Obamacare
Replies
-
[/quote]
QUOTE: Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
[/quote] END QUOTE
You obey the traffic laws or you get fined. Those laws apply to anyone on the road, across the board. I'm sure you'd rather speed or not stop at every stop sign but you obey because it is the law and serves the greater society. You inherited this culture of law, which is basically a philosophy of communal living in greater peace and safety. The health market needs to be brought into this same philosophical paradigm. It has been living the high life and has become deeply flawed, if not down-right decadent.
Part of the high cost of healthcare today is paying for all of the people who don’t pay anything for their health care. Now Congress, under its power to lay and collect taxes created a reasonable tax for health care, same as local governments create reasonable taxes for public safety and trash removal, just to name a few and for which I'm very thankful for. With the burden of health user slackers gone - thank you Justice Roberts - the cost of care will go down. Maybe? That's the plan, although greedy insurance companies are going to try and make even more money off of this, just watch.
Modern/global problems require modern/global solutions. The health market we currently have is unfair (preexisting conditions anyone?) and completely unsustainable. Government needs to step in and regulate it - government in this case is not overreaching but protecting us. Ultimately, I would rather see a single institution with the capability of encompassing the entire population and power to attack such a problem do so rather than sit on their collective specially insured *sses, er hands, but at least a small step in the right direction was made.
-Debra0 -
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.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
Gotta love the snark. By "within reason" I mean people shouldn't be allowed to consider things like murdering and/or stealing as an acceptable way of life... However, if your rights don't infringe on another's then by all means have at it.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.0 -
There are a lot of good things in this law. How pre-existing conditions are dealt with and that you cannot be dropped if you get sick are a couple of items that make sense. I just don't like that they bundled it all up into a package and shoved it down our throats. The federal government will now force people to buy health insurance and tax them if they do not. What's next? Most adults need transportation. Maybe the federal government will mandate that everyone when buying a car must buy a new car made in the U.S. to prop up the US auto industry? If you don't buy a US made car you get taxed.
In the end, it has almost no effect on me. I have health insurance today and I will still have health insurance tomorrow. My rate will probably go up a bit but I can handle it. In addition, I am happy I can shelter my children until they are 26.
I don't think the supporters of this law realize that they still have to BUY health insurance. I really think they think they are getting something for free. I am going to have a good laugh when those that can't afford insurance today STILL can't afford insurance tomorrow and start b1tching because they have to pay the penalty tax which is still cheaper then the insurance policy. In fact, I am willing to bet most of the penalty money will have to be paid by people making less then 50k per year.0 -
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.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
Gotta love the snark. By "within reason" I mean people shouldn't be allowed to consider things like murdering and/or stealing as an acceptable way of life... However, if your rights don't infringe on another's then by all means have at it.
While I am certainly not above snark, I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. Just pointing out that "within reason" encompasses a wide range of possible outcomes, behaviors, etc. You could go up to 100 people and probably get 70 different answers about what is considered "within reason" and what needs to be regulated.
And if you went to each of those 100 people, each and every one of them would sincerely believe that their views represented the epitome of freedom, liberty, and constitutionality.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.
Although I agree with you that everyone at some point will need healthcare... everyone does not need health insurance. This law forces people to buy health insurance. It does not force people to buy healthcare. There is a difference. I have paid for healthcare in the past without having health insurance.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.
Although I agree with you that everyone at some point will need healthcare... everyone does not need health insurance. This law forces people to buy health insurance. It does not force people to buy healthcare. There is a difference. I have paid for healthcare in the past without having health insurance.
Did you skip over the part where I indicated that the answer appears to be to get rid of health insurance, but since that seemsto be unpopular....
As it happens, healthcare and insurance markets linked by necessity so long as insurance exists.0 -
There are a lot of good things in this law. How pre-existing conditions are dealt with and that you cannot be dropped if you get sick are a couple of items that make sense. I just don't like that they bundled it all up into a package and shoved it down our throats. The federal government will now force people to buy health insurance and tax them if they do not. What's next? Most adults need transportation. Maybe the federal government will mandate that everyone when buying a car must buy a new car made in the U.S. to prop up the US auto industry? If you don't buy a US made car you get taxed.
In the end, it has almost no effect on me. I have health insurance today and I will still have health insurance tomorrow. My rate will probably go up a bit but I can handle it. In addition, I am happy I can shelter my children until they are 26.
I don't think the supporters of this law realize that they still have to BUY health insurance. I really think they think they are getting something for free. I am going to have a good laugh when those that can't afford insurance today STILL can't afford insurance tomorrow and start *****ing because they have to pay the penalty tax which is still cheaper then the insurance policy. In fact, I am willing to bet most of the penalty money will have to be paid by people making less then 50k per year.
The estimates are that individuals who have to pay the "penalty" will only be about 1% of the population.
And the problem with some of your answer is the same challenge that has faced those trying to improve the health care system for decades. First of all, it's a complex system that employs hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people and generates huge profits. Even if Obama had the magic wand that most people think he possesses, he could not eliminate it overnight. (A point often lost on my liberal friends who want an instant single-payer system).
And the American system is built on the (increasingly mythical IMO) idea that we should all have "freedom of choice" of our health care providers. So any alterations to the system had to preserve the appearance of that tradition as well.
Lastly, everyone wants the goodies (no preexisting conditions, keep kids on the plan), but people seem to think those benefits are left by the health care fairy with no bill. The only way to pay for that is to enlarge the risk pool. Even republicans know this--they're just not allowed to say it aloud.
While certainly flawed, the ACA, like most of Obama's programs, represents an attempt to improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans who have found it more difficult to get by and enjoy a quality of life for the past 30 years. It is also an attempt to start to get health care costs under control--or to at least slow down the increase.
I don't have any problem with people who criticize the particulars of the bill itself--although I do require that they propose a viable alternative if they want me to take them seriously (or at least just honestly admit they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves). But a lot of the comments you read in various places from conservatives or others about "destroying America", blah, blah, blah, are just beyond ridiculous IMO, especially since conservatives have said pretty much the exact same thing about every social advance made during the past 100 years.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.
Although I agree with you that everyone at some point will need healthcare... everyone does not need health insurance. This law forces people to buy health insurance. It does not force people to buy healthcare. There is a difference. I have paid for healthcare in the past without having health insurance.
Did you skip over the part where I indicated that the answer appears to be to get rid of health insurance, but since that seemsto be unpopular....
As it happens, healthcare and insurance markets linked by necessity so long as insurance exists.
I second this opinion. Health insurance companies don't help anybody.0 -
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.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
Gotta love the snark. By "within reason" I mean people shouldn't be allowed to consider things like murdering and/or stealing as an acceptable way of life... However, if your rights don't infringe on another's then by all means have at it.
While I am certainly not above snark, I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. Just pointing out that "within reason" encompasses a wide range of possible outcomes, behaviors, etc. You could go up to 100 people and probably get 70 different answers about what is considered "within reason" and what needs to be regulated.
And if you went to each of those 100 people, each and every one of them would sincerely believe that their views represented the epitome of freedom, liberty, and constitutionality.
I get that. Really I do. That is why I used the clause of within reason because it is so fluid. But my point was I don't like the over regulating of people's behaviors. Yes (like a PP brought up) we have rules on the road to make people drive safer (hopefully) but in my opinion to not do so would cause people to infringe on other peoples right to drive safely and safely get to their destination. Or on the flipside perhaps if enough people had gotten hurt in the past, their would be an automatic safe driving culture (though I don't see that likely). And yes, while covering the uninsured ends up being the burden of the tax payer and premium holders, that is largely because the uninsured don't pay their bills (and I'm not just talking the high dollar bills either) and they generally aren't smart about where they should go.... Or perhaps they are since most people know that the ER cannot turn you away even if you can't pay, so they are thusly stealing from the hospital and those that pay their bills. When instead they could find a much cheaper clinic or even if they are fortunate a free clinic for their everyday illnesses and pay their bill. And no, it doesn't have to be all that expensive especially if they have different types of clinics. The clinics in places like Walmart or cvs are typically the cheapest. Less than $100 for almost everything. I would LOVE to see that type of program expanded across the states. Unfortunately, states don't like that.0 -
I am reading -- from sources as diverse as Krauthammer and Chris Hayes -- that Roberts decision to uphold the ACA was based to a large extent on what he considered the radicalism and extreme language of the dissent.
Per Krauthammer (and this is the first and hopefully last time in my life I will ever quote Krauthammer):He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.
The Bush v Gore decision in 2000 was seen by many as a blatantly partisan act, a de facto coup d'etat carried out by a political faction within the Court. Since then, the court's reputation has steadily declined. (This might be one reason: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-28/news/ct-oped-0628-dionne-20120628_1_justice-scalia-immigration-law-illegal-immigrants).
Nonetheless, Roberts wanted to avoida similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.
National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.
Hence a carefully-crafted decision that supported all the conservative objections and did everything but overturn the law. A decision so tortuously worded that it fooled at least 5 major news outlets into thinking it was overturned.
Essentially, Roberts said, yeah, he did not like the law, but he wasn't going to do the republicans hatchet work for them. Go overturn the law yourself--the right way, in the legislature.
The irony, of course, is that this is exactly the position advocated by those who claim to oppose "judicial activism".
All in all, I tend to agree with those who say that, other than overturning the actual law, this decision was more a victory for conservatives than liberals.0 -
I'd just like to add my tuppence-worth. I'm in Scotland, part of the UK, and our healthcare is basically the NHS, with a little extra that the remainder of the UK don't get.
We're part of the NHS, so our income is taxed at source, and this covers education, justice, healthcare, etc. if you want a boob job or an eyebrow lift, cough up yourself. Unless it's a real condition affecting your mental or physical health, i.e. big boobs hurting your back. That's the NHS overall. In Scotland, we have free personal care for the over 65s, so if you're 65+ and need help washing, eating, etc., which as a nation (planet) of ageing people we do, the state (in Scotland) pays for this. It's not perfect, especially in these economic times, but it's better than nothing.
I work hard, I pay my taxes and I have no problem at all that some of my tax money is given to "lazy", "poor", "freeloaders" whatever label you choose to apply. Would I rather it was fair and we all worked to reap our rewards?! Of course. But I'd rather know that I'm paying for one "layabout" than know someone who needs it is going without. I might need it tomorrow. My mother might need it next week.
I am very much in the 'health is not a luxury' camp. Food is not a luxury. Cigarettes and alcohol are luxuries. Holidays are luxuries. In every system there will be flaws and those who 'milk it', but as I said, I'd rather know that (God-forbid) something goes wrong and I lose my job, my leg falls off or whatever, I'll receive care. I might have to wait (though not in an emergency) and if I don't like it, like Sexforjaffacakes said earlier, I can opt for 'private health care'. Essentially this is paying twice, as it comes off my salary anyway, which is why I don't go private.
I really can't understand, coming from over here what the fuss is about. Sure, you don't want to be 'forced' to pay for insurance/healthcare, but does that mean you don't want it and/or it's not right/fair/humane/civilised that we all have it? We don't want to be forced to do anything, but tough tittie - I'm forced to live by the laws of society, so I don't steal, defraud, murder, etc. I don't want to, but a civilised society means we don't do those things, whether we're forced not to, or not. So I think a civilised society should not have people living in fear/poverty of not receiving medical treatment - I read recently about an Americal girl who was covered by her parents' insurance until she was 18 (or 16? doesn't matter) and now that she's an adult, she can't get medical insurance because she was born with a medical condition for which she requires treatment. How on earth is that ok in anyone's book!0 -
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.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
Gotta love the snark. By "within reason" I mean people shouldn't be allowed to consider things like murdering and/or stealing as an acceptable way of life... However, if your rights don't infringe on another's then by all means have at it.
While I am certainly not above snark, I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. Just pointing out that "within reason" encompasses a wide range of possible outcomes, behaviors, etc. You could go up to 100 people and probably get 70 different answers about what is considered "within reason" and what needs to be regulated.
And if you went to each of those 100 people, each and every one of them would sincerely believe that their views represented the epitome of freedom, liberty, and constitutionality.
I get that. Really I do. That is why I used the clause of within reason because it is so fluid. But my point was I don't like the over regulating of people's behaviors. Yes (like a PP brought up) we have rules on the road to make people drive safer (hopefully) but in my opinion to not do so would cause people to infringe on other peoples right to drive safely and safely get to their destination. Or on the flipside perhaps if enough people had gotten hurt in the past, their would be an automatic safe driving culture (though I don't see that likely). And yes, while covering the uninsured ends up being the burden of the tax payer and premium holders, that is largely because the uninsured don't pay their bills (and I'm not just talking the high dollar bills either) and they generally aren't smart about where they should go.... Or perhaps they are since most people know that the ER cannot turn you away even if you can't pay, so they are thusly stealing from the hospital and those that pay their bills. When instead they could find a much cheaper clinic or even if they are fortunate a free clinic for their everyday illnesses and pay their bill. And no, it doesn't have to be all that expensive especially if they have different types of clinics. The clinics in places like Walmart or cvs are typically the cheapest. Less than $100 for almost everything. I would LOVE to see that type of program expanded across the states. Unfortunately, states don't like that.
And the arguments you advance are an ongoing part of our democratic experiment. I think the dispute is healthy--within reason
Our personal liberty and freedoms sit at the heart of American values---I mean, we put up with a lot of negative things in our society because our desire for individual freedom is so important. So there will be constant friction between groups as the relationship between freedom and order, freedom and accountability constantly evolves. I get exasperated as much as anyone, but I keep telling myself it's a good thing.
I also think people may be oversimplifying the ACA and its provisions. As I understand it, a significant portion of it is intended to support the health care delivery model you describe. There are two key areas to decrease healthcare costs: divert ordinary, non-emergent care away from hospital ER rooms, and emphasize preventive care, not only to slow down the progress of lifestyle-related diseases, but to treat more common problems earlier before they become worse.
I mentioned in an earlier post that one of the overarching themes of the Obama administration (other than to destroy our freedoms and institute Sharia law) is to focus on improving the lives, well-being and chances for success for the majority of Americans, not just the top 1% or 10%. This usually is interpreted negatively by those who see all social issues through a racial prism, but in fact, the emphasis is on working, middle-class families--most of them white BTW--who have been left behind for the past 30 years. In higher-education, the emphasis has been on community colleges, in health care, on community clinics.0 -
I am sure there are dozens of like stories out there, but this is one I came across that puts a human face on the esoteric issues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-health-care-decision-20120629,0,7451497.storyI was one of the early beneficiaries of the law. When I was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer late last year, I had no health insurance, which meant my options were extremely limited. No insurer would pick up someone in my circumstances. But luckily, the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan had already kicked in, and it made it possible for me to purchase insurance under a government program.
I was uninsured not because I'm a lazy, freeloading deadbeat but because my husband and I are self-employed. We had been purchasing health insurance on the individual market along with 6% of the rest of the population. But after exhausting all of our resources trying to keep up with premiums of $1,500 a month, we had no choice but to cancel it.
I can tell you that "Obamacare" — at least the part I've participated in — works. A week ago, I had a double mastectomy after five months of chemotherapy. I have been receiving outstanding care in West Hills — no death panels, no rationing, no waiting, no government officials telling my doctors what to do, no denials of tests or treatments, none of the stuff that the plan's critics said would happen.
This is the part that always disgusts meSix months ago, when I first wrote about my situation in this newspaper, I got hate mail from people who said I deserved to die.
And then the last partI never thought I'd get cancer. Nobody does.0 -
Yes it should & yes it does in civilised nations.People also need shelter, food and water to survive. Should the government just provide that for everyone too?
If so, put me down for a 4 bedroom home, built pre-cival war.
Only a country of barbarians would deem it acceptable to let the poor die.
The developed world has extensive healthcare, social housing, social care & a welfare state to look after the unfortunate, disabled & out of work.
I love to hear from right wing conservative Christians, arguing against healthcare for the poor - because that's clearly what Jesus would do
...... 0 -
I am sure there are dozens of like stories out there, but this is one I came across that puts a human face on the esoteric issues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-health-care-decision-20120629,0,7451497.storyI was one of the early beneficiaries of the law. When I was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer late last year, I had no health insurance, which meant my options were extremely limited. No insurer would pick up someone in my circumstances. But luckily, the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan had already kicked in, and it made it possible for me to purchase insurance under a government program.
I was uninsured not because I'm a lazy, freeloading deadbeat but because my husband and I are self-employed. We had been purchasing health insurance on the individual market along with 6% of the rest of the population. But after exhausting all of our resources trying to keep up with premiums of $1,500 a month, we had no choice but to cancel it.
I can tell you that "Obamacare" — at least the part I've participated in — works. A week ago, I had a double mastectomy after five months of chemotherapy. I have been receiving outstanding care in West Hills — no death panels, no rationing, no waiting, no government officials telling my doctors what to do, no denials of tests or treatments, none of the stuff that the plan's critics said would happen.
This is the part that always disgusts meSix months ago, when I first wrote about my situation in this newspaper, I got hate mail from people who said I deserved to die.
And then the last partI never thought I'd get cancer. Nobody does.
Personally, I do like parts of ACA... like that folks with pre-existing conditions and don't have a company that has open enrollment health insurance benefits... I also like that lifetime maximums went out of the window... though I know that these two things alone will make premiums skyrocket... it puts insurers in check... especially since they can deem anything a "pre-existing" condition if they would like... But I still don't think that forcing people to buy health insurance is going to decrease or stalemate the costs of health care.0 -
Right wing conservative Christian checking in! I want all people cared for, but not this way. You seem to think that people who do not have health insurance are left in the streets to die. That is false. The United States also has healthcare, social housing, social care & a welfare state to look after the unfortunate, disabled & out of work.I love to hear from right wing conservative Christians, arguing against healthcare for the poor - because that's clearly what Jesus would do......0 -
Yes it should & yes it does in civilised nations.People also need shelter, food and water to survive. Should the government just provide that for everyone too?
If so, put me down for a 4 bedroom home, built pre-cival war.
Only a country of barbarians would deem it acceptable to let the poor die.
The developed world has extensive healthcare, social housing, social care & a welfare state to look after the unfortunate, disabled & out of work.
I love to hear from right wing conservative Christians, arguing against healthcare for the poor - because that's clearly what Jesus would do......
Yup, because all of those against ACA are right wing conservative Christians or against anything for poor people *eyeroll*...
In the wise words of Benjamin Franklin (as Poor Richard) "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means."
Just because one might be against something that supposedly "helps" the poor doesn't mean they are against the poor or helping them... It just means they have a differing opinion on how to do it.... And pigeonholing people with a differing opinion than your own is helping no one.0 -
If you are refering to me as a right-wing, conservative Christian, you are wrong on all accounts. Keep sticking to that mud slinging though, it really makes your point. :grumble:
Yes it should & yes it does in civilised nations.People also need shelter, food and water to survive. Should the government just provide that for everyone too?
If so, put me down for a 4 bedroom home, built pre-cival war.
Only a country of barbarians would deem it acceptable to let the poor die.
The developed world has extensive healthcare, social housing, social care & a welfare state to look after the unfortunate, disabled & out of work.
I love to hear from right wing conservative Christians, arguing against healthcare for the poor - because that's clearly what Jesus would do......0 -
,,,,,,,,,Every industry gets hit with bankruptcies, Its the risk of doing business. Besides, businesses can write a good chuck of these losses off. These losses don't just get passed onto the next guy.
"Write a good chuck of those losses off",,, that's strictly a tax writeoff. Many medical care providers are getting 30% or 40% of their revenue from the fed from Medicare-Medicaid-S-chip programs etc. Writing stuff off just takes money from the fed that's paying the bill - and therefore it is passed on to the taxpayer aka 'the next guy' - (aka, you and me :grumble: ).
One industry getting hit by 42% of all bankruptcies filed has got to take a chunk.
So 78% of people who file bankruptcy because of medical bills HAVE insurance. Someone remind me again why this bill is helping the middle/lower class and making healthcare MORE affordable?
We aren't going to let the poor, homeless and childred die, we are just going to bankrupt them by forcing the country to buy insurance.0 -
Yes it should & yes it does in civilised nations.People also need shelter, food and water to survive. Should the government just provide that for everyone too?
If so, put me down for a 4 bedroom home, built pre-cival war.
Only a country of barbarians would deem it acceptable to let the poor die.
The developed world has extensive healthcare, social housing, social care & a welfare state to look after the unfortunate, disabled & out of work.
I love to hear from right wing conservative Christians, arguing against healthcare for the poor - because that's clearly what Jesus would do......
I like the joke that conservatives who were enraged at the ruling planned to leave the country--but they couldn't find another western industrial nation that didn't have socialized medicine.
I realize that many people don't think that "commonly accepted standards of civilized behavior" apply to America, and they may have good reasons for thinking so.
But I think it at least deserves serious consideration of the question "why not?".0 -
But don't you understand that you can't have all those cool things without the individual mandate. You just can't, it will destroy the entire system.,,,,,,,,,,,,
Personally, I do like parts of ACA... like that folks with pre-existing conditions and don't have a company that has open enrollment health insurance benefits... I also like that lifetime maximums went out of the window... though I know that these two things alone will make premiums skyrocket... it puts insurers in check... especially since they can deem anything a "pre-existing" condition if they would like... But I still don't think that forcing people to buy health insurance is going to decrease or stalemate the costs of health care.
Let's imagine that I can walk in to any insurance office, and they have to cover me for a given charge without regard to preexisting conditions. They can't turn me away (you like that part) and they can't refuse me if I'm already sick (you like that part too).
Under those circumstances a huge % of people will never carry insurance until they get sick. ""I'll pay for my little stuff out of pocket"". Then on that awful day, when they do get the cancer diagnosis, THEN they sign up for coverage. Pretty soon you have a situation where just about everybody with health insurance is paying a $1,500 a month premium and burning up $7,000 a month in chemo treatments. Clearly that's not sustainable.
You can't just eat desert,,, you have to eat your dinner too.0 -
I am sure there are dozens of like stories out there, but this is one I came across that puts a human face on the esoteric issues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-health-care-decision-20120629,0,7451497.storyI was one of the early beneficiaries of the law. When I was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer late last year, I had no health insurance, which meant my options were extremely limited. No insurer would pick up someone in my circumstances. But luckily, the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan had already kicked in, and it made it possible for me to purchase insurance under a government program.
I was uninsured not because I'm a lazy, freeloading deadbeat but because my husband and I are self-employed. We had been purchasing health insurance on the individual market along with 6% of the rest of the population. But after exhausting all of our resources trying to keep up with premiums of $1,500 a month, we had no choice but to cancel it.
I can tell you that "Obamacare" — at least the part I've participated in — works. A week ago, I had a double mastectomy after five months of chemotherapy. I have been receiving outstanding care in West Hills — no death panels, no rationing, no waiting, no government officials telling my doctors what to do, no denials of tests or treatments, none of the stuff that the plan's critics said would happen.
This is the part that always disgusts meSix months ago, when I first wrote about my situation in this newspaper, I got hate mail from people who said I deserved to die.
And then the last partI never thought I'd get cancer. Nobody does.
Personally, I do like parts of ACA... like that folks with pre-existing conditions and don't have a company that has open enrollment health insurance benefits... I also like that lifetime maximums went out of the window... though I know that these two things alone will make premiums skyrocket... it puts insurers in check... especially since they can deem anything a "pre-existing" condition if they would like... But I still don't think that forcing people to buy health insurance is going to decrease or stalemate the costs of health care.
From what I understand, the purpose of the mandate is to enlarge the risk pool to help pay for the expanded coverage. Putting the single-payer option aside, it would be unfair to ask an insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions without spreading out the cost. Kind of like making a bookie take all the action on the favorite without being allowed to lay off any bets.
The cost containment is intended to come from greater access on/emphasis to preventive health services, and to what we mentioned earlier--shifting of routine care from ERs to community health centers.
There are other provisions as well, but I don't claim in any way to be an expert on all the provisions. I do know that one of the most important parts of the ACA--one that has already gone into effect--is that health care insurers must spend at least 85% of premiums directly on health care itself -- not overhead, administrative costs, executive salaries, etc.0 -
It's funny seeing all the new comments start to show up.
Sometimes it seems like people are spending a big part of their work days on MFP ......:laugh:
I work Sun-Thurs and have been super busy, so I have had to catch up. Plus with the new puppy, I am up at 5am-6am everyday--like it or not.,0 -
But don't you understand that you can't have all those cool things without the individual mandate. You just can't, it will destroy the entire system.,,,,,,,,,,,,
Personally, I do like parts of ACA... like that folks with pre-existing conditions and don't have a company that has open enrollment health insurance benefits... I also like that lifetime maximums went out of the window... though I know that these two things alone will make premiums skyrocket... it puts insurers in check... especially since they can deem anything a "pre-existing" condition if they would like... But I still don't think that forcing people to buy health insurance is going to decrease or stalemate the costs of health care.
Let's imagine that I can walk in to any insurance office, and they have to cover me for a given charge without regard to preexisting conditions. They can't turn me away (you like that part) and they can't refuse me if I'm already sick (you like that part too).
Under those circumstances a huge % of people will never carry insurance until they get sick. ""I'll pay for my little stuff out of pocket"". Then on that awful day, when they do get the cancer diagnosis, THEN they sign up for coverage. Pretty soon you have a situation where just about everybody with health insurance is paying a $1,500 a month premium and burning up $7,000 a month in chemo treatments. Clearly that's not sustainable.
You can't just eat desert,,, you have to eat your dinner too.
Matt Yglesias switched his Twitter icon to a stalk of broccoli yesterday.0 -
I'd just like to add my tuppence-worth. I'm in Scotland, part of the UK, and our healthcare is basically the NHS, with a little extra that the remainder of the UK don't get.
We're part of the NHS, so our income is taxed at source, and this covers education, justice, healthcare, etc. if you want a boob job or an eyebrow lift, cough up yourself. Unless it's a real condition affecting your mental or physical health, i.e. big boobs hurting your back. That's the NHS overall. In Scotland, we have free personal care for the over 65s, so if you're 65+ and need help washing, eating, etc., which as a nation (planet) of ageing people we do, the state (in Scotland) pays for this. It's not perfect, especially in these economic times, but it's better than nothing.
I work hard, I pay my taxes and I have no problem at all that some of my tax money is given to "lazy", "poor", "freeloaders" whatever label you choose to apply. Would I rather it was fair and we all worked to reap our rewards?! Of course. But I'd rather know that I'm paying for one "layabout" than know someone who needs it is going without. I might need it tomorrow. My mother might need it next week.
I am very much in the 'health is not a luxury' camp. Food is not a luxury. Cigarettes and alcohol are luxuries. Holidays are luxuries. In every system there will be flaws and those who 'milk it', but as I said, I'd rather know that (God-forbid) something goes wrong and I lose my job, my leg falls off or whatever, I'll receive care. I might have to wait (though not in an emergency) and if I don't like it, like Sexforjaffacakes said earlier, I can opt for 'private health care'. Essentially this is paying twice, as it comes off my salary anyway, which is why I don't go private.
I really can't understand, coming from over here what the fuss is about. Sure, you don't want to be 'forced' to pay for insurance/healthcare, but does that mean you don't want it and/or it's not right/fair/humane/civilised that we all have it? We don't want to be forced to do anything, but tough tittie - I'm forced to live by the laws of society, so I don't steal, defraud, murder, etc. I don't want to, but a civilised society means we don't do those things, whether we're forced not to, or not. So I think a civilised society should not have people living in fear/poverty of not receiving medical treatment - I read recently about an Americal girl who was covered by her parents' insurance until she was 18 (or 16? doesn't matter) and now that she's an adult, she can't get medical insurance because she was born with a medical condition for which she requires treatment. How on earth is that ok in anyone's book!
If that system is so great why was the UK trying desperately to find cost saving measures recently? They are trying to shave 31 b from the NHS budget by 2015. That will only lead to shortages in staff, nurses and doctors which will not lead to better care. Why have there been reports for people who had to give birth in ambulances, or people who had to come here because they couldn't get timely treatment for their cancer?
There is a dirty little secret that liberals over here won't tell you, we already had a safety net for the poor, it's called Medicade. And there are various other state programs people can go on. It's not like people didn't have options.
A Canadian premier recently came to the US to get care that was being rationed by his "great" "free" and "fair" system.
I suggest you read this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/12/19/the-ugly-realities-of-socialized-medicine-are-not-going-away-3/2/
The only way these systems will work the way they are designed is to take more and more money from the taxpayer.
Food, housing, transportation are all necessities of life, should the government in the interest of fairness tax everyone and then give each person the same amount of food, housing and cars? No person should have access to a better diet than the next seeing that we need food just like healthcare to survive. Government cannot regulate the world to be a fair place.0 -
Awwww.....new puppy?! What kind? How old?Plus with the new puppy, I am up at 5am-6am everyday--like it or not.,0 -
I said I liked the idea... not necessarily how it would be implemented... In my ideal world, we wouldn't need health insurance... hospitals would still be non-profit, and States couldn't try and shut down clinics that are trying to help people by offering plans that don't require insurance.... For example (now I am not from NYC, so all I know is what I have read in the news articles online), there was a clinic in one of the buroughs of NYC (Brooklyn I believe, but I could be wrong) where the founding Physician wanted to create a subscription fee of $75 per person per month... and anyone on that "plan" could come in and have whatever done that the office can do as many times as needed (if that clinic was anything like the Student Clinic at the University I went to, this would include, blood work, wellness exams, xrays, ekg's, nutrition consultation, and even minor surgeries... among other things)... But the State of NY (again according to the articles I have read) didn't like that because they concluded it was "insurance" and have been fighting to get the clinic to shut that program down.... now if this was an affordable way for uninsured people to get health care, why in the hell would the State hinder that?
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/health/22914637/detail.html
Here is a story about a similar doctor in Florida... but at the end it talks about the one I just did.0 -
It's funny seeing all the new comments start to show up.
Sometimes it seems like people are spending a big part of their work days on MFP ......:laugh:
I work Sun-Thurs and have been super busy, so I have had to catch up. Plus with the new puppy, I am up at 5am-6am everyday--like it or not.,
Yup that would be me... My job is a lot of waiting or repetitive work.... That and I'm procrastinating my perfomance review... I hate self-evaluating myself... 0 -
It's funny seeing all the new comments start to show up.
Sometimes it seems like people are spending a big part of their work days on MFP ......:laugh:
I work Sun-Thurs and have been super busy, so I have had to catch up. Plus with the new puppy, I am up at 5am-6am everyday--like it or not.,
Yup that would be me... My job is a lot of waiting or repetitive work.... That and I'm procrastinating my perfomance review... I hate self-evaluating myself...
My boss is out today and I leave for my beach vacation tomorrow. I don't plan on doing a single thing today besides banking. :bigsmile:0
This discussion has been closed.