• 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're lumping things together in a weird way. The commerce clause is the primary tool the people have to counteract corporate domination. The strength of the commerce clause is the measure of how much power the people have over corporations. Weakening that means taking power from the people and giving it to the corporations. So lumping together corporate interests with a broad commerce clause is very strange.

The people, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people, are one group that uses the commerce clause for monopoly busting and things like OSHA. The corporations, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people but really working for corporations, are another group who uses the commerce clause for their own ends. Just read up on the inanity of Wickard. It has been used to justify the drug war on local non-commercial growers. The Drug War is HUGE business for people in government. Much money in play.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Yep, that's right. And then $8k in 2025. And $16k in 2032. And so on until we get a public option or single payer system in place.

So is your position that the fine should be bigger? Or what exactly?

My position is that we move health care away from employment and towards individuals. Free up the market, dont strangle it. The more health care choices there are the better off consumers tend to be. This law strikes down a number of health care choices from the start. I think thats a bad idea.

Oh yes, put your money where your mouth is, point out to me and everyone else what provisions were struck the from the bill to obtain gop support for this bill. Please be specific and show what legislative language was pulled out. Id like to see it. Dont play the google game either, its your assertion, prove it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

No it isn't; the purpose of insurance is to spread the risk among a larger pool of people. What's a scam is charging some people more money for health care, for factors that are completely outside of their control (like being a man or a woman).



Does PPACA require it to be covered? I dunno. If so, IPAB will study it like any other procedure, and it'll soon be phased out anyway since it isn't cost-effective.



If I'm not mistaken, the only things that must be free from the beginning are preventative care services...and that's a good thing. Although I'm all for catastrophic plans, there needs to at least be some free preventative care in there too. Otherwise, people will be less likely to see the doctor until it becomes a much more serious (and expensive) problem.



I'm just using those states as an example of why buying policies across state lines wouldn't work, at least as it's structured now. I'm not referring to those states specifically, or any coverage specifically.

Nice dodge on all the points I made. I suppose that you will fight for lifting the age restrictions as one can not control that anymore than their gender. It never ceases to amaze me that discounts for females on auto insurance, or surcharges for "young" drivers are OK, yet acturial based FACTS must be ingonerd IFF it proves that males must "pay the price" for "fairness". Free preventive care is rediculous, that is a normal routine expense of life, just as tune-ups, oil changes and flat tire repair are NOT covered by auto insurance even under "full coverage". PPACA is 90% income redistribution and a tiny amount of medical care reform.
 
Last edited:
Ya know, instead of bashing Obama because he is Obama, Republicans could have gone after Obamacare on one single issue, and they would have won the day. From ElectoralVote [h=4] A Rarely Mentioned Objection to the ACA [/h] With all the ink and pixels devoted to the Supreme Court's decision on the ACA this week, there is one criticism that is actually legitimate and Republicans almost never make: who's going to take care of those 30 million insured people? Injecting so many new people into the health care system is going to require more doctors, more nurses, more lab techs, more MRI machines, and more of everything connected with the health-care delivery system. Lots of new doctors are not going to magically appear on Jan. 1, 2014 to take care of these people. In the short term, there will be longer waits to get services. The argument "Why should I have to wait longer to get an appointment with a doctor so some poor person can get medical care?" is callous, but at least it is legitimate, unlike "death panels." (If Democrats were clever, they might respond to remarks about "death panels" by saying: "Who do you want to determine your level of medical care, some pointy-headed Washington bureaucrat who doesn't care whether you live or die or some insurance company executive who actually has a strong preference for you dying as fast as possible?).


In the short run, more doctors from India and nurses from the Philippines could be given visas to come to the United States to take up some of the load. In the longer run, the government could offer financial incentives (such as interest-free loans) to get more students to go to medical school. But that would require expanding the capacity of the nation's medical schools. All of this is doable, but takes time and money. Getting the federal government to do this seems unlikely in the current climate, but states could do some of this to alleviate possible local shortages.

Republicans hate Obama so much, for the sake of hating Obama, and not much else, that it has compromised their ability to think. The ammunition they could have effectively used was right there in front of them the whole time. And in their hatred, they never saw the obvious. And they want to control government? Look, we all know that the Democratic model doesn't work. But look at the Republicans. They have become blathering idiots by clinging to hate. It is obvious that we need a system of government that is free of the idiocy of both major parties.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Yes, the government folded to corporate interests when single payer is the way to go. I am always amused when Congress decides to invite industry leaders for consultation.

Try single payer on AUTO insurance, on a state level first.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Nice dodge on all the points I made. I suppose that you will fight for lifting the age restrictions as one can not control that anymore than their gender.

Yes, I'm in favor of eliminating age discrimination on insurance policies too. PPACA restricted it to a 3-to-1 premium spread (old-to-young), which is a start.

It never ceases to amaze me that discounts for females on auto insurance, or surcharges for "young" drivers are OK, yet acturial based FACTS must be ingonerd IFF it proves that males must "pay the price" for "fairness".

Auto insurance is a lot less costly, a lot less necessary, and a lot less important than health insurance. But for what it's worth I don't support price discrimination in auto insurance either...I just don't care as much.

Free preventive care is rediculous, that is a normal routine expense of life, just as tune-ups, oil changes and flat tire repair are NOT covered by auto insurance even under "full coverage".

Although that's true, not having free preventative care will mean that more people will simply skip the regular doctor's visits and wait until they have an emergency.

PPACA is 90% income redistribution and a tiny amount of medical care reform.

There's quite a bit of both in there. As there should be.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Try single payer on AUTO insurance, on a state level first.

Why do you keep bringing up AUTO insurance? All that is required is liability insurance...minus the medical side, because Medicare for all will solve the medical problem, all that is left is property damage insurance, Since cars/trucks are optional, if you don't have a vehicle you have no need for liability insurance. Medical coverage, on the other hand, is inescapable. We each have our bodies and our health to deal with.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The people, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people, are one group that uses the commerce clause for monopoly busting and things like OSHA. The corporations, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people but really working for corporations, are another group who uses the commerce clause for their own ends. Just read up on the inanity of Wickard. It has been used to justify the drug war on local non-commercial growers. The Drug War is HUGE business for people in government. Much money in play.

It is true that theoretically the commerce clause could be used to advance a corporate agenda. But 99 times out of 100, it's the other way around. Corporations are fighting to try to prevent the government from regulating them and the people are pushing to regulate the corporations via the commerce clause. Reeling in the worst of the corporate abuses would require a whole lot more aggressive use of the commerce clause. So trying to weaken the commerce clause while at the same time denouncing corporate rule doesn't make a ton of sense. Even if it is sometimes abused, it is still our only meaningful tool in the struggle for control of the country.

I'm no fan of the war on drugs, but that isn't really about kowtowing to corporations. The problem with drug enforcement is similar to the immigration issue. Anybody who counters momentum to ramp up the war on drugs is denounced as refusing to enforce the law and some sob stories about babies starving to death when their mothers are high or whatever get trotted around and they fall back in line. It's the same tactics as are used to try to push us into a "war on illegal immigration" situation, not corporations.
 
The bottom line is that Obamacare is not based on the rock of principle but the sand of political expediency. Let's scrap it and come up with UHC based on the rock of principle. The principles are that everyone should be covered and funded by the community at large and the medical industry should operate as private enterprise. Finally, preventative care is as important as catastrophic care.
 
The bottom line is that Obamacare is not based on the rock of principle but the sand of political expediency. Let's scrap it and come up with UHC based on the rock of principle.

Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care, but on what planet are you living if you think that a Republican Party that is so viciously opposed to even THIS measure would consider universal health care?
 
Last edited:
Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care,

The way this will happen is that insurance will become astronomically more expensive due to the major provisions in this act (mandate, pre-existing condition, 80/20 rule, etc.), and as more and more people can no longer afford the health insurance they are required by federal mandate to buy, they will look to the government for a back-up plan, which will be Medicaid.

This is in all likelihood precisely government's plan. "Make them all poor enough to need us."
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It is true that theoretically the commerce clause could be used to advance a corporate agenda. But 99 times out of 100, it's the other way around. Corporations are fighting to try to prevent the government from regulating them and the people are pushing to regulate the corporations via the commerce clause. Reeling in the worst of the corporate abuses would require a whole lot more aggressive use of the commerce clause. So trying to weaken the commerce clause while at the same time denouncing corporate rule doesn't make a ton of sense. Even if it is sometimes abused, it is still our only meaningful tool in the struggle for control of the country.

You don't think corporations use the commerce clause to raise the barriers of entry into an industry, to limit the players?

I'm no fan of the war on drugs, but that isn't really about kowtowing to corporations. The problem with drug enforcement is similar to the immigration issue. Anybody who counters momentum to ramp up the war on drugs is denounced as refusing to enforce the law and some sob stories about babies starving to death when their mothers are high or whatever get trotted around and they fall back in line. It's the same tactics as are used to try to push us into a "war on illegal immigration" situation, not corporations.

That is the difference between corporate interests and propaganda. Who do you think makes money on the drug war, especially with the artificial retail price of drugs?
  • Cartels?
  • Police?
  • Federal Law Enforcement?
  • Arms manufacturers?
  • Communications and military/survillance industries?
  • Banks and financial institutions?
  • Real Estate?
  • Politicians?


What the hell do they do with all the money that flows through the artificial black market?
What authoritarian governments with offensive federal police powers are supported by Drug War aid?

All because of propaganda and misuse of the commerce clause?

What are the healthcare costs due to addiction, overdose, drug cartel crime and so on? Maybe we could knock down the GDP cost of healthcare by 10% by legalizing drugs!!!
 
The way this will happen is that insurance will become astronomically more expensive due to the provisions in this act, and as more and more people can no longer afford the health insurance they are required by federal mandate to buy, they will look to the government for a back-up plan, which will be Medicaid.

This is in all likelihood precisely government's plan. "Make them all poor enough to need us."

There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.
 
Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care, but on what planet are you living if you think that a Republican Party that is so viciously opposed to even THIS measure would consider universal health care?

I would be interested in hearing about the Tea Party opinion on UHC, especially with the rising unemployment rate and the prohibitive cost of COBRA.
 
There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.

Why do it incrementally when you can do it at once with a stroke of the magic pen? It sucks for the guy at 134% of the poverty line...maybe he'll quit his job to get affordable health insurance...
 
I would be interested in hearing about the Tea Party opinion on UHC, especially with the rising unemployment rate and the prohibitive cost of COBRA.

I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Even if some of them are nominally in support of it now, that would change immediately if the Democrats actually considered making it the law of the land. Which is exactly what happened with the Affordable Care Act.
 
The bottom line is that Obamacare is not based on the rock of principle but the sand of political expediency. Let's scrap it and come up with UHC based on the rock of principle. The principles are that everyone should be covered and funded by the community at large and the medical industry should operate as private enterprise. Finally, preventative care is as important as catastrophic care.

I don't disagree, but that's just the reality in a pluralistic society. Different people have different principles. You need to compromise. When you can find a solution that at least a majority of the country thinks makes at least some improvement according to their principles, you go for it. The dream of being able to just redesign our entire health care system based on one person's set of principles, and then everybody else will just go along with it, isn't a reality.
 
There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.

Do you know who pays the Medicaid tab? Not the beneficiaries.

So what you want to see happen is for fewer and fewer taxpayers to have greater and greater funding responsibility over the nation. This lack of responsibility over our own lives might sound liberating to people like you, but others realize that what suppresses the cost of something is the self-interested assessment of the person purchasing it as to whether or not it is a good deal.

Stated another way, the more responsibility you take away from people over their health care, the less they will care what it costs, and thus the more it will cost.
 
I don't disagree, but that's just the reality in a pluralistic society. Different people have different principles. You need to compromise. When you can find a solution that at least a majority of the country thinks makes at least some improvement according to their principles, you go for it. The dream of being able to just redesign our entire health care system based on one person's set of principles, and then everybody else will just go along with it, isn't a reality.

This is my fundamental point. The two groups dissatisfied with the country are the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street folks. It must be made clear to both groups that they share the same fundamental principle: government is beholden to corporate interests.
 
Why do it incrementally when you can do it at once with a stroke of the magic pen?

Because it is not politically possible to pass universal health care with a stroke of the magic pen.

It sucks for the guy at 134% of the poverty line...maybe he'll quit his job to get affordable health insurance...

He will be eligible for a heavily-subsidized private insurance plan on the health insurance exchanges starting in 2014, when his annual premiums will be capped at 3% of his income.
 
There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.

What a bunch of BS. That has NOTHING to do with medical reform at all. You just want an incremental UHC system, controlled by the gov't. PPACA is NOT about medical care reform but it IS about gov't control, until people SEE THAT, this debate is NOT about medical care reform at ALL, it is ONLY about income redistribution to pay for the CURRENT medical care with incremental "tweaks" as the IPAB restricts CARE options, one by one, to cut its costs.
 
Do you know who pays the Medicaid tab? Not the beneficiaries.

So what you want to see happen is for fewer and fewer taxpayers to have greater and greater funding responsibility over the nation.

My ultimate goal is to have everyone covered under a federal plan which would provide, at the very least, catastrophic coverage and free preventative care. And they'd pay premiums for this insurance, if they could afford it. Otherwise they'd get subsidies to pay for it, which would be paid for out of the general tax revenue.

This lack of responsibility over our own lives might sound liberating to people like you, but others realize that what suppresses the cost of something is the self-interested assessment of the person purchasing it as to whether or not it is a good deal.

Stated another way, the more responsibility you take away from people over their health care, the less they will care what it costs, and thus the more it will cost.

People aren't going to care any more or less just because they're on a government plan. What's important, as far as getting people to care about the costs, is the deductible. And I would support higher deductibles for government plans (although I'd waive them for people who couldn't afford them).
 
Because it is not politically possible to pass universal health care with a stroke of the magic pen.

Why is it politically impossible? Because Jimmy-Joe and his friends stand over to the right and Starlight and her friends stadn on the left and both are sworn enemies of the other? The ****ing political system has all these imbeciles right where they want them...
 
What a bunch of BS. That has NOTHING to do with medical reform at all.

That particular point has nothing to do with medical reform. Just because I support increasing coverage doesn't mean I don't *also* support other provisions, which you'd know by now if you had been paying attention. :2wave:

You just want an incremental UHC system, controlled by the gov't.

Yep.
 
Why is it politically impossible? Because Jimmy-Joe and his friends stand over to the right and Starlight and her friends stadn on the left and both are sworn enemies of the other? The ****ing political system has all these imbeciles right where they want them...

I find it's better to see the world as it actually is, rather than as one might want it to be. This is especially important when forming political policy. And ranting about the "****ing political system" doesn't change the fact that it does, in fact, exist, and the only way to get to universal health care is to work through it.
 
Back
Top Bottom