Obamacare
LuckyLeprechaun
Posts: 6,296 Member
SCOTUS is supposed to announce their decision on Obamacare tomorrow.
Since this topic is all hot and fresh, let's go over it, shall we?
Thoughts?
My hope is that the individual mandate will be deemed to be unconstitutional, which I believe it is, and the entire law will be gutted.
I dislike the way student loans were ever so quietly taken over with this law and I want to go back to paying my loan back to the bank of my choice, rather than dealing directly with the Federal Government, who has unlimited enforcement powers, including the ability to go into my bank account and take out money.
Since this topic is all hot and fresh, let's go over it, shall we?
Thoughts?
My hope is that the individual mandate will be deemed to be unconstitutional, which I believe it is, and the entire law will be gutted.
I dislike the way student loans were ever so quietly taken over with this law and I want to go back to paying my loan back to the bank of my choice, rather than dealing directly with the Federal Government, who has unlimited enforcement powers, including the ability to go into my bank account and take out money.
0
Replies
-
I agree with you!0
-
I agree with you!
Hey look! I agree with you too
0 -
:drinker:Hey look! I agree with you too0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?0
-
Personally, I like the idea of universal health care. I've done a lot of research into other countries that have it, and it's not nearly as bad as Americans seem to think it is. The universal mandate, however, I do not believe is the way to go with it. I think Germany's Shared Responsibility system is.
In their system, you pay 4-6% of your income into a "sickness fund" and that money chills there until you need to use it for health reasons. Also, your employer matches the amount you have saved. If you are unemployed, your health care comes from tax dollars. Along with the sickness fund, citizens have a private insurance plan that they can also get if they choose. This takes down waiting lines and gives patients the choice of hospitals that they want to go to whereas the people who are unemployed don't have that (from what I understand).
Being that we pay so much of our tax dollars for the people who go to the emergency room and can't pay anyway, this seems to be a more responsible option to me.
Really, I don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in any way. As many times as I have read the Constitution, I didn't see anything in there that it would fit into. It might fit into the "right to privacy" that is implied with the 4th Amendment. But, if you're going to go that rout, then banning gay marriage, drugs, and abortion are unconstitutional. Likewise, the transvaginal ultrasounds are too.
Also, I just have to laugh because the Supreme Court justices and congress people are getting the type of health care that they're saying is "unconstitutional."0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
I wondered this myself. And, if socialized health care is so bad, why is socialized education not? I'm enjoying socialized education pretty well, myself. And I get my health care through the school too. Oh, man, I'm a commie.0 -
Personally, I like the idea of universal health care. I've done a lot of research into other countries that have it, and it's not nearly as bad as Americans seem to think it is.
Really? I have talked with many people who have moved to the US from other countries that have universal health care. Every one of them has stated how much better it is in the US because you can get in with a doctor right away instead of waiting many months for appointments.0 -
Personally, I like the idea of universal health care. I've done a lot of research into other countries that have it, and it's not nearly as bad as Americans seem to think it is.
Really? I have talked with many people who have moved to the US from other countries that have universal health care. Every one of them has stated how much better it is in the US because you can get in with a doctor right away instead of waiting many months for appointments.
That also depends on where they're from. If you notice, I didn't say it was better EVERYWHERE. I said that it was better mainly in Germany, and if I still have the powerpoints from my political science class, I would love to show you graphs of waiting lines in other countries compared with the US.0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
I can choose not to have a car. I can't opt out of my body.
I find nothing in the constitution which allows the government to force Americans to purchase something, and fine them if they choose not to.0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
Auto insurance mandates are not federal. They are handled on the state level. In addition, if you do not have a car you do not have to have auto insurance.
I think everyone should have health insurance. I don't think the federal government should be involved in it.0 -
Here's a link to what I said before:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison--Access---Timeliness.aspx0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
Auto insurance mandates are not federal. They are handled on the state level. In addition, if you do not have a car you do not have to have auto insurance.
I think everyone should have health insurance. I don't think the federal government should be involved in it.
Who do you think should provide it? I agree that the federal government should not provide it for everybody, but I want to know your opinion on who should.0 -
I'm not opposed to Universal Healthcare, I just don't like the way they're trying to put it into action. Friends of mine and I get into fierce arguments about this very subject, as they are hardcore republicans and I have more of an independent stance.
I like the No pre-existing condition factor -- I have one of those that in the past could have caused me to be denied for Insurance.
Germany's idea sounds relatively good, almost like a HSA?0 -
I don't know the details of "Obamacare" but all I can say is I live in the UK and the NHS is the best damn thing about this country. No it's not perfect (though I would like to add that even though we have universal health care here, you can still get private health care too).
Nothing anyone can say to me will ever convince me that private healthcare is better, because even if your service is faster, there is still the huge problem that you literally let people die because they can't afford healthcare.
It is seriously barbaric that people can't get treated for cancer and **** because they can't afford treatment.
And yeah, sometimes people here can't get treatment because the council doesn't have enough money, but I still think it's better that people MIGHT miss out, rather than a whole chunk of the population DEFINITELY misses out. And remember, you can still choose private health care on top of the NHS, if you think the system is too slow or they deny you treatment (though this rarely happens, often they will send you to other parts of the country to get treatment if it's not available in your area)
Basically, our system works, the NHS is fantastic, it has it flaws - but so does a system where if you can't afford health, you don't get it.
And from a selfish perspective, if you really don't care about the greater good and welfare of other people, I don't get how you feel comfortable putting your HEALTH in the hands of companies out to make PROFIT.
Of course they're gonna screw you over if they have the chance, they just want your money! Insurance companies don't care about giving you the best service, they just want to give you enough that you'll keep paying them.0 -
I agree with sexforjaffacakes. I mean, what exactly does the insurance company do? You pay for treatment, go to the hospital/doctor and get treatment, and yet they still make out like bandits. They do no good for anybody. Which is what Germany's system eliminates. You use your own money (provided you have a job) to pay for what you need.0
-
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
I wondered this myself. And, if socialized health care is so bad, why is socialized education not? I'm enjoying socialized education pretty well, myself. And I get my health care through the school too. Oh, man, I'm a commie.
Socialized education and forced car insurance IS bad.....just its been in place so long ppl dont know any diff. The best healthcare in the world is in the US....if we truly wanted to get it cheaper we would enact Tort Rrform0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
I wondered this myself. And, if socialized health care is so bad, why is socialized education not? I'm enjoying socialized education pretty well, myself. And I get my health care through the school too. Oh, man, I'm a commie.
Socialized education and forced car insurance IS bad.....just its been in place so long ppl dont know any diff. The best healthcare in the world is in the US....if we truly wanted to get it cheaper we would enact Tort Rrform
Actually, if you look at the link I provided, it has statistics that show that America does not, indeed have the best health care in the world.0 -
I think germany's system sounds fine.
To me, a perfect system would be...
You had a specific NHS tax - half of what it used to be, because...
You put money into a special account, for your own healthcare...
your work pays money into your healthcare (and all companies have to do this, again remembering tax is reflective of this)
the tax is till there, to support you if your healthcare account doesn't have enough money, and to fully pay for people that can't afford healthcare.
If people can't afford healthcare, the state should supply it. End of.0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
Auto insurance mandates are not federal. They are handled on the state level. In addition, if you do not have a car you do not have to have auto insurance.
I think everyone should have health insurance. I don't think the federal government should be involved in it.
Who do you think should provide it? I agree that the federal government should not provide it for everybody, but I want to know your opinion on who should.
Who do you think should provide something that you want?
Having any type of insurance is not a right. If you are an adult then YOU should provide YOUR insurance if you want it. If you have children then YOU should provide their insurance if you want it. If the citizens of a state vote to implement a health care law then so be it. I don't think anyone should be involved in my choice to have health insurance but if it happens it should be handled on a state level so I can chose to move. 0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
Auto insurance mandates are not federal. They are handled on the state level. In addition, if you do not have a car you do not have to have auto insurance.
I think everyone should have health insurance. I don't think the federal government should be involved in it.
Who do you think should provide it? I agree that the federal government should not provide it for everybody, but I want to know your opinion on who should.
Who do you think should provide something that you want?
Having any type of insurance is not a right. If you are an adult then YOU should provide YOUR insurance if you want it. If you have children then YOU should provide their insurance if you want it. If the citizens of a state vote to implement a health care law then so be it. I don't think anyone should be involved in my choice to have health insurance but if it happens it should be handled on a state level so I can chose to move.
It's not just something that people WANT it's something that they NEED. There is a difference. And, what about the people who have children but can't afford health care for them? Their children should just get sick and die? That's cool, too, I guess.0 -
Should the government be in the position of providing for people's needs?
Seriously.
I need water to survive, but I still have to pay my water bill myself. I need food and shelter, but it's on me to make sure I am fed and housed.
But food stamps, but housing programs. OK.
How do we decide which needs get subsidized?
How do we decide if you 'need' the expensive treatment or the cheaper one? Because if the government is paying, it puts them squarely in charge of what gets paid for. It's my understanding that socialized medicine is OK at responding to everyday conditons and preventative services, but when it comes to specialized services/treatments/care, many people travel to the US for superior care, because their socialized medicine either can't or won't pay for such things.0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
I wondered this myself. And, if socialized health care is so bad, why is socialized education not? I'm enjoying socialized education pretty well, myself. And I get my health care through the school too. Oh, man, I'm a commie.
Socialized education and forced car insurance IS bad.....just its been in place so long ppl dont know any diff. The best healthcare in the world is in the US....if we truly wanted to get it cheaper we would enact Tort Rrform
Actually, if you look at the link I provided, it has statistics that show that America does not, indeed have the best health care in the world.
Faulty stats, on mobile so cant type more, but all I know is we dint wait in line0 -
Should the government be in the position of providing for people's needs?
Seriously.
I need water to survive, but I still have to pay my water bill myself. I need food and shelter, but it's on me to make sure I am fed and housed.
But food stamps, but housing programs. OK.
How do we decide which needs get subsidized?
How do we decide if you 'need' the expensive treatment or the cheaper one? Because if the government is paying, it puts them squarely in charge of what gets paid for. It's my understanding that socialized medicine is OK at responding to everyday conditons and preventative services, but when it comes to specialized services/treatments/care, many people travel to the US for superior care, because their socialized medicine either can't or won't pay for such things.
I'm saying that the government shouldn't really have a hand in it unless the family is too poor to pay for it themselves. Likewise, the insurance companies should be taken out of it, because they're doing nothing but collecting money for themselves. And, yes, some people do come to America for some treatments, but we're by far not the only country that offers them. In terms of technology and innovation, we're beaten by Japan. They also don't have private insurance being mandatory for their citizens to get health care.
Like I said, I think Germany's system is much better. They still have a lot of innovation and good technology but don't have insurance companies to burden their citizens. All people can get treated for whatever they need, and it's not socialized either.0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
I wondered this myself. And, if socialized health care is so bad, why is socialized education not? I'm enjoying socialized education pretty well, myself. And I get my health care through the school too. Oh, man, I'm a commie.
Socialized education and forced car insurance IS bad.....just its been in place so long ppl dont know any diff. The best healthcare in the world is in the US....if we truly wanted to get it cheaper we would enact Tort Rrform
Actually, if you look at the link I provided, it has statistics that show that America does not, indeed have the best health care in the world.
Faulty stats, on mobile so cant type more, but all I know is we dint wait in line
Can you give me a reason that they're faulty? Just because they're not in line with your opinion?0 -
The state of healthcare in the United States is in disarray. Americans are paying more, and receiving less, than any other industrialized nation. Per the Institute of Health, "The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all its citizens." Further, the US currently spends twice as much, per capita, more than any country, ($7,290 in 2007). The US currently spends 16.6% of the gross GDP on health care expenditures.
The below graph shows the disparity in expenditures per country.
(Thompson)
Yet our country has more than 49 million people uninsured, and countless more unable to afford basic, preventative, chronic, or emergent care, even with coverage. In the last decade, while inflation has been around 3.5%, and wages have increased 3.8%, healthcare costs have increased a staggering 87%. Anthem BlueCross of California will be raising rates 37% this year alone.
More than half of all bankruptcies are due to exorbitant medical costs, often incurred by people who are insured. Our infant mortality rate and life expectancies are extremely low, in comparison to other wealthy nations. Lower, in fact, than countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Cuba. (“World Factbook”) Note too that some of these countries are spending a small fraction of what the United States spends per capita.
This shows such a massive disconnect between the expenditures, versus the quality and availability of care. It’s clear that reform needs to occur to reign in the outrageous overspending. But many also advocate for a Universal option, which would provide healthcare to all Americans, despite ability to pay.
There are currently several plans under discussion, and may iterations of each plan have been reviewed. Leading GOP members have urged a complete scrap of both the Senate and House bills, and heading back to the drawing board.
The bills, in their most current forms, are the Senate Finance Committee’s America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, the Senate’s HELP Committee Affordable Health Choices Act, and the House Tri-Committee America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
With an attempt at a bi-partisan compromise, the White House unveiled a new blueprint this week. Due to increased calls for striking the language from the proposals, there is no Universal option offered in this plan. Some of the highlights are as follows:
• The health and human services secretary would work with a seven-member board of doctors, economists and consumer and insurance representatives to review premium hikes.
• New health insurance subsidies would be provided to families of four making up to $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
• The Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole" would be closed by 2020.
• A 40 percent tax would be imposed on insurance companies providing so-called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $27,000 for families.
• The federal government would assist states by picking up 100 percent of the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage through 2017. The federal government would cover 95 percent of costs for 2018 and 2019, and 90 percent in the following years.
• Health insurance exchanges would be created to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.
• Total out-of-pocket expenses would be limited, and insurance companies would be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurers would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history.
• Health insurance exchanges would be created to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.
• Total out-of-pocket expenses would be limited, and insurance companies would be prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Some $40 billion in tax credits would be established for small businesses to help them provide health care options for their employees.
(CNN Health Care in America)
Costs of this plan, as outlined, are expected to number $950 billion over the next ten years, while simultaneously cutting the deficit by $100 billion.
The primary differences between the revised proposal by the White House, and the current bills passed by the House and Senate are the removals of the provisions for universal coverage. The three bills each had measures making health insurance mandatory for citizens.
The Healthy Future Act would require all citizens to have coverage, as a state based program with premium and cost sharing credits to individuals and families between 100-400% of the federal poverty level. There are also provisions to allow for health care exchanges for small businesses to buy coverage. A fee would be assessed to employers who do not offer coverage.
Penalties for not carrying coverage would be enforced at $750 per adult per year phased in by 2017. The cost of this plan is estimated at $871 billion over the next decade. The Senate HELP Committee Affordable Health Choices Act (Senator Kennedy’s bill), is very similar in scope and size to the Healthy Future Act.
The House Tri-Committee America’s Affordable Choices Act of 2009 is more expansive, and is estimated to cost upwards of $1 trillion dollars over the next decade.
The GOP has introduced three alternative health bills, Patients Choice Act of 2009, Health Care Freedom Plan, and Empowering Patients First Act. There is not a significant amount of information regarding these bills, indeed despite extensive searches, anticipated costs and benefits could not be found.
The cost of doing nothing, and maintaining the status quo is substantial as well, and in fact may force lawmakers to address the issue later, if health care reform is scrapped now. The truth is, with the pace of increasing costs, maintaining status quo will cost more and more each year. Every analysis of the current system shows costs keeping pace as they have over the last decade.
That would mean another 80-90% increase on what we are paying now, and for the same care, or even worse. According to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care research group in New York, the typical price of family coverage is $13,000 per year. By 2020, that price will nearly double to $24,000. As costs to individuals rise, it will push the availability and affordability out of range for the middle class, and The Urban Institute predicts the number of uninsured will increase to between 57 and 66 million in the next nine years.
And that does not cover the cost in human life and suffering. Families USA, a consumer advocacy group in Washington, D.C., estimates that more than 275,000 people will die prematurely due to lack of insurance in the next ten years. There will be massive decline in services offered to insured patients, and many will suffer from financial catastrophe, as they discover that their policies do not cover them in the event of a major illness or injury. Bankruptcies and enormous debt will plague those unfortunate to have gaps in coverage allowances.
And perhaps the most striking, several presidents in recent years have proposed plans that have failed to pass. The Commonwealth Fund has analyzed the plans put forward by then President Nixon would have saved our country an astonishing one trillion dollars per year on health care costs. To me, that says inaction is the most costly plan of all. While we are all debating which version of which plan to enact into law, in several decades, will the perspective of 40 years of hindsight show us a similar sense of loss?0 -
You all realize that the health care bill was passed and not one person in Congress actually read the whole bill, not even the person who wrote it! You all get that right? Nancy Pelosi said that we "Have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it." Really? Seriously???
There's a reason why Healthcare is offered as a BENEFIT and a reason why some businesses don't offer the BENEFIT to their employees: They can't afford it. I'm a small business and if I were to have employees and be forced to provide them with healthcare I wouldn't be in business any longer because I can't afford it. I think it is absolutely ludoucris that I can be fined for not carrying health insurance. What happens if I don't pay the fine, are they going to put me in jail?
We've become a country where everything is mandated, where everything is monitored. It's ridiculous. I understand that not everyone can afford insurance but news flash: You can still go to the doctors and get medical procedures done WITHOUT it. You work something out with the provider of the services. How do I know? Because I purchased my health insurance for catastrophic loss. I have a $10,000 deductible and when I go to the doctors I ask them how much it will cost and explain that I really don't have insurance and guess what? They always work something out with me.
I think the whole bill should be kicked out.0 -
"The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all its citizens."
Considering we are more than $15 TRILLION dollars in debt and not that far from being in the same boat as Greece and Spain with a Moody's Down Grade I hardly consider the US wealthy.0 -
You all realize that the health care bill was passed and not one person in Congress actually read the whole bill, not even the person who wrote it! You all get that right? Nancy Pelosi said that we "Have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it." Really? Seriously???
There's a reason why Healthcare is offered as a BENEFIT and a reason why some businesses don't offer the BENEFIT to their employees: They can't afford it. I'm a small business and if I were to have employees and be forced to provide them with healthcare I wouldn't be in business any longer because I can't afford it. I think it is absolutely ludoucris that I can be fined for not carrying health insurance. What happens if I don't pay the fine, are they going to put me in jail?
We've become a country where everything is mandated, where everything is monitored. It's ridiculous. I understand that not everyone can afford insurance but news flash: You can still go to the doctors and get medical procedures done WITHOUT it. You work something out with the provider of the services. How do I know? Because I purchased my health insurance for catastrophic loss. I have a $10,000 deductible and when I go to the doctors I ask them how much it will cost and explain that I really don't have insurance and guess what? They always work something out with me.
I think the whole bill should be kicked out.
Once again, back to Germany's health care system. If a company makes too little to pay into the sickness funds for it's employees, the remaining is covered with taxes.
Also, as the person above you posted, we pay more for healthcare here than almost any other industrialized country per GDP, most of that is people going to the hospital UNINSURED and the tax payers having to pick up the bill.
What's so wrong with paying less per capita and paying less of the GDP for something that is more efficient than what we have now? The money we save could go to other things, such as reforming the education system, and then we wouldn't have to tax the precious rich people or touch the outrageous defense budget.0 -
"The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all its citizens."
Considering we are more than $15 TRILLION dollars in debt and not that far from being in the same boat as Greece and Spain with a Moody's Down Grade I hardly consider the US wealthy.
But somehow we're wealthy enough to give people who make six figure incomes a tax break. Funny how those things work out.0 -
If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that set the precedent that auto insurance mandates are unconstitutional as well?
Auto insurance mandates are not federal. They are handled on the state level. In addition, if you do not have a car you do not have to have auto insurance.
I think everyone should have health insurance. I don't think the federal government should be involved in it.
Who do you think should provide it? I agree that the federal government should not provide it for everybody, but I want to know your opinion on who should.
Who do you think should provide something that you want?
Having any type of insurance is not a right. If you are an adult then YOU should provide YOUR insurance if you want it. If you have children then YOU should provide their insurance if you want it. If the citizens of a state vote to implement a health care law then so be it. I don't think anyone should be involved in my choice to have health insurance but if it happens it should be handled on a state level so I can chose to move.
It's not just something that people WANT it's something that they NEED. There is a difference. And, what about the people who have children but can't afford health care for them? Their children should just get sick and die? That's cool, too, I guess.
This is where we disagree. You think people NEED health insurance and they do not. I didn't have health insurance until I was 27. How did I get through my day without that basic NEED. I have it now because I have the means and want to offer additional security for my family. 0
This discussion has been closed.