View Poll Results: Would you approve of the individual mandate if it were passed as an amendment?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 7.32%
  • No

    37 90.24%
  • Possibly/Other

    1 2.44%
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 103

Thread: To those against Obamacare -

  1. #81
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    1) Under no circumstances are illegal aliens covered under any health plan, government or private.

    Then the law that says no hospital can turn anyone away has to be repealed....or millions of illegals will still run to the emergency room when they get the sniffles and pour over the border pregnant to give us the privledge of paying for their child birth and making that baby a citizen.
    Yup. Part of my healthcare plan requires this law to be changed. See point #2.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #82
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Yup. Part of my healthcare plan requires this law to be changed. See point #2.

    2) If you opt out of the government plan, and you do not have catastrophic coverage under your private plan, under no circumstances will the government subsidize your care. If a doctor chooses to see you, unsure of your ability to pay for the service, even with a catastrophic illness, even if it is a child, it is then on the doctor to collect fees. The government will NOT subsidize in any way, nor is any doctor or hospital required to provide any charity care. You make a choice, you need to live with it.


    Ok gotcha I missed that....I like your plan...its the only viable plan ive seen

  3. #83
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    2) If you opt out of the government plan, and you do not have catastrophic coverage under your private plan, under no circumstances will the government subsidize your care. If a doctor chooses to see you, unsure of your ability to pay for the service, even with a catastrophic illness, even if it is a child, it is then on the doctor to collect fees. The government will NOT subsidize in any way, nor is any doctor or hospital required to provide any charity care. You make a choice, you need to live with it.


    Ok gotcha I missed that....I like your plan...its the only viable plan ive seen...we have to do something..it just cant keep going the way it is....

  4. #84
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I've posted this a couple of times over the past 30 months. It has morphed a bit, and other members have assisted with additions, especially LaMidRighter:

    Heath care would be broken up into a three-tiered program:

    1) Tier 1: Government subsidized health care. Plans paid for and monitored by the government. These plans would be universal and would be paid for via taxes of folks who "opted in" to this plan. It would be "one size fits all" with no variation on the plan itself. Any treatment deemed medically necessary by the treating physician would be covered. No elective, non-necessary or experimental procedures would be, however.

    2) Tier 2: Private insurance, Similar to what we have now with some notable exceptions. No utilization review, Insurance companies no longer have the right to deny coverage for any reason, as long as the benefit is available. Only the treating medical professional can decide whether a treatment is appropriate or not. Strict government regulations aimed at streamlining the paperwork aspect, including mandatory centralization both of billing locations and of billing and other forms. Failure to comply with these regulations, suspend the company's ability to do business.

    Folks who go this route, automatically "opt out" of the government plan and are not due to pay the taxes that subsidize that plan.

    Borrowing from HarryGuerilla, plans are developed on an "ala carte" basis. You want coverage for catastrophic illness only? No problem. How about physicals and x-rays, only? Easy peasy. What about the works, except for obstetrics? Good to go. This kind of choice will allow for folks to get precisely the kind of coverage they want, rather than getting coverage for things they do not.

    3) Tier 3: Private Pay. Complete out of pocket, pay for service plan. No insurance whatsoever. "Opt out" of government plan and related government taxes in total effect.

    Additional parts to this.

    1) Under no circumstances are illegal aliens covered under any health plan, government or private.

    2) If you opt out of the government plan, and you do not have catastrophic coverage under your private plan, under no circumstances will the government subsidize your care. If a doctor chooses to see you, unsure of your ability to pay for the service, even with a catastrophic illness, even if it is a child, it is then on the doctor to collect fees. The government will NOT subsidize in any way, nor is any doctor or hospital required to provide any charity care. You make a choice, you need to live with it.

    3) Bankruptcies will NOT eliminate medical costs. They must be paid in full, no matter what.

    4) TORT reform with reasonable caps on any suing for malpractice.

    5) The ability to sue an insurance company for not paying for services that are in a patient's benefit package. Yes, this happens more often than you think, currently.

    6) I love the "apprentice" program that has been suggested in this thread, and am incorporating it in my plan. As one who has trained and supervised many professionals, I would like to see this expanded. Getting appropriate experience is one of the major challenges to entering this field.

    7) Denial for pre-existing conditions is eliminated in both the government and the private insurance plans.

    8) Preventative care is covered fully by both the government and private insurance plans. No co-pays whatsoever. Tax breaks could be given to insurance companies and doctors who encourage preventative care, and to citizens who engage in this.

    9) Reduction of the time period that pharmaceutical companies hold patents on medications, preventing generics from being produced. My thought would be no more than 5 years.

    One thing of note. #6... the apprentice plan was actually suggested by LaMidRighter... and now again in the Welfare thread by reefedjib. It was a good idea then, and still a good idea, now. As you can also see, my "plans" tend to be tiered, with different levels of control and freedom, attempting to cater to all sides of the political spectrum, socio-economic levels, but with allowing for the least amount of manipulation.
    main issues that spring to mind:

    1. if insurance companies are not allowed to refuse coverage or care, but the consumer is purchasing a'la carte, then are you allowing insurance companies to charge individuals different amounts - similar to how ones' auto insurance goes up if one has multiple speeding tickets - or are you going to force the rest of insurance purchasers to subsidize those who are really only pre-paying for healthcare they are sure to need? It seems some flexibility needs to be given to the company as well as the consumer to come to a true deal, otherwise we aren't allowing insurance to act as insurance, but rather operates on the same economics as the government option. which brings me to point#2:

    2. If healthcare for tier one is paid solely out of the taxes of those who are in it, then how do you deal with adverse self-selection? It seems that such a program would immediately collect a large percentage of those with chronic and exceedingly expensive conditions, who by definition are unable to earn enough to pay for their own medical care. This is a program that will either quickly turn to fatal rationing if it is limited to contributions, and will quickly become a maw sucking in the healthcare dollars of the other two tiers otherwise.

    3. This wasn't mentioned - but how do you plan to address the current unfair tax treatment of healthcare dollars? under the tiers above, there is currently a strong incentive structure to the tune of the income tax pushing people from Tier 3 to Tier 2 - would you make all healthcare spending tax free? If so, where would we make up the loss of revenue? Would you keep the tax benefits of HSA's?

    4. Tort caps: while I'm a large fan of tort reform, caps have always struck me as ungainly. There are events that happen to some that simply damage them over the course of their lifetime more than $500,000, or $1,000,000 worth. It seems that if you are going to cap tort, then the cap should exclude the future cost of the patients' medical care, which would be assumed by the insurance company or the doctor himself. If you aren't willing to do this, then I would strongly suggest you instead look at enacting a method for "loser pays", where a doctor unrightfully sued by money-seekers can recoup at least the cost of the litigation and his time in court rather than in the clinic.

    5. You say no care for one who has failed to provide for themselves, including for children. "you have made your decision". but the child has made no decision. as a generally free-market conservative, I'm going to side with Milton Friedman on this one and say that letting losers suffer for their decisions is a poor model to apply to children and the mentally disabled. it seems that some level of care should be afforded for the child, with the parent perhaps either taking on debt or losing parental rights if they have failed to provide for their offspring. we remove children from parents for other forms of neglect.

    6. is the "apprentice" program a way around the current guild stranglehold on the supply of doctors?
    Last edited by cpwill; 12-02-11 at 07:53 AM.

  5. #85
    Student Blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    05-21-17 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    218

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Since we're making alternative suggestions here, let's try this:

    (1) Medicare/Medicaid are completely done away with (including their portion of the payroll tax). Instead the Department of Health and Human Services implement a far less costly bloc grant for the states to implement requiring a voucher program to assist means-tested individuals on a temporary basis in the purchase of health insurance to be applied towards a Medical or Health Savings Account. States would be barred from providing assistance to non-citizens. There would also be stipulations for work and/or school requirements, prohibition against non-essential services and mandatory drug-testing as a qualification for receipt of assistance.

    (2) EMTALA amended to exclude illegal immigrants from service and to strengthen ability of hospitals and health care providers to seek financial restitution from free riders where reasonable to eliminate abuse of the system.

    (3) National health care portability legislation enacted to my insurance available on a national market.

    (4) FDA streamline drug-approval process. Importation of foreign drugs no longer prohibited, helping lower pharmaceutical costs for consumers.

    (5) National tort reform enacted to limit to damages to reasonable amounts and enact "loser pays" guidelines for frivolous suits.

    (6) Tax reform to make health care expenses 100% deductible. Eliminate capital gains taxes for hospitals and health care facilities. Cut corporate tax to 10 percent for pharmaceutical and health care technology manufacturers.

    Using these principles government's intervention in the marketplace would be substantially reduced, allowing for the market to work more freely. Low-income families would still receive a modest form of government assistance, though delivered at the local level, requiring personal responsibility and maximizing consumer choice. Costs would be substantially reduced both for health care providers and consumers, accessibility would be increased, and waste and fraud would be substantially reduced.

  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Assuming you are against the 'individual mandate' clause, would you support it if it were instead passed as an Amendment to the constitution?

    My issue with most liberal-based legislation is that it continues to change the interpretation of the words in the constitution to allow for such legislation. The more we change the meaning of clauses, the less important those clauses become (and eventually, anything can be done under the clauses which render them useless). We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to abolish alcohol. Now look what we get away with!

    I'm a constitutionalist. Which does not imply that I don't want to amend it or even that I don't want a bigger government necessarily. But if you don't have 2/3's approval in Congress and 75% of the states ratifying an increase of powers, than such an increase is not appropriate.

    I'm personally on the fence about an individual mandate clause, depending on what it says exactly. But I'm absolutely against such a law without a constitutional amendment.
    The Libertarians and many conservatives love the Constitution so much...which in some ways is good.
    But this document was written and designed hundreds of years ago.
    Then, health care as we know it today did not even exist....on this basis, I cannot understand how the constitution is even involved.
    But, this is obvious, there is much more...we do not want a government becoming "too big for its britches", do we ???
    We, in this case, is NOT the Liberals

  7. #87
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    so, no having the average citizen be deadbeat, like the government.

    I'm down. A mandate that doesn't really mandate isn't a mandate in the first place. Allow anyone who wishes to opt out of Obamacare.
    Yes, everyone's a deadbeat. I remember back before the law and a young girl died in Georgia. Damn Deadbeat.

    Anyway, that is what will have to happen. We will have to say we won't care for those who can't pay. Absent that, you will have to plan for those who can't in one form or another.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #88
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Assuming you are against the 'individual mandate' clause, would you support it if it were instead passed as an Amendment to the constitution?

    My issue with most liberal-based legislation is that it continues to change the interpretation of the words in the constitution to allow for such legislation. The more we change the meaning of clauses, the less important those clauses become (and eventually, anything can be done under the clauses which render them useless). We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to abolish alcohol. Now look what we get away with!

    I'm a constitutionalist. Which does not imply that I don't want to amend it or even that I don't want a bigger government necessarily. But if you don't have 2/3's approval in Congress and 75% of the states ratifying an increase of powers, than such an increase is not appropriate.

    I'm personally on the fence about an individual mandate clause, depending on what it says exactly. But I'm absolutely against such a law without a constitutional amendment.
    Pretty much the entire body of federal law "changes the interpretation of the words" of the U.S. Constitution, because the domestic and international challenges of the last 100 years have required it at a higher degree than ideological scruples and rivalries have been able to accommodate.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 12-03-11 at 12:58 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #89
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    A cursory glance at public education can answer this question for you. One-size-fits-all government solutions decrease quality and increase costs. That's just the way intervention in the marketplace works whether we're talking about health care, education or what-have-you.

    well gosh. gee wiz you mean in the two sectors of the economy where we see massive government intervention and subsidy (healthcare and education), we also see skyrocketing costs?


    what a surprise.

  10. #90
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: To those against Obamacare -

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    well gosh. gee wiz you mean in the two sectors of the economy where we see massive government intervention and subsidy (healthcare and education), we also see skyrocketing costs?


    what a surprise.
    As I recall, you want government in education. Vouchers and having government pay for private school largely involves government more heavily in education. As one of my forgien students said when we watched the Stossel film, "dosn't he (Stosseel) know that is socialized education?" She explained that the examples he was using came from countries that socialed education. I laughed.

    But, for here, do you really believe that govenment won't involve itself in education it pays for?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •