• 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!

House Bill Defunds Health Care

No its not. We pay taxes to fund the constitutional powers of the federal govt. Youre welcome to pass an amendment if you want to add health care to that.

i can think of 2 particular clause's that cover health insurance

the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause.
 
trust me young lady if this thing isn't stopped we will all have to pay through the nose!

Well the thing is, is that this is actually done through taxing. It is not technically illegal to not have health insurance, you just have to pay a penalty in your taxes. You cannot be prosecuted or anything for not purchasing insurance from what I understand, if this bill is anything like what we have here in MA.

It's very complicated situation, and no one really knows how it's going to take yet. Apparently, your insurance coverage provided by your employer might depend on what type of business you are into.

The Massachusetts health care experiment - Jun. 3, 2013

Linda Baker, owner of a Fall River signmaking business, initially went the same route with her two employees. But costs finally outweighed any hiring edge. As monthly premiums climbed $50 to $100 per worker annually, she changed plans three times in four years. "I wanted to give my employees coverage and have them stay," she says, "but it was drowning my company."

During a brief window when Baker had no employees on the plan, she dropped it. New hires will be on their own.
What's in store for you: Don't count on this much buy-in. The industries that dominate in Massachusetts -- education, financial services, and technology -- need skilled workers who expect insurance, says Josh Archambault, director of health care policy at the Pioneer Institute.
Under Obamacare, your boss won't have to offer you insurance if the company employs fewer than 50; bigger firms can pay a penalty that starts at $2,000 a worker in lieu of giving you coverage. Will they? Early signs point to a wait-and-see approach: In a recent Mercer survey, only 6% of large firms said they were likely to have workers buy their own policies come 2014.

If you work for a company with a big low-wage or part-time workforce that's now uninsured -- think retail and hotels -- you're in for more uncertainty. A firm facing penalties that are below the plan costs or a workforce that's largely better off in cheaper, government-subsidized insurance might simply skip a plan, says Archambault.
 
i can think of 2 particular clause's that cover health insurance

the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause.

Neither of these have anything to do with health care. Are you aware of how we came to an employer based insurance model?
 
just for the record, i don't smoke, and i will never smoke.

and what about the people who cannot qualify for the existing government programs but cannnot afford the high costs of private insurance.

then you change the government eligibility requirements. a lot of the people who cannot afford insurance could afford insurance if they did not have to have a house in the burbs with a benz in the driveway,
 
i can think of 2 particular clause's that cover health insurance

the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause.

Obamacare has been deemed a tax, not a healthcare law.
 
Obamacare has been deemed a tax, not a healthcare law.

when the law was first submitted to the court it was placed under the commerce clause, ....and the argument was, how can government force a citizen to engage in commerce.

during the court hearings, the government had failed in their case using that clause, the court under Roberts moved the law from under the commerce clause,to the tax clause, which was illegal, judges do not make or change laws, they only adjudicate them.
 
i can think of 2 particular clause's that cover health insurance

the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause.
Actually, neither have anything REMOTELY do do with health insurance.

The "necessary and proper clause" comes from Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution and deals specifically with those powers enumerated in that section - none of which mention, let alone allude do, let alone allow anyone to infer anything w/r to health care.

The commerce clause is one of the enumerated powers in Article 1, section 8 and deals with regulating commerce with foreign nations, the states, and the indian tribes. Now, it's a massive stretch to assert that clause gives the federal government the power to run this nation's health care system. Massive. In point of fact, it says no such thing. One could stipulate it gives the government the power to regulate any commerce done across state lines w/r to health care - but to GIVE ALL THE COMMERCE of healthcare into the government's hands is a huge misapplication of that power. Huge.
 
it truely sickens me when the well being of a human being is worth less then profit.

Well, businesses don't have feelings. Businesses are concerned with their profit margins of course. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a business. Their role in society is not to give compassion.

The biggest problem with this bill is that it does not bring down the actual costs of healthcare which are outrageous. Tort reform is the key to bringing down the costs of healthcare. Hospitals, clinics and doctors have to charge exorbitant amounts of money so that they can cover their malpractice insurance.
 
when the law was first submitted to the court it was placed under the commerce clause, ....and the argument was, how can government force a citizen to engage in commerce.

during the court hearings, the government had failed in their case using that clause, the court under Roberts moved the law from under the commerce clause,to the tax clause, which was illegal, judges do not make or change laws, they only adjudicate them.

Impeach Roberts!!! :lol:
 
so if it has no moral obligation, why does the government have to provide law enforcement or punish crime. after all it is apparently not their obligation to enforce what is right or wrong.

Government cannot force citizens to buy a product. Of course people will try to bring car insurance into this, which is a completely different thing because driving is a privilege, and one doesn't have to drive. However, the government cannot force you to buy something just because you live and exist.
 
a huge misapplication of that power
So huge my friend that history will show it was the last nail in the coffin of our once great Constitutional Republic I say sit back and enjoy the ride into socialist hell cuz what the heck else are you gonna do?
 
and being denied medical insurance simply for having a preexisting condition, something that is up to the insurance company to define, is what exactly? a sign of flawless freemarket principles?

One cannot buy insurance after the fact it is after all insurance and not a health care plan. If the various States had not chose the winners of the companies that can provide health insurance this would not be as great a problem. If the States had left it to the free market and only banned those companies who engaged in fraud or unethical behavior then we probably would have some sort of heath care for those who had a preexisting condition though it would not be insurance. It would be a health maintenance organization and probably a nonprofit one. Also it could be possible in some cases to have insurance covering some health care that excludes cost from affects and effects of that preexisting condition.
 
The only people who are using it for political purposes are those who refuse to pass it. The debt ceiling should be a non-issue; it is just a means of funding spending programs that were already approved. There shouldn't even be any negotiation required on either side about this. If you didn't want to pay for the spending programs, you shouldn't have voted for them. This is why it was never an issue in the past.

That's not what Obama said when he was on the other side of the fence.
 
The debt ceiling should be a non-issue;
he is right about that, nothing is going to stop them from spending U.S. into bankruptcy we should abandon the pretense and just go for it whole hawg!
 
what exactly will the debt do to us? make china invade and buy up all our land?

No, the fact of the matter is that the debt is now a bigger percentage of the GDP and as it gets bigger it is harder to manage eventually we will pass the Debt Horizon a point of no return where the debt will can only get bigger unless we drastically cut the nondiscretionary parts of the budget such as Welfare, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. And I do not think that will happen until we are forced to default permanently or devalue the dollar such that it would be the same thing as cutting the nondiscrestionary parts.
 
because in perfectly just society, they would be accused of negligence if the individual seeking insurance dies because she could not afford to pay the costs of health insurance.

doctors have something called the Hippocratic oath, maybe we should expect health insurance company's to swear a similar oath.

Insurance involves a contract between the individual and the company that provides the insurance. Now for a contract to be valid it must not have been made under duress. Making a law that mandates that a company must have a contract with an individual even if that individual does not have a preexisting condition should render the contract void when it is brought up in the courts. I cannot see how an insurance company be accused of negligence if a person already has a preexisting condition which makes them an burdensome cost and which they did not pay for coverage until they become ill. Insurance is to insure against negative events in the future it is not a means to pay for people that did not pay for the insurance. If you want them covered then you could have a program that would cover these people and I would have it that they would "owe" this back if they ever have the funds in the future to do so. No one should get a free ride and they must bear some sort of cost and again.
 
because the free market has not been doing a great job of keeping health care affordable. people should not go bankrupt trying to afford healthcare or be denied life saving treatment because their current coverage cannot afford it.

The insurance companies are "regulated" by the States and the States like to muck up the market. Some States only allow a chosen few to insure their citizens. Others do the choosing by which companies will pay bribes to do so. There were no free market of any considerable extent in the US. One of the ideas that the Republicans wanted to propose when Obama Care was being forced on us would be to require that States have an open market so competition and variety would lower the cost and provide better coverage for the majority of those who could be insured. And of course for the remainder who have preexisting conditions that cannot be covered under any reasonable insurance provider a government or government/nonprofit-org could cover them on some sort of plan.
 
A bill which was passed by Congress which has not even gone into full effect yet.

You were the one who said that this Congress should fund what they voted for. Guess what this Congress did not vote for Obama Care a previous one did so your complaint was not valid. And since this is a different Congress they can decide that not to fund it would be temporary solution until they can get it revoked.
 
eventually we will pass the Debt Horizon a point of no return
even Joe lunchbox should be terrified by this eventuality but he can't even balance his own checkbook. trust the AngryOldGuy when he sez:

2qalpy0.jpg
 
How can someone with no money afford decent food, housing, or anything.

The only State you lose "everything" when you do bankruptcy would be Vermont or at least it used to be. Vermont may have changed it by now. Obvious that person would either have to be on Charity or on a government program of some sort. Just because there are some people who are that bad off doesn't mean that the remainder of the people have to be put on some sort of government program which would in the whole be more expensive for less benefit.
 
Obamacare should be defunded, it is a worthless POS that is hurting every working American that already had coverage.
 
Back
Top Bottom