• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Any large piece of legislation will have unintended consequences. Most smaller pieces of legislation will even.

Even the longest journey starts with a single step. There is NO need to jump in the pond over your head just to see if the water is cold or not. Allowing medical insurance to be sold accross state lines would be STEP ONE. Lifting bans, instead of ADDING BANS on "catstrophic" medical care insurance would be STEP TWO. Expanding medicaid, with reasonable, income based fees would be STEP THEEE (the public option). Restrictions on (NOT BANS) rescission and pre-existing condition practices should be addressed as STEP FOUR. Tort reform restrictions should be STEP FIVE. Easily determined cost of care for a variety of conditions, advertised freely, would be STEP SIX.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

When one no longer believes in the legitimacy of the established order one is at liberty to undermine the entire order.

The established order is in bed with corporate interests, and gives it to us, the citizens, as a result.

The Declaration of Independence lays out the principled case for overthrowing the established order:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Even the longest journey starts with a single step. There is NO need to jump in the pond over your head just to see if the water is cold or not. Allowing medical insurance to be sold accross state lines would be STEP ONE. Lifting bans, instead of ADDING BANS on "catstrophic" medical care insurance would be STEP TWO. Expanding medicaid, with reasonable, income based fees would be STEP THEEE (the public option). Restrictions on (NOT BANS) rescission and pre-existing condition practices should be addressed as STEP FOUR. Tort reform restrictions should be STEP FIVE. Easily determined cost of care for a variety of conditions, advertised freely, would be STEP SIX.

I have asked this before and not gotten an answer. Maybe you know. Why is it that insurance cannot be sold across state lines? In theory it sounds like a no brainer, it should be perfectly legal. However, I am assuming hte law did not come about by accident, so does any one know the justification for that ban?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Replacing private medical insurance with publicly funded care does not mean you don't get care when you need it. There is no need for insurance with public funding.

BAD idea, charity care should be a private matter, we already have medicaid/medcaid for that, BTW. The LAST thing I want to see is a hospital/clinic run like the post office or motor vehicle department.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The forces of the established order are too powerful to be overcome using the existing political system.

What does one do under those circumstances? One changes the rules of the game or one adopts Han Chinese tactics.

When one no longer believes in the legitimacy of the established order one is at liberty to undermine the entire order. Look at the way the Second Iraq War was undermined by people who didn't believe in the order.

Cool. Then you can secede from the country, and take everyone with you who is committed to preserving an inefficient health care system. I'm not going to stop you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. :2wave:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

BAD idea, charity care should be a private matter, we already have medicaid/medcaid for that, BTW. The LAST thing I want to see is a hospital/clinic run like the post office or motor vehicle department.

I will say once again, public funding, but private enterprise service. Kinda like school vouchers with minimal public schools. Go to your private doctor and hospital of choice.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Obama will probably be reelected. Obamacare will be permanent. The economy will sputter. The political order will now experience a new level of toxicity that enervates the country. When one cannot achieve power, there is no reason not to undermine the established order in its entirety.

This is in the context of America as a declining power and other nation states rising to world power. There are weaknesses within America that can be used as fulcrums.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I have asked this before and not gotten an answer. Maybe you know. Why is it that insurance cannot be sold across state lines? In theory it sounds like a no brainer, it should be perfectly legal. However, I am assuming hte law did not come about by accident, so does any one know the justification for that ban?

Some helpful links about interstate sales of medical care insurance:

http://www.naic.org/documents/topics_interstate_sales_myths.pdf

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1181

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jan/22/interstate-insurance-sales-considered-by/

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5767/pub_detail.asp
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I will say once again, public funding, but private enterprise service. Kinda like school vouchers with minimal public schools. Go to your private doctor and hospital of choice.

Is that not EXACTLY what medicaid and medicare do?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Allowing medical insurance to be sold accross state lines would be STEP ONE.

No. Insurance companies would just do what credit card companies have done: They'd all move to whichever state offered the least regulation, then sell from there to everyone.

Lifting bans, instead of ADDING BANS on "catstrophic" medical care insurance would be STEP TWO.

I would support that.

Expanding medicaid, with reasonable, income based fees would be STEP THEEE (the public option).

The Medicaid expansion is indeed part of PPACA. And I would support further expansion as well.

Restrictions on (NOT BANS) rescission and pre-existing condition practices should be addressed as STEP FOUR.

No, these practices should be outright banned. These are among the worst of the worst abuses in the health insurance industry, and allowing any wiggle room will just water them down. If sick people can't get coverage then they won't be able to get (and pay for) treatment.

Tort reform restrictions should be STEP FIVE.

It wouldn't have a big impact, but I'm OK with it.

Easily determined cost of care for a variety of conditions, advertised freely, would be STEP SIX.

I'm not sure how you would enforce that. In any case, the IPAB which is part of PPACA will be studying the cost of care for various conditions to see which are most effective.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Cool. Then you can secede from the country, and take everyone with you who is committed to preserving an inefficient health care system. I'm not going to stop you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. :2wave:

My friend, compose yourself. No one is leaving. Counter-Revolution has to be waged at home.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Now since the SCOTUS had legitimized the PPACA I can think of no better reason to vote for ROMNEY! Considering he to be the grandfather of this legislation as asserted incessantly by those on the Left. I mean really would you rather have the student or the teacher?

Ready…set…go
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Even the longest journey starts with a single step. There is NO need to jump in the pond over your head just to see if the water is cold or not. Allowing medical insurance to be sold accross state lines would be STEP ONE. Lifting bans, instead of ADDING BANS on "catstrophic" medical care insurance would be STEP TWO. Expanding medicaid, with reasonable, income based fees would be STEP THEEE (the public option). Restrictions on (NOT BANS) rescission and pre-existing condition practices should be addressed as STEP FOUR. Tort reform restrictions should be STEP FIVE. Easily determined cost of care for a variety of conditions, advertised freely, would be STEP SIX.

In my opinion, this is the "lets take one small step at a time" approach. What we really need is single payer. A public option is a test the waters option, but even that was too much for the right. So we went with "well, lets at least curb the worst of the abuses of the private sector and give them one more chance to get it right" option.

But, small steps only work if you know you're going to control the white house and both houses of congress for the duration. In this political reality, if you don't seize the opportunity during the rare time when one party controls all three, you'll probably have to wait another decade or two to take the next step.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I have asked this before and not gotten an answer. Maybe you know. Why is it that insurance cannot be sold across state lines? In theory it sounds like a no brainer, it should be perfectly legal. However, I am assuming hte law did not come about by accident, so does any one know the justification for that ban?

If Massachusetts has very strict requirements about what kinds of insurance policies are allowed, and South Dakota has virtually none, then all of the insurance companies will simply move to South Dakota and start selling their plans to people in Massachusetts. This would create a situation where people "technically" had health insurance, but it didn't actually do anything.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Cool. Then you can secede from the country, and take everyone with you who is committed to preserving an inefficient health care system. I'm not going to stop you. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. :2wave:

The thing is that healthcare is only one example of the federal government being in bed with corporate interests.
  • financial markets
  • mortgages
  • farm subsidies
  • energy subsidies
  • drug prohibition (you think there are not serious "corporate" interests here, contributing to campaigns?)
  • indirect subsidies, by way of regulation, for
    • lawyers
    • tax accountants
    • investors
    • ISPs/telecoms
    • building permits and construction

Whole industries of employment are created and maintained by regulation and law. It is indirect taxation.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

One way in which conservatives can cause system failure will be to mobilize seniors. The overwhelming majority of them are conservatives. Obamacare transfers health care dollars away from Medicare and into Obamacare. Hammering this home will produce an entirely new level of resentment.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

My friend, compose yourself. No one is leaving. Counter-Revolution has to be waged at home.

So you don't believe that elections or politics can change the system, and you support "counter-revolution." What exactly does your counter-revolution entail, and is it anything I need to report to the FBI?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Is that not EXACTLY what medicaid and medicare do?

Yes, exactly. Although I think Medicare is more comprehensive. This is why I say we ought to just extend Medicare for everyone (reworking the taxation: separate FICA and income withholding???).
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So you don't believe that elections or politics can change the system, and you support "counter-revolution." What exactly does your counter-revolution entail, and is it anything I need to report to the FBI?

Counter Revolution only requires alienation, estrangement, loss of faith, and political paralysis. All of this weakens and enervates the established political order. The net effect is the break down of social cohesion. The American dominated era of world history is over. That means living standards will decline for most people. America is also in some part a Third World Country where the public schools don't function. America's role in the world will shrink. That will reinforce the decline in living standards. This is toxic in the absence of social cohesion.

The FBI is already familiar with me. If they could have done something they would have done something by now.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So you don't believe that elections or politics can change the system, and you support "counter-revolution." What exactly does your counter-revolution entail, and is it anything I need to report to the FBI?

Do YOU think that elections or politics can change the system? The system is trapped in a closed cycle. NO WAY the politicians are going to allow a separation of corporate influence from elections or politics or a politician landing a nice plush office at a financial firm after leaving office. It is entrenched.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I will say once again, public funding, but private enterprise service. Kinda like school vouchers with minimal public schools. Go to your private doctor and hospital of choice.

Is that not EXACTLY what medicaid and medicare NOW do?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

OpportunityCost said:
You act like that chart is meaningful. If you dont go in and break down what they did its pretty well worthless. Insurance companies demand certain tests be done to curb the possibility of lawsuit. Even in cases where the doctor is sure of the prognosis. So both have their hands tied. Lower the spurious lawsuits and you lower the tests required.
You're the one that stated this...
OpportunityCost said:
If tort reform were enacted that would allow insurance costs to drop by placing ceilings on lawsuits, they will curb costs by requiring fewer tests.
I showed you the states that already did this and it didn't make a difference in health care costs or insurance premium costs to the consumer. What it did do was lower medical malpractice costs for doctors and insurance claims payouts. Another fine example of the fallacy of the 'trickle down theory'.

If you're me to go in and break down each state's tort reform laws and analyze them on this board. It ain't gonna happen. If you're really that interested, you'll do it yourself, but I also have a feeling that that ain't gonna happen either...:)


OpportunityCost said:
Im curious as to how much tort reform has occurred in the last 10 years, since costs have been going up faster, rather than the last 25.
Like the above curiosity, if you're really curious you'll find out on your own.

I do know that Texas passed it's in 2003.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Yes, exactly. Although I think Medicare is more comprehensive. This is why I say we ought to just extend Medicare for everyone (reworking the taxation: separate FICA and income withholding???).

Medicare is based on paying in for your entire working life and than getting coverage beginning at age 65 IFF you live that long. Remember that medical care is about 1/6 of the U.S. economy, so a REASONBALE rate would be 18% of your income to cover those costs for "free"; that is FAR higher than most would agree to pay. The alternative is to pay all that you have at the time, go bankrupt, and then you qualify for medicaid. My preference is for "catastrophic" medical care insurance that has a high annual deductable and pays 100% of costs above that limit. It would be much more affordable, and still protect you from absolute bankruptcy for a major illness/injury. Unfortunately PPACA outlaws that type of reasonable insurance since it is of little value to the very poorest people and not as profitable for insurance companies as the "standard" policies that we now have.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Do YOU think that elections or politics can change the system?

In terms of health care, it obviously can or the Affordable Care Act would never have been passed in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom