• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

MaggieD said:
Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.

The other poor saps who lose their jobs, try to go in business for themselves, or retire early are left out in the cold when they are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or those pre-existing conditions are excluded.

The individual mandate is absolutely essential. Without it, insurance premiums will skyrocket.
Click to expand...
Insurance carriers have already warned that premiums will skyrocket if the pre-existing conditions part in any way remains, about which the individual mandate is really powerless to offset.

All of the Obamacare nightmare tenets do not counterbalance the pre-existing condition value, a value which should have been a separate non-pork issue on its own, complete with associated cost-rise protection.
 
Ontologuy said:
Best is to remove employers from the discrimination-in-hiring causing burden of providing healthcare policies.
Click to expand...

it would be best to remove employers entirely from providing health insurance. switching plans every time someone changes jobs is utter lunacy.

Ontologuy said:
Every citizen would then have more options in the private sector, to choose what they wish, and the un- and under- employed would no longer be directly doubly discriminated against.

What was really missing from Obamacare and suggested alternatives was a very sophisticated and powerful cost management body created in the private sector.

The problem with healthcare is foundationally in the cost of raw and manufactured materials and labor, a problem that isn't resolved by Obamacare.

This is the problem that needs to be dealt with, so that healthcare providers can still mak a decent living and so many citizens aren't priced out of the healthcare market.
Click to expand...

i agree about the cost issue; this is something that we really need to control, as rising costs have become unsustainable. my own opinion is that this would be best addressed by increasing the supply of health care professionals and consolidating a larger portion of the customer base into a not-for-profit system such as single payer. that entity would have much more leverage to set reimbursement rates, and an increase in the number of doctors (which is artificially limited currently) would help to promote competition.
 
Ontologuy said:
Best is to remove employers from the discrimination-in-hiring causing burden of providing healthcare policies.

Every citizen would then have more options in the private sector, to choose what they wish, and the un- and under- employed would no longer be directly doubly discriminated against.

What was really missing from Obamacare and suggested alternatives was a very sophisticated and powerful cost management body created in the private sector.

The problem with healthcare is foundationally in the cost of raw and manufactured materials and labor, a problem that isn't resolved by Obamacare.

This is the problem that needs to be dealt with, so that healthcare providers can still mak a decent living and so many citizens aren't priced out of the healthcare market.
Click to expand...

What we should have is a system like they have in France. Single payer, with private doctors and hospitals. The cost of every procedure is set by the government and it's all available to consumers -- like a restaurant menu -- so they know exactly what's being paid. In addition, they *feel* the cost insofar as they pay their bills out of pocket, and are then reimbursed by the government. Some elective procedures, or others deemed ineffective or cost prohibitive, are not covered. If people want to they can purchase private insurance to cover those cases.

There is no other way to control doctor, hospital, and prescription prices. Medical care simply is not a free market. The costs are too opaque and the cost/benefit of any particular treatment is too complicated for most people to figure out. The employer-provided insurance system makes that much worse as most people pay less than half of their insurance cost directly, and the deductions businesses get hides a half-trillion-dollar annual government expense.
 
Something else that drives me crazy:

As an individual, I can only deduct medical expenses from my income if they exceed 7% of my gross income. I pay $650 a month for my health insurance and likely spend my deductible each year which is $5,200 annually. That's $13,000 a year for health insurance. That's a lot of money. I should be able to deduct every penny of that from my gross income.

Why should I be able to do this? Because someone who works for a company and has group insurance gets that benefit tax-free. IOW, if the employer pays $400 a month towards an employee's health insurance, the employee is receiving $4,800 a year tax-free.

It's not fair, I tell ya'!!!!
 
MaggieD said:
Something else that drives me crazy:

As an individual, I can only deduct medical expenses from my income if they exceed 7% of my gross income. I pay $650 a month for my health insurance and likely spend my deductible each year which is $5,200 annually. That's $13,000 a year for health insurance. That's a lot of money. I should be able to deduct every penny of that from my gross income.

Why should I be able to do this? Because someone who works for a company and has group insurance gets that benefit tax-free. IOW, if the employer pays $400 a month towards an employee's health insurance, the employee is receiving $4,800 a year tax-free.

It's not fair, I tell ya'!!!!
Click to expand...
I hear you. As a business owner (private contractor), at least I'm allowed to reduce my AGI by a good chunk of the cost of my health insurance that I buy on my own.

Sadly, however, I still have to pay FICA, and the private insurance costs rose dramatically after I reached a "significant" birthday .. to the point where, despite my great health that should make it more affordable, I still could no longer afford healthcare insurance, which I subsequently cancelled.

So now, quite frankie, I'm operating without annette .. and that's a whole lot scarier than the thought of watching those old beach blanket reruns.

If the individual mandate would fairly allow me to procure both adequate and affordable healthcare, I might not be so hard on it.

But there is no healthcare insurance equivalent to cheap state-mandated minimum auto insurance that would be of any real value even catastrophically.

Thus whatever I would be mandated to carry, I like wouldn't be able to afford it either "at my age" (I really hate that phrase ...).
 
From the oral arguments yesterday:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, he's assessing and collecting it in the same manner as a tax.
 
CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that it was a rough day for the Obama administration, as lawyers worked to defend the Obamacare's individual mandate.

"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," Tobin said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong."

Tobin said that U.S. Solicitor General David Verrilli was woefully inprepared in his defense.
Click to expand...



CNN: Today was a 'train wreck' for Obamacare | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner
 
Ontologuy said:
Thus whatever I would be mandated to carry, I like wouldn't be able to afford it either "at my age" (I really hate that phrase ...).
Click to expand...

If you're single and earn $44k or less, or married and earn $88k or less you may qualify for a subsidy under AHCA. Also, you may be able to get a more affordable policy when (or if) health care exchanges are set up.
 
IMHO our SCOTUS actually only has ONE judge, Mr. Kennedy. His reaction is the only one that counts for anything. The other 8 ultra-partisan hacks will split 4/4 on everything. Kennedy seems to be a reasonable man, slightly favoring the Repunantcans but open minded. As for Constitutional issues - hah, what Constitution?
 
"The ninth justice, conservative Clarence Thomas who is expected to vote against the law, asked no questions. He has not asked a question from the bench for more than six years."


Is anyone surprised? This intellectual lightweight is nothing more than deadspace.
 
Ockham said:
Let's hope that the mandate is struck... the toothless law then must be restructured. Maybe 3 times is the charm and we can get something that will reduce costs without jeopardizing care, that would be nice.
Click to expand...

I join you in that hope. The Republican mandate idea was implemented as a compromise to the public option. Hopefully this will ressurrect the public option or even open the door to single payer which are both substantially better than the POS that the bluedogs and Republicans gave us by refusing to consider a better alternative.
 
disneydude said:
I join you in that hope. The Republican mandate idea was implemented as a compromise to the public option. Hopefully this will ressurrect the public option or even open the door to single payer which are both substantially better than the POS that the bluedogs and Republicans gave us by refusing to consider a better alternative.
Click to expand...
It's not going to. This is liberal vs. conservative here and if the liberals lose this, no way they win the public option for generations to come.
 
CNN is freaking out, lol.

Blitzer is about to piss himself, and Tobin looks like he just had his woobie taken away.

No mandate......start over. And the public option ain't happening. People already overhwhelmingly hate this plan; they'll riot over a public option idea.
 
Erod said:
People already overhwhelmingly hate this plan; they'll riot over a public option idea.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a whopping 47% of the people overwhelmingly hate it. To 44% who like it. OVERWHELMING!! :lol:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/A...ontent=morelink&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines

And I wouldn't get too too excited about the oral argument. While it's not sounding great for Obama, you never know whether a justice is asking a question because he or she is really skeptical or because he or she's leaning your way and just wants you to firm up his support.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
CNN is freaking out, lol.

Blitzer is about to piss himself, and Tobin looks like he just had his woobie taken away.

No mandate......start over. And the public option ain't happening. People already overhwhelmingly hate this plan; they'll riot over a public option idea.
Click to expand...

Except, polling showed that the American public was overwhelmingly in favor of the public option. It was the Republicans and bluedogs who kept it from getting into the bill.
 
Can anyone "in the know" tell me when the final decision is set to be made?
 
Erod said:
CNN is freaking out, lol.

Blitzer is about to piss himself, and Tobin looks like he just had his woobie taken away.

No mandate......start over. And the public option ain't happening. People already overhwhelmingly hate this plan; they'll riot over a public option idea.
Click to expand...

the unsustainability of health care cost inflation caused by three levels of for-profit companies between the patient and the health solution will eventually affect everyone enough that the plans embraced by other first world countries will begin to look a lot better. some have largely grandfathered around the problem. it will reach them, too, given enough time.
 
disneydude said:
"The ninth justice, conservative Clarence Thomas who is expected to vote against the law, asked no questions. He has not asked a question from the bench for more than six years."


Is anyone surprised? This intellectual lightweight is nothing more than deadspace.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to whether or not you've actually read an opinion, either concurring or dissenting, written by Justice Thomas. Or any SCOTUS reasonings at all.
 
Helix said:
the unsustainability of health care cost inflation caused by three levels of for-profit companies between the patient and the health solution will eventually affect everyone enough that the plans embraced by other first world countries will begin to look a lot better. some have largely grandfathered around the problem. it will reach them, too, given enough time.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Unless runaway healthcare costs can be directly reigned in and managed while simultaneously quality healthcare is directly maintained, there will be no escape from the pending disasters associated with failing to do both directly.

Obamacare did not directly address obscene skyrocketing health care costs nor did it directly address maintaining quality healthcare, instead providing only an indirect allusion to its hope that the insurance mandate would add another finger or two to what is clearly the soon ultimately futile dike-plugging exercise.

The problem all along was only about excessive costs and disallowed quality healthcare. That was a private sector matter that could have been solved with a government-authorized highly intelligent and powerful costs-services regulatory body established in the private sector.

Obamacare cowardlly skirted around the entire foundational issue with a lazy socialist eye to eventually creating government single-payer.

Obamacare betrayed we the people, and it rightly deserves to be struck down.

Government needs to go back to the drawing board and courageously do the right thing.
 
disneydude said:
"The ninth justice, conservative Clarence Thomas who is expected to vote against the law, asked no questions. He has not asked a question from the bench for more than six years."


Is anyone surprised? This intellectual lightweight is nothing more than deadspace.
Click to expand...

Calling any Supreme Court Justice an "intellectual lightweight" is so painfully stupid....
 
RightOfCenter said:
I'm curious as to whether or not you've actually read an opinion, either concurring or dissenting, written by Justice Thomas. Or any SCOTUS reasonings at all.
Click to expand...

Yes....thousands. I graduated from Law School and have been practicing law for many years....and I stand by my statement. Thomas is deadspace on the court. Every other justice participates while he sits back and does nothing. The guy is a disgrace to the court.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Calling any Supreme Court Justice an "intellectual lightweight" is so painfully stupid....
Click to expand...

Sorry Redress, but his actions and his writings provide plenty of proof to the point.
 
Ontologuy said:
Indeed.

Unless runaway healthcare costs can be directly reigned in and managed while simultaneously quality healthcare is directly maintained, there will be no escape from the pending disasters associated with failing to do both directly.
Click to expand...


Opening up Insurance to be sold across state lines could be a possibility. Oh, and along with educating people that using health insurance for a doctors visit to treat the sniffles is a huge driver of costs is another.

Obamacare did not directly address obscene skyrocketing health care costs
Click to expand...

Sure it did, it addressed it in a fashion as to bring the current system, and provider network down, so that it could be re-fashioned in a single payer system later.

nor did it directly address maintaining quality healthcare
Click to expand...

Quality, innovation, affordability? All of these to quote an Obama term would "necessarily" disappear.

instead providing only an indirect allusion to its hope that the insurance mandate would add another finger or two to what is clearly the soon ultimately futile dike-plugging exercise.
Click to expand...

Again, all to plan...Can't have those pesky private companies out there when the goal is to make everyone a subject of the gubment.

The problem all along was only about excessive costs and disallowed quality healthcare. That was a private sector matter that could have been solved with a government-authorized highly intelligent and powerful costs-services regulatory body established in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen with a quasi Socialist wannabe in office.

Obamacare cowardlly skirted around the entire foundational issue with a lazy socialist eye to eventually creating government single-payer.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Obamacare betrayed we the people, and it rightly deserves to be struck down.
Click to expand...

And most likely will be. Today was a disaster for the government attorney. And the wonderful thing about it is that I heard that there is no sever-ability clause in the law, One piece (the mandate) goes, all of it goes.

Government needs to go back to the drawing board and courageously do the right thing.
Click to expand...

See, this is where I part. I don't think the government is equipped to handle this. We need less government not more.

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom