy.

That's the theory at least, just as in theory Congress is supposed to co-operate.

But how exactly does the current system work in the US vis-a-vis the employer based system for those employers that providing medical insurance. Do the companies themselves provide it or do they go to an Insurance company and say how much will it cost to insure x? Or can an employee select which insurance company is used

Because if the company decides which insurance company it uses to provide such cover then surely they would want the best value for money (i.e cheapest) then market forces are at work.

Are you saying you are in favour of direct insurance like car insurance were by each person can select which Insurance company they use?

Because I know preciesly what insurance companies would do, They would give you basic cover for so much and then saying cover agisnt X, Y and Z are extras and will cost you this much more should you want cover just in case.

You know much of Europe has Universal Health Cover, and yes they aren't perfect but links have been provided within this thread that rank those health care systems above the US. So what exactly is wrong with it?

BTW you do realise that you can if you wish and can afford it take out Private Medical Care even in countries with Universal Health Care.


* * * *

I'll preface with what I'm about to say is that you either care or don't care what the rest of the world things about you're country. You are free to hold which ever position you like.

But perhaps part of the reason why the Republican Party is viewed less favourably outsde the US than the Democratic party is that the Republican Party is seen almost as a far-right Party whilst the Democractinc Party is more towards the centre. Of course in the US they are viewed as right and left parties accordingly.


For example in a seven country EU poll, 90% would vote for Obama (i.e Democratic Party)

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/10/31/euro-opinion-us-election/

Or how about this one, sure there are some votes for Romney there but once again it leans Obama.

http://www.globalpost.com/series/2012-us-presidential-election-if-the-world-could-vote


Is there something deeper happening in US polictics than dispute over health care in the US? And if so what is it, and what needs to be done to fix it?

 

[Amaris]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

Under what constitutional authority does the Federal Government have the power to force the purchase of a good or service on an individual?

That would be the government's right to levy taxes, just as one pays for police and fire protection, one also pays for medical coverage. It only makes sense, really. If one house is on fire, then the next house is in danger unless there is a system by which the public can call upon to remove the dangerous element lest it endanger the rest of the surrounding population.

By levying taxation against medical coverage, it is now possible to increase the risk pool to include the healthy, and unhealthy alike, and lower overall costs, while increasing the public health, and reducing the risk of impacting the surrounding population.

But the federal government doesn't provide those services. What the federal government provides is outlined very clearly in the Consitution.

The federal government isn't providing healthcare either. They're only making it accessible for the general public regardless of income, the same as one would have for any fire or police service.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

My argument is that government should have been "involved" in the first place.

Works for me.

Also, the government has been involved in health care since WWII.

But as you say, "can't deny coverage" sounds great, so that will be the standard.

That also sounds good. What's wrong with letting people who have cancer get cancer treatments?

Under what constitutional authority does the Federal Government have the power to force the purchase of a good or service on an individual?

Article I, section 8 (of course), clause 1. "Force" of course, is in the eye of the beholder. Are people forced to buy houses because of the income deduction credit or are states forced to have a minimum drinking age simply because they're being paid money to do so?

There is a legal test to determine whether a "tax" is actually a punishment. The Child Labor Tax case is a good example. It had a "tax" on goods made with child labor, but it only applied if you intentionally used child labor (suggesting they wanted to punish behavior), it was enforced by the Department of Labor (suggesting it wasn't for revenue), etc. Chief Justice Roberts does a good job of contrasting that case with this one, where the costs you have to pay are based on a percentage of income (making it a fairly traditional income tax in that regard), there's no "intent" requirement, it's collected by the IRS, and the fee/payment/tax/penalty in question is relatively minor in nature compared to traditional punishments, which are more coercive.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

It's great to be naive isn't it, to think that this isn't just big government getting bigger, and controlling more.

Link

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the government can't get bigger, just that it has to stay in its defined (enumerated) role. Taxing and spending for the general welfare is one of those enumerated roles. In fact, it's the first role.

 

[cooleddie74]

Re: Ok Trekkers, Don't Forget To Sign Up For Mandatory Obamacare Oct 1

But the federal government doesn't provide those services. What the federal government provides is outlined very clearly in the Consitution.

Really? Food Stamps, federal grants for child care and immunization, veteran's health care and the Centers for Disease Control aren't outlined very clearly in the Constitution. In fact, they're not mentioned at all.

Unless they all fall under the wider philosophical concept and umbrella of "promoting the general welfare." Which I and many others argue they do. And the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act as being constitutional under the aegis of the taxation powers afforded to Congress in the document.

Obamacare is legal. The individual insurance mandate is legal and proper as declared by the United States Supreme Court, a court where a majority of the justices were appointed by center-right Republicans. This has been decided. You can disagree with it all you like. Most of us think Citizens United was an embarrassment, and one can argue that Citizens United can do a thousand times the lasting damage to our society and political system than the Right says Obamacare will do to our health care system.

The Constitution doesn't say much, but it says more than you think if you don't just toss aside "promote the general welfare" as a throwaway line added to the preamble to make it sound even more noble.