Obamacare VS The Constitution

[punked]

Actually, it would.

Awesome. Why didn't they include it in their plan?

Because it is already enforced by the states and the CBO said it wouldn't do anything which is the same reason REPUBLICANS voted against it. again Republicans were the ONLY ones to vote against this act and the only time the hose passed this bill was when the DEMOCRATS were in charge. Republicans have no plan Shady stop pretending. Unless you want to tell me why the Democrats passed this bill and the Republicans killed it when it came back to the house after they took over.

Stop lying please. Obama supports this measure in fact he released a press release the house passed H.R.4626 when the Dems controlled it, it went ot the Senate and was given a order to be voted on, then came an election so the Bill died and the REPUBLICANS refuse to re-introduce it. It doesn't matter though because it wouldn't do anything. Shady can please stop just telling lies because you have no answers.

Actually, there are several plans, with a list of many reforms. You just choose to ignore them so you can spout your leftwing talking points. As usual.

As you have just shown with your antitrust nonsense, there is plenty of smoke screens right wingers hid behind but there is no real plan. There plan is don't get sick. That is it.

Edited April 1, 2012 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Well employer based insurance is pure government intervention. It oughtta be shut down because it places an unfair burden on the private sector and puts companies at a disadvantage when competing with companies in places where the government has NOT forced the private sector to be their employees moms.

Employer based health care was created in response to wage and price controls by government as a way to retain and hire skilled employees during WW2. Government seeks to force employers with Obamacare based on a minimum number of employees.

There would be way less government intervention in a system where private insurers were deregulated, and forced to compete with a public non profit agency.

Don't confuse payment with delivery of services. US, state, and county governments already compete directly for both.

You are also wrong about scarcity. Because people without insurance eventually need more care than people with insurance. They wait until preventable and treatable conditions progress into medical emergencies and then they show up at the ER, where the government forces private hospitals to treat them under the emergency medicine act.

That's OK, even emergency treatment in Canada has horror stories for wait times, i.e. scarcity. Insured Americans routinely schedule their preventive and acute care needs without such worries.

Really you guys are unwittingly arguing for the most government intervention in the healthcare market possible.

Government already regulates many aspects of commerce in the US, but it cannot constitutionally force the purchase of products or services like health insurance. There is no legal mandate for universal insurance coverage, but certain groups have government mandated programs subject to eligibility and income qualified premiums.

[punked]

Government already regulates many aspects of commerce in the US, but it cannot constitutionally force the purchase of products or services like health insurance. There is no legal mandate for universal insurance coverage, but certain groups have government mandated programs subject to eligibility and income qualified premiums.

Just going to point out they aren't really forcing you to buy insurance you have a choice you can buy insurance or pay a tax. It is more of a tax exemption if you buy insurance you wont pay higher taxes. Which the government does with plenty of things.

Edited April 1, 2012 by punked

[dre]

Government already regulates many aspects of commerce in the US, but it cannot constitutionally force the purchase of products or services like health insurance. There is no legal mandate for universal insurance coverage, but certain groups have government mandated programs subject to eligibility and income qualified premiums.

I have no idea what you are on about here. I agree the mandate should be illegal although the interstate commerce clause has been so liberally interperated in the past that well have to wait and see what the courts say. But Iv already posted that I dont support any mandate so Im not sure why you included that in a reply to me. You seem to struggle to stay on topic.

But regardless of that, the government can still legally implement UHC in the same way they implemented social security or public education, or highways and roads. The courts have upheld the governments rights to collect taxes to provide service pretty consistantly.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just going to point out they aren't really forcing you to buy insurance you have a choice you can buy insurance or pay a tax. It is more of a tax exemption if you buy insurance you wont pay high taxes. Which the government does with plenty of things.

No, the justices have already dismissed that silly notion by differentiating between "tax" and "penalty", the latter being used in the law's language. "Can the government make me buy broccoli?"

[bush_cheney2004]

.... You seem to struggle to stay on topic.

...and you seem to have trouble parroting back what you learn in US media.

But regardless of that, the government can still legally implement UHC in the same way they implemented social security or public education, or highways and roads. The courts have upheld the governments rights to collect taxes to provide service pretty consistantly.

Then why all the fuss? Must be my imagination, eh?

[punked]

No, the justices have already dismissed that silly notion by differentiating between "tax" and "penalty", the latter being used in the law's language. "Can the government make me buy broccoli?"

It is a good question? However it wont be the government making you buy healthcare it will be you getting sick. You are going to buy healthcare by the nature of being human so is it fair that I have to buy your healthcare because you refused it buy insurance when you were healthy? You are already in the market by the fact you are a living person. You not in the broccoli market by that nature.

Also on that notion the government could provide you a tax credit for say eating healthy if they wanted we would agree to that.

Edited April 1, 2012 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

It is a good question? However it wont be the government making you buy healthcare it will be you getting sick. You are going to buy healthcare by the nature of being human so is it fair that I have to buy your healthcare because you refused it buy insurance when you were healthy? You are already in the market by the fact you are a living person. You not in the broccoli market by that nature.

All humans do not buy health care. Is it fair that I already have to pay for somebody with poor health habits, regardless of my decision to buy insurance or not? This attempt to increase the size of the risk pool to pay for universal access is a political issue.

I do not want government controlling my behaviours in such a way.

Edited April 1, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Then why all the fuss? Must be my imagination, eh?

Because thats not what they tried to do.

[Shady]

Because it is already enforced by the states

No it isn't. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[punked]

All humans do not buy health care. Is it fair that I already have to pay for somebody with poor health habits, regardless of my decision to buy insurance or not? This attempt to increase the size of the risk pool to pay for universal access is a political issue.

Come on seriously the argument is that all people aren't in the market for healthcare? Seriously?

Yes it is to increase the size of the risk pool because there are many Americas who have been kicked off their health coverage, or who are not allowed to have health care coverage who die because of it. I agree everyone needs to be the pool for this to work otherwise insurance companies would need huge premiums or they would lose money.

[dre]

All humans do not buy health care. Is it fair that I already have to pay for somebody with poor health habits, regardless of my decision to buy insurance or not? This attempt to increase the size of the risk pool to pay for universal access is a political issue.

I do not want government controlling my behaviours in such a way.

Again... you support the most government intervention possible, you just do it unwittingly. Universal Emergency Healthcare IS UHC, its just a bad way to implement it because emergency medicine is way more expensive than preventitive medicine.

[Shady]

you have a choice you can buy insurance or pay a tax.

You mean this tax...

Err, wait, Obama insists it's not a tax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio

[bush_cheney2004]

Come on seriously the argument is that all people aren't in the market for healthcare? Seriously?

Nope....there are billions of people on this planet, and most do not access "healthcare markets" in the context of Obamacare. Humanity is not defined by access to healthcare insurance.

Yes it is to increase the size of the risk pool because there are many Americas who have been kicked off their health coverage, or who are not allowed to have health care coverage who die because of it. I agree everyone needs to be the pool for this to work otherwise insurance companies would need huge premiums or they would lose money.

Then just raise taxes to pay for them if the goal is so important. Make it legal and call it what it is, just like Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP, etc.

[punked]

No it isn't. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

I am just quoting the CBO, the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce Shady. Maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, however, said last year that because states already investigate health insurance companies, repealing the exemption would not significantly reduce premiums......

"The Congressional Budget Office has noted that the states already have the laws on the books to prevent what we are trying to deal with here," said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.)...

"H.R. 4626 would purportedly reduce health care costs by repealing the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies. However, misinformation about current law under McCarran-Ferguson Act has permeated the current debate. Under current law, it is illegal for a health insurance provider to engage in price-fixing, boycotts, bid-rigging, market allocation agreements, and other uncompetitive behavior. States already enforce these provisions. Thus this bill will do nothing to protect consumers and is a solution in search of a problem."- Chamber of Commerce

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022404324.html

http://www.uschamber.com/issues/letters/2010/letter-opposing-hr-4626-health-insurance-industry-fair-competition-act

I get it Shady you want just what Obama wants and the Republican's have shown they oppose. I don't know how voting for Republicans who have come out against this measure instead of Democrats who tried to pass this law with the support of the President is going to fix anything though.

Please explain.

[punked]

You mean this tax...

Err, wait, Obama insists it's not a tax.

Shady haven't you always said when the government takes you money it is a tax. I know you support Romney but you are flipping and flopping all over today. Changing what you think is a tax, supporting Obama's ideas over Republicans. I mean honestly talk about a flip flopper.

[punked]

Nope....there are billions of people on this planet, and most do not access "healthcare markets" in the context of Obamacare. Humanity is not defined by access to healthcare insurance.

Then just raise taxes to pay for them if the goal is so important. Make it legal and call it what it is, just like Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP, etc.

I agree Medicare for all is a great idea. Hope if there is a repeal this is what we get. With how far Shady has been tilting to the left today and agreeing with Obama maybe the right is coming around to that eh?

[Shady]

I am just quoting the CBO, the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce Shady. Maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth.

Nope. You said that taking away the health insurance's anti-trust exemption is being done by the states. It's not. Now you're saying that it wouldn't lower costs much. Now you're moving the goal posts. Who cares though? If it only lowers costs a little, why shouldn't it be done? Even if it didn't lower costs at all. Why should health insurance companies have this exemption at all? Why not get rid of it regardless? Why are you a mouth piece for big insurance? Why are you protecting them?

[Shady]

Shady haven't you always said when the government takes you money it is a tax. I know you support Romney but you are flipping and flopping all over today. Changing what you think is a tax, supporting Obama's ideas over Republicans. I mean honestly talk about a flip flopper.

Nope, I'm just trying to figure out what your buddy is saying. It's not tax one day, but on another day, in front of the Supreme Court, it is a tax. Even though it's not. We all know the difference between a tax and a penalty.

[bush_cheney2004]

Again... you support the most government intervention possible, you just do it unwittingly. Universal Emergency Healthcare IS UHC, its just a bad way to implement it because emergency medicine is way more expensive than preventitive medicine.

I am ambivalent about mandatory emergency care, just as I am about fire departments or police SWAT teams. Since I have the ability to pay, I am more concerned about the scarcity that such a scheme would cause, a la longer wait times and fewer facilities seen in Canadian provinces. Canada has the highest cost universal access system in the world, so it is certainly expensive regardless of any such 'efficiencies'.

Edited April 1, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

Nope. You said that taking away the health insurance's anti-trust exemption is being done by the states. It's not. Now you're saying that it wouldn't lower costs much. Now you're moving the goal posts. Who cares though? If it only lowers costs a little, why shouldn't it be done? Even if it didn't lower costs at all. Why should health insurance companies have this exemption at all? Why not get rid of it regardless? Why are you a mouth piece for big insurance? Why are you protecting them?

Really because IF YOU WOULD READ WHAT I POSTED, that is just what the CBO, Republicans, and Chamber of Commerce is saying. SO I HAVE CITED MY SOURCES I WAIT FOR YOURS.

Do some research and come back because right now your head is spinning and you have no idea what you are talking about. I am all for getting rid of it the Democrats already tried to pass a law to get rid of it, the president wrote a press release saying you pass the bill I will sign it. Now all we wait for is REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE to re-introduce the DEMOCRATIC bill that gets rid of it.

[punked]

Nope, I'm just trying to figure out what your buddy is saying. It's not tax one day, but on another day, in front of the Supreme Court, it is a tax. Even though it's not. We all know the difference between a tax and a penalty.

So we agree it is a tax and thus it is Constitutional. Ok problem solved Shady agrees Obama twice today hell has frozen over.

[Shady]

Really because IF YOU WOULD READ WHAT I POSTED, that is just what the CBO, Republicans, and Chamber of Commerce is saying. SO I HAVE CITED MY SOURCES I WAIT FOR YOURS.

Instead of quoting what people are saying, how about just looking at what's reality. Health insurance companies have an anti-trust exemption that's still in place. That's a fact. Deal with it. IT'S STILL THERE PUNKED, IT HASN'T GONE AWAY, NO MATTER WHAT DISINFORMATION YOU DECIDE TO POST. Stop being a mouth piece for big insurance.

[Shady]

So we agree it is a tax and thus it is Constitutional. Ok problem solved Shady agrees Obama twice today hell has frozen over.

Nope, the statute is specifically written as a penalty. I know you know the difference between a tax and a penalty.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope, the statute is specifically written as a penalty. I know you know the difference between a tax and a penalty.

That's right...it is clearly legislated as a "penalty". This will prove to be its undoing, if only because the math is stupid. Firms and individuals would choose to pay the penalty instead of getting more expensive health insurance. DUH!

Edited April 1, 2012 by bush_cheney2004