Another Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare expected Monday

[hotatlboi]

the government is trying to argue that the fact that a citizen is alive requires them to purchase insurance

No it is not, and this is the fundamental failing in your understanding.

It is arguing, that the citizen must purchase insurance if the citizen will end up using health care facilities at some point, whether they think they will need it or not. This applies to most people, that is a fact.

And if they don't have insurance then everyone else has to pay for their treatment.

Someone that is alive but is not going to be using private health care services in the united states has no obligation under the mandate (like say an American citizen living abroad, or a military person etc).

It is the same model as car insurance because, I may think I am a good driver and will not need liability insurance, but it is a virtual certainty that I will at some point if I drive a car. People that are going to need health care services in the United States and are not covered are a serious drain on the system. This requirement is not oppressive or unreasonable. If someone cannot afford insurance, the government will pay for it with a subsidy.

 

[rareboy]

^ You're wasting your time.

It is like arguing a point with a fence post.

The reactionaries will never accept the argument that it is the equivalent of everyone driving....a lot of people are under the false delusion that they and their families won't ever need healthcare.

 

[btmbabyboi]

So when do you expect to start having to pay a licensing fee for your body? Will you happily except getting a PIN tattooed on your body, too?

Let's not be too melodramatic here. Of course, it will be up to the courts to decide, then we live with the decision. If we don't like it, we vote the bums out in 4 years (or 6). That's what keeps us lemmings from uprising (like Tunesia, Egypt, Iran, China(?).

The auto insurance analogy to health insurance doesn't pass 'reasonable-ness' muster because driving is a privilige and health care is a right (assuming we don't approve of dead bodies in the street). Sine we ARE prepared to have people NOT drive, but we ARE NOT prepared to have people NOT get health care, you can't make the analogy. (FOX news can, but they're 'special'-and wrong)

But if you make the assumption that EVERYONE will get health care, then SOMEONE has to pay for it.

If you make that assumption, there will be people who need more care than others. Those who don't need the care (presently) will balk at the prospect of paying for some intangible. Young kids, singles, will simply say "I don't need the care, so I won't pay for the insurance." Fine. Should THEY have the right to opt out? Absolutely,,,if WE'RE allowed the right not to pick up the tab when they break their leg skiing.
You see, they want it both ways. No insurance AND access to the best medical care in the world.

Let the government pay for my insurance. Right!
If Republican ideals stand for "individual accountability and determination," then why are they so against making individual citizens accountable and responsible for their own bodily maintainance? (because the other guys thought of it first.)
It is pretty sick, when you think about it!

We need to kill the partisan ideas and start thinking like "Americans", one naton. This issue is too big to play with.
Please forgive the rant. I'll shut up.

 

[joaama]

How about your previous statement, about republicans being the only ones crying about judicial activism?

They do.

Are you shocked that Obama is acting like a conservative?

 

[jackoroe]

Let's not be too melodramatic here. Of course, it will be up to the courts to decide, then we live with the decision. If we don't like it, we vote the bums out in 4 years (or 6). That's what keeps us lemmings from uprising (like Tunesia, Egypt, Iran, China(?).

The auto insurance analogy to health insurance doesn't pass 'reasonable-ness' muster because driving is a privilige and health care is a right (assuming we don't approve of dead bodies in the street). Sine we ARE prepared to have people NOT drive, but we ARE NOT prepared to have people NOT get health care, you can't make the analogy. (FOX news can, but they're 'special'-and wrong)

But if you make the assumption that EVERYONE will get health care, then SOMEONE has to pay for it.

If you make that assumption, there will be people who need more care than others. Those who don't need the care (presently) will balk at the prospect of paying for some intangible. Young kids, singles, will simply say "I don't need the care, so I won't pay for the insurance." Fine. Should THEY have the right to opt out? Absolutely,,,if WE'RE allowed the right not to pick up the tab when they break their leg skiing.
You see, they want it both ways. No insurance AND access to the best medical care in the world.

Let the government pay for my insurance. Right!
If Republican ideals stand for "individual accountability and determination," then why are they so against making individual citizens accountable and responsible for their own bodily maintainance? (because the other guys thought of it first.)
It is pretty sick, when you think about it!

We need to kill the partisan ideas and start thinking like "Americans", one naton. This issue is too big to play with.
Please forgive the rant. I'll shut up.

You did pretty well until you incorrectly asserted that health care is a right. It isn't. It is a good.

In any event, the folks who passed the bill stepped on their dicks by failing to include a severability clause. A monument to their stupidity and arrogance. So, the whole bill is dead.

It is time to start over and do things right. Nothing wrong with allowing pre-existing conditions to be covered. Just don't think it comes for free. Allow health care premiums to be deductible. Allow interstate shopping for the best deal. And most of all, make sure government stays as far away from health care as is possible.

They've fucked up large twice in the last 18 years. Two epic fails is enough.

 

[jackoroe]

No it is not, and this is the fundamental failing in your understanding.

It is arguing, that the citizen must purchase insurance if the citizen will end up using health care facilities at some point, whether they think they will need it or not. This applies to most people, that is a fact.

And if they don't have insurance then everyone else has to pay for their treatment.

Someone that is alive but is not going to be using private health care services in the united states has no obligation under the mandate (like say an American citizen living abroad, or a military person etc).

It is the same model as car insurance because, I may think I am a good driver and will not need liability insurance, but it is a virtual certainty that I will at some point if I drive a car. People that are going to need health care services in the United States and are not covered are a serious drain on the system. This requirement is not oppressive or unreasonable. If someone cannot afford insurance, the government will pay for it with a subsidy.

Why do you guys insist on making this car insurance analogy? There is no federal requirement that you buy car insurance. It is a mandate by the states. Similarly, states are free to require you to purchase health care insurance, as Massachusetts does. There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the federal government to compel me to purchase health care insurance, ergo it is a right that remains with the states.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's not be too melodramatic here. Of course, it will be up to the courts to decide, then we live with the decision. If we don't like it, we vote the bums out in 4 years (or 6). That's what keeps us lemmings from uprising (like Tunesia, Egypt, Iran, China(?).

No melodrama involved: if people want to make the car insurance parallel, they should be consistent about it. They can require us to have car insurance because they own the roads, so they can state the conditions. Part of that system is having a VIN 'tattooed' on each vehicle. and paying an annual fee to be allowed to drive on the roads.

I'm trying to point out why it's legitimate for the government to require auto insurance, but they're not interested in the why. Modern liberal politics is philosophically near-bankrupt, and this is a perfect example; there is no concern for actual reasoning, just for surface rationalization.

The question to ask here is what grounds a private entity would have to require people to have medical insurance. Clearly a private entity can require insurance for equipment operated on its property, and for the operators, but on what grounds could it require anyone who comes there to have medical insurance? If the entity is a business dealing in bark dust, plainly it can require operators and their equipment who are working on the grounds to have insurance, but the liberal argument here is that they can require every customer to have medical insurance as well. That's plainly ridiculous.

OTOH, if the business wanted to offer medical insurance to every customer, there would be no problem. It could offer discounts for going to existing insurance providers, or even set up its own new one. For that matter, they could set up their own medical clinic. And that's the model the government ought to be using: offer incentives for new insurance companies, preferably not-for-profit ones. They could provide generous matching funds for establishing new medical schools, to increase the supply of doctors. They could make a tax credit for the first two thousand dollars paid for medical insurance, and for the cost of an annual physical, and even for the first thousand dollars in co-pays or co-insurance. They could even tie tax rates to corporate profit levels.

All far more rational than requiring people to become customers of existing giant corporations.

 

[bike10]

Here is where the GOP praise and adore Activits Judges.

By the way judge who pays for your health care?

 

[rareboy]

nothing to be found out... i change nics every 6-8 months

personal reasons

So are you back as an Obama despising conservative democrat this time?

Or a liberal Republican?

I still think that Amceltscotdad would have been cool though.

Anyhow. We'll look forward to each metamorphosis.

Allow health care premiums to be deductible.

Why Jack?

Why should any insurance be tax deductible. It just adds to the deficit.

And you are so wrong about the role of the people through their government in health care delivery.

Just because the US attempts to get better care for more people at a reasonable cost have failed, it doesn't make sense to give up.

It won't be too many more years until the US has not only one of the least educated, but the most unhealthy populations in the first world.

All so that the insurance companies can continue to rob you all blind if you can pay and the taxpayer keeps picking up the tab for those who won't pay.

 

[thevofl]

They do.

Are you shocked that Obama is acting like a conservative?

No, he is acting like a politician.

Here are some more examples of the left accusing the right of judicial activism:

Sen Franken on Citizens United

Sen Leahy calls the current Supreme Court the most activist in his lifetime

Then we have this quote by Obama:

It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ‘60s and ‘70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.

What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error. And I think rather than a notion of judicial restraint we should apply both to liberals and conservative jurists, what you’re seeing is arguments about original intent and other legal theories that end up giving judges an awful lot of power; in fact, sometimes more power than duly-elected representatives.

 

[JB3]

No it is not, and this is the fundamental failing in your understanding.

It is arguing, that the citizen must purchase insurance if the citizen will end up using health care facilities at some point, whether they think they will need it or not. This applies to most people, that is a fact.

And if they don't have insurance then everyone else has to pay for their treatment.

Someone that is alive but is not going to be using private health care services in the united states has no obligation under the mandate (like say an American citizen living abroad, or a military person etc).

It is the same model as car insurance because, I may think I am a good driver and will not need liability insurance, but it is a virtual certainty that I will at some point if I drive a car. People that are going to need health care services in the United States and are not covered are a serious drain on the system. This requirement is not oppressive or unreasonable. If someone cannot afford insurance, the government will pay for it with a subsidy.

As I said above, to which you completely ignored, the situations are not the same. A person cannot choose to be alive, while they can choose whether or not to drive. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, which is why you continue to spout off about the car insurance analogy as if its gospel.

The mandate is NOT constitutional.

 

[JB3]

^ You're wasting your time.

It is like arguing a point with a fence post.

The reactionaries will never accept the argument that it is the equivalent of everyone driving....a lot of people are under the false delusion that they and their families won't ever need healthcare.

Except it isn't like driving.

 

[jackoroe]

So are you back as an Obama despising conservative democrat this time?

Or a liberal Republican?

I still think that Amceltscotdad would have been cool though.

Anyhow. We'll look forward to each metamorphosis.



Why Jack?

Why should any insurance be tax deductible. It just adds to the deficit.

And you are so wrong about the role of the people through their government in health care delivery.

Just because the US attempts to get better care for more people at a reasonable cost have failed, it doesn't make sense to give up.

It won't be too many more years until the US has not only one of the least educated, but the most unhealthy populations in the first world.

All so that the insurance companies can continue to rob you all blind if you can pay and the taxpayer keeps picking up the tab for those who won't pay.

The premise we were given by proponents of Obamacare was that people will get medical care, regardless of whether or not they have insurance, right? It will just cost us all more, because they'll go to the emergency room when they get a runny nose. Now which do you think has a greater impact on the deficit? Allowing me to take a deduction for $10,000 for my health care insurance, or me going to the E-Room 5 times per year when I get a sniffle? I'd argue that my deduction would be a pittance compared to the visits.

 

[rareboy]

Actually, broader insurance should lead to less costly and less interventionist care.

With insurance coverage, families can be enrolled into family practise groupings that can also include nurse practitioners and focus on preventive care, rather than the episodic and high cost use of the emergency department.

I know this to be true.

But I am always interested by the idea that many Americans think that people should stand on their own two feet and their own resources, but always want everything tax deductible. Why should anyone get a benefit for anything they purchase?

It is like this bizarre notion that mortgage interest should be tax deductible.

 

[laikaNYC]

let the ones using the car insurance analogy cite where the Justice Dept have used it!?

I mean... if it is so analogous the Justice Dept would have a slam dunk , wouldnt they

Agreed, the car insurance analogy is simply laughable.

 

[btmbabyboi]

You did pretty well until you incorrectly asserted that health care is a right. It isn't. It is a good.

QUOTE]

"Good" in that it is a "product or service that provides revenue," yes. But a "Good" by this definition is something that we can and will live without.

Healthcare trandsends this concept. Every American (and most illegal residents) expect, demand and won't do without Health Care - especially emergency care. people will wait in the ER for 24 hours for a sinus infection. That elevates this service to a position well above your typical IPAD. If your mom falls and breaks her leg in our society today, she has a RIGHT to be treated. MD's can NOT not treat her. Hospitals have taken families of patients to court for permission to perform procedures they feel are necessary but the family feels is pointless, especially end of life decisions. This goes beyond "a good."

But you have a great point about the arrogance aspect. Dems should have forced the discussion, forced a debate. If the other side was involved from the get go, they wouldn't be after the 'repeal. They'd be after "amendments" to fix it.

Have you noticed that all the talk is about Repeal...there isn't any plan for replacement? (I mean REAL plan.) They want to repeal without replacement and that sucks. Reason? Because both the House and Senate have Medical coverage for life. They simply couldn't give a sh*t about us.

 

[jackoroe]

"Good" in that it is a "product or service that provides revenue," yes. But a "Good" by this definition is something that we can and will live without.

No, I disagree. It's a good, period. The Comprehensive Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986, I believe, made it mandatory that E-Rooms not turn people away even for really stupid things, like sniffles. That's not a right, that's idiotic government intrusion that got us where we are.

I don't think anybody is going to quibble that a broken bone needs to be set. That's an emergency, much like drowning that needs to be addressed in a timely fashion. Obamacare was about much more than caring for the sick. What has the requirement that businesses generate 1099 forms for expenditures of more than $600 got to do with health care? Nothing. There's new taxes and endless regulation that won't improve the delivery of health care, but impede it.

The court says the law is a non starter. Congress needs to acknowledge their mistake, accept the ruling of the court and the repudiation of the law by the American people and start with a clean piece of paper.

 

[hotatlboi]

A person cannot choose to be alive

As you ignored, that is not the basis of the mandate.

It is that citizens who WILL use private medical care in the United States at some point will need to pay for it.

This does not apply to all citizens, to those it does apply to, they need to be covered.

Again, this does not place any undue burden on the citizen since they can get free/discounted coverage if they cannot afford it.

The mandate is NOT constitutional.

No, it is just not politically advantageous to support it now since it is "Obama's plan".

Your side first proposed it in 1993.

 

[Kulindahr]

Giving a tax credit for medical insurance premiums is a far simpler way to do things. Make it a credit up to $2500, which should provide decent coverage; above that make it deductible up to $5000. Make the cost of an annual physical a credit as well, and for those with low income, the first $1000 of deductibles.

But there's really no point in doing any of that, because the system is crowded to overloaded. We need more doctors and more facilities. Especially needed are immediate care clinics, for all the little things that people want checked without delay, but are silly for an emergency room. Second is more basic practitioners, to handle physicals and all the more common things that people don't even do now but really ought to.

So if anyone at all is serious about medical care reform, they should be starting by getting more medical schools going, to give us more doctors, then facilities as above, for those doctors to work at.

And for the insurance side, incentives should be provided to get not-for-profit, fraternal-benefit type insurance outfits going, as many as possible through existing organizations from the Elks Club to the Sierra Club to Planned Parenthood to Catholics for Life to whatever.

 

[JB3]

As you ignored, that is not the basis of the mandate.

It is that citizens who WILL use private medical care in the United States at some point will need to pay for it.

This does not apply to all citizens, to those it does apply to, they need to be covered.

Again, this does not place any undue burden on the citizen since they can get free/discounted coverage if they cannot afford it.


No, it is just not politically advantageous to support it now since it is "Obama's plan".

Your side first proposed it in 1993.

MY side? The only side I have is one of constitutionality. It wasn't constitutional when it was proposed then, and its not constitutional now. You completely don't understand that fact; it doesn't matter the burden it places on citizens. All of the arguments you've given thus far are irrelevant to the question at hand.

The issue is whether congress has any authority whatsoever to mandate that citizens must buy something. The federal government has never had the authority, and never will have that authority.

Now, if the healthcare bill was written to give states the option of mandating coverage, you'd get no argument out of me. But as it stands now, congress has granted itself authority that it quite simply does not have.