• 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

You are correct. First do no harm is the Hippocratic way of saying there is a fiduciary duty to the patient, and that duty begins with doing no harm. I don't believe the federal govt. recognizes any fiduciary duty. In any event, the federal govt. is picking winners and losers on health care. That is hardly the exercise of a fiduciary duty.

Who exactly are the 'losers on health care' that the federal government has picked with this law?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

No, that's why part of my premium goes to pay for Uninsured Motorists in case I am involved in an accident with a freeloader.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-11/uninsured-drivers/50363390/1

In my state of Michigan, one cannot obtain a drivers license without a automobile insurance policy in effect. Do you know of any states where this is NOT the case that you have insurance or proof of financial responsibility?
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Who exactly are the 'losers on health care' that the federal government has picked with this law?

People like me, who are self-employed, have plans we put together and like. We lose. They'll force us to the exchanges, our insurance are considered "cadillac policies". Here's the link again that describes all this.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Stupid analogy considering NO ONE HAS TO BUY A CAR! Duh. You also do not have to buy insurance for a car if you stay off of public roads with it. See...the choice to "not buy" was still there. This POS legislation leaves NO choice whatsoever.

You really like using third grade labels like STUPID don't you?

And you do NOT have to buy health insurance either.

In our society, the way it is the choice to NOT drive a car and NOT purchase insurance is a so called choice that is not real or practical for very large numbers of people. Lets talk about the real USA where real American live real lives with real needs - the car being one of them instead of the libertarian dream world.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183]

Thank you to clownboy and to Newmalthusian for your replies. I was not in favor of this from the beginning. If it's only Constitutional as a tax, yet Obama is saying it's not a tax, isn't that kind of flying in the face of the ruling (by his own reaction in stating so firmly it's not a tax)? Also, I've read here and elsewhere the whole car insurance argument, and it's lame, very lame.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

People like me, who are self-employed, have plans we put together and like. We lose. They'll force us to the exchanges, our insurance are considered "cadillac policies". Here's the link again that describes all this.

Does the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" mean anything to you?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Citizens who drive a motor vehicle - and that would be the vast majority of Americans are forced to purchase insurance for that vehicle. This is nothing radical or revolutionary. It is well established.

How many time have we been through this incredibly, and thoroughly wrong, and inane comparison? Each time we prove out the apples v. oranges of the statement to the same people, over, and over again, only to see it appear again by THE SAME PEOPLE!

:doh: Oh well, here is it again hay, please this time save it in a file or something so you can refer to it when you are tempted to use it in the future.



The difference between health and auto insurance is so obvious that we often miss it. Auto insurance is, well, actually insurance, a protection against an unexpected but known risk. We don’t use our car insurance - or worse yet, government - to fill our gas tanks, change our oil or replace our windshield wipers. The health care fantasy world of avoiding “out-of-pocket” expenses simply means your money will be taken out of your tax pocket and your insurance premium pocket, and usually a lot more of it. Does anyone believe that oil changes will become cheaper if our government declares them to be a fundamental right and takes them over?

What’s more, because you buy it yourself, your car insurance belongs to you. Your boss can’t take it away from you. You will never be stuck in a bad job because you’re afraid of losing your car insurance. And best of all, if your car insurance company fails to treat you right, you can simply fire them and hire someone else.

As we envision a health care system in post-Obamacare America, surely we can agree that patients deserve to be treated at least as well as car owners. What follows are straightforward steps that make the patient, rather than government, the priority in health care. Additional details of these substantial but solvable problems can be found in my book, “First, Do No Harm” (Broadside e-books, 2011).

Tax fairness: Under current law, individuals face unfair tax penalties for daring to purchase their own insurance. These laws coerce Americans into accepting employer-based policies, which often trap poor souls in bad jobs and even make some productive workers unemployable simply because they got sick. Tax fairness would level the playing field so families could choose for themselves how to purchase insurance.

End state insurance monopolies:State governments have a long history of mandating that you purchase whatever services they declare you need - coincidentally provided by those who have the best lobbyists. Not only does this practice raise insurance premiums, it is responsible for a quarter of the uninsured in America. What’s more, these mandates create the artificial state boundaries that have the perverted effect of protecting insurance companies from competition in the other 49 states. End them, either by allowing states to do so voluntarily or by employing the power of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, if necessary.

End state licensing monopolies: Physicians, like insurance companies, are also the beneficiaries of artificial state boundaries that protect them from competition from each other. Our system should be centered around patients, not doctors. As with the state insurance monopolies, the licensing monopolies should be ended voluntarily, if possible, or using the Commerce Clause.

Health savings accounts: HSAs and other consumer-directed health plans empower patients to be consumers and have been shown to save money without sacrificing health care outcomes. Our current third-party-payer health care system is like a grocery store without price tags, where customers fill their carts with “free” steaks whether they need them or not. Since patients are blind to prices, the government has only one way to reduce health care costs: provide less of it. This is accomplished with reduced reimbursements and outright rationing. HSAs, on the other hand, would turn 310 million Americans into an army of watchdogs who are incentivized to avoid unnecessary medical expenses but are still able to get the care they need.

End frivolous lawsuits: It’s estimated that nearly $50 billion a year is wasted on “defensive” medicine that could otherwise be used to provide care for the needy. Furthermore, the sky-high malpractice insurance costs are unavoidably passed on to patients. If an obstetrician is charged $100,000 per year for malpractice insurance and she delivers 100 babies, you’re paying a $1,000 “lawsuit tax” to welcome your bundle of joy into the world. Limits on pain and suffering - but not actual damages - have been shown to reduce health care costs and improve access. For the most egregious cases, forcing losers to pay the winners’ court costs would end the lottery-ticket mentality of trial lawyers.

WOLF: After Obamacare - Washington Times
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Does the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" mean anything to you?

I can (and do, occasionally) think of some fairly twisted and even illegal ways to do the greatest good for the greatest number.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183]

Thank you to clownboy and to Newmalthusian for your replies. I was not in favor of this from the beginning. If it's only Constitutional as a tax, yet Obama is saying it's not a tax, isn't that kind of flying in the face of the ruling (by his own reaction in stating so firmly it's not a tax)? Also, I've read here and elsewhere the whole car insurance argument, and it's lame, very lame.

Yeah, it's been discussed ad infinitum here. The car insurance argument has been thoroughly debunked, but that doesn't mean it won't reappear time after time. And yes, the POTUS lied, his admin even argued it was a tax before the court at the same time the POTUS was telling the public it wasn't a tax..
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Haymarket, if I may, while it's true that you do NOT have to buy health insurance, why should you be punished financially for not doing so? Further, a car is not a necessity, it's only a perception fed by advertising, etc. I know people who don't own vehicles, by choice. They live their lives and I don't hear them complain.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183]

Hello everyone! Brief lurker, first time poster.

Question to all who care to answer: The SCOTUS says this is constitutional as a tax, correct? Obama, along with his administration, insists it is not a tax, correct? So, what now?

Welcome o/

It means Obama lied. The justification for that statement is as solid as the claim that Bush lied. More so, in my opinion.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Does the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" mean anything to you?

Does it mean anything to you? The greatest number of Americans don't believe Obamacare is the greatest good for them, yet you think serving 10% of the people in the US, while screwing the rest is for the greatest good?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183]

Great, up to speed. Also, please just forego my car insurance comments. Late to the party on that portion.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Haymarket, if I may, while it's true that you do NOT have to buy health insurance, why should you be punished financially for not doing so? Further, a car is not a necessity, it's only a perception fed by advertising, etc. I know people who don't own vehicles, by choice. They live their lives and I don't hear them complain.

While it may be possible in some areas of the land to NOT own a car - there are plenty of areas where that is not a reality.

Why should people be fined for not buying health insurance? Were I writing the law- that would not be part of it. However, since it is I can only imagine it is there as in incentive to take responsibility for your life in that area and not simply let others totally assume the cost of your own irresponsibility.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Does it mean anything to you? The greatest number of Americans don't believe Obamacare is the greatest good for them, yet you think serving 10% of the people in the US, while screwing the rest is for the greatest good?

The Gallup poll shows lots of support for provisions of the law. Only 31% agree with the GOP position of repealing it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Does the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" mean anything to you?

As Rosen[61] has pointed out, claiming that act utilitarians are not concerned about having rules is to set up a 'straw man'. Similarly, Hare refers to “the crude caricature of act utilitarianism which is the only version of it that many philosophers seem to be acquainted with.”[62] Given what Bentham says about second order evils[63] it would be a serious misrepresentation to say that he and similar act utilitarians would be prepared to punish an innocent person for the greater good. Nevertheless, whether they would agree or not, this is what critics of utilitarianism claim is entailed by the theory. A classic version of this criticism was given by H. J. McCloskey:
“Suppose that a sheriff were faced with the choice either of framing a Negro for a rape that had aroused hostility to the Negroes (a particular Negro generally being believed to be guilty but whom the sheriff knows not to be guilty)-and thus preventing serious anti-Negro riots which would probably lead to some loss of life and increased hatred of each other by whites and Negroes- or of hunting for the guilty person and thereby allowing the anti-Negro riots to occur, while doing the best he can to combat them. In such a case the sheriff, if he were an extreme utilitarian, would appear to be committed to framing the Negro.”[64]
By ‘extreme’ utilitarian McCloskey is referring to what later came to be called ‘act’ utilitarianism. Whilst this story might be quoted as part of a justification for moving from act to rule utilitarianism McCloskey anticipates this and points out that each rule has to be judged on its utility and it is not at all obvious that a rule with exceptions has less utility. The above story invites the reply that the sheriff would not frame the innocent because of the rule ‘do not punish an innocent person’. However, McCloskey asks, what about the rule “punish an innocent person when and only when to do so is not to weaken the existing institution of punishment and when the consequences of doing so are valuable”?
In a later article McCloskey says:
“Surely the utilitarian must admit that whatever the facts of the matter may be, it is logically possible that an ‘unjust’ system of punishment—e.g. a system involving collective punishments, retroactive laws and punishments, or punishments of parents and relations of the offender—may be more useful than a ‘just’ system of punishment?”[65]

Utilitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ignoring Justice to set up your strawman arguments is a really dishonest way of approaching this argument...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Haymarket, if I may, while it's true that you do NOT have to buy health insurance, why should you be punished financially for not doing so? Further, a car is not a necessity, it's only a perception fed by advertising, etc. I know people who don't own vehicles, by choice. They live their lives and I don't hear them complain.

and if they decide to drive while uninsured and incur expenses as a result, the public will not have to cover those costs

in contrast, that person who elects not to acquire health coverage but who then requires medical attention they are unable to afford will receive that medical care. and the public will be required to pick up the tab

that public's ultimate guaranty of payment for medical services rendered is what makes the difference between the two scenarios
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The Gallup poll shows lots of support for provisions of the law. Only 31% agree with the GOP position of repealing it.

Everyone likes free stuff....Problem is who is going to pay for it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Ignoring Justice to set up your strawman arguments is a really dishonest way of approaching this argument...

No straw man. Just good common sense.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

While it may be possible in some areas of the land to NOT own a car - there are plenty of areas where that is not a reality.

What is your point?

Why should people be fined for not buying health insurance? Were I writing the law- that would not be part of it. However, since it is I can only imagine it is there as in incentive to take responsibility for your life in that area and not simply let others totally assume the cost of your own irresponsibility.

Taking responsibility for the conscious decision not to buy an insurance product means accepting the consequence that you won't get the benefit of insurance if something happens. There is no element of "taking responsibility" for the things one has zero element of choice over in the first place.

So by all means, let's let people finally be responsible again. Don't treat the uninsured unless they pay cash.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Who exactly are the 'losers on health care' that the federal government has picked with this law?

Health care quality will decrease for people who can't maintain their existing coverage because their employers decide to dump coverage and let the employees join exchanges. Lots of people with Cadillac plans who aren't in labor unions will find their employers scaling back coverage.

Medical equipment manufaturers will be subjected to a new level of regulation that will have the impact of reducing incentives for bringing new products to the market.

The medical profession will change with bureacrats interposing themselves between physician and patient.

Seniors will experience a decline in the dollars devoted to their health care. Hundreds of billions will be diverted from Medicare to Obamacare.

Existing Medicaid patients will experience a decline in care as tens of millions of people are added to the rolls of Medicaid.

I'm sure the list goes on.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

in contrast, that person who elects not to acquire health coverage but who then requires medical attention they are unable to afford will receive that medical care. and the public will be required to pick up the tab

Ok, so what did Obamacare change?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What is your point?



Taking responsibility for the conscious decision not to buy an insurance product means accepting the consequence that you won't get the benefit of insurance if something happens. There is no element of "taking responsibility" for the things one has zero element of choice over in the first place.

So by all means, let's let people finally be responsible again. Don't treat the uninsured unless they pay cash.

You forgot that by law all persons recieve the same treatment in emergency rooms whether they have insurance or not. That law will not be changed so accident victims will be left on the side of the road to die. So stop the foolishness.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Does the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number" mean anything to you?
Sure it means something. It meant a lot to Stalin. It meant a lot to about 10,000,000 people in the Ukraine too. You could ask them, I suppose, had they not all been sacrificed for the good of the greatest number. But no surprise,really, that you would embrace and endorse the principles behind mass slaughter.
 
Back
Top Bottom