• 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

AdamT said:
No, I'm making the point that some people, like TD, were given every advantage in life to help them succeed, whereas many other people didn't have such advantages given to them.
Click to expand...

Many are born to disadvantage, and of those, some overcome and better themselves. And some of those born to affluence throw it all way. So continuing the 'we must take care of these disadvantaged people' really screams of racism.

As to Obamacare...

You have to understand, however, the intention of this 'law'. It has very little to do with providing affordable health care - by every estimation, it will expand costs over the current system. First, the 'fine' that people pay is a joke. It's actually MUCH MUCH cheaper just to pay the 'fine' than to buy ANY type of insurance at all. (the fine doesn't go to the insurance company, by the way!) Its much cheaper to just pay the fine and then, when you're sick, show up to a hospital and demand 'insurance' (which, at that point, isn't really insurance at all - it's forcing a business to pay for some random person's medical bills! Someone who has never taken part in the risk pool and thus can fit an actuarial analysis which allows the insurance company to adjust rates and allocate resources over time appropriately.)

This is obviously impossible to sustain. The law was designed this way. Ultimately, people would realize that it's cheaper / better just to pay the 'fine' and would not buy insurance. These same people would show up and demand their care be paid for when they're sick, despite never having contributed to the insurance pool. The insurance companies would respond just they way they have over the last 2 years - raising required capital by increasing the premiums on those who still pay for insurance (projections are an average of 12-15% per year premium increases, indefinitely).

In the short term, businesses and individuals will respond by reducing benefits and/or increasing the amount of out-of-pocket expenses (increased co-pays, 90% benefits, higher deductibles, etc) to keep the premiums as low as possible. This is where we are now, and the result is that people who pay for insurance are getting less care and paying more for it. This is because, when faced with a medical problem, for example, that might require surgery, people who once went ahead with treatment with a $500 deductible are thinking twice before committing to treatment that demands a $2500 deductible and then only covers 90% of costs after that.

In the long run, most people, finding traditional insurance unaffordable, will find themselves dropped by their employers in favor of the 'exchanges'. Those who can still afford insurance will find their policies costing in the range of a 'cadillac plan' and then be taxed to tarnation based on the cost of their policy, forcing even more into the state plans.

This law is NOT about insurance, It's about control and ultimately ensuring that no one can get anything more than anyone else regardless of input. The goal of this law is to achieve this by bankrupting the insurance companies so that the gov't will then be in a position to say 'well, we tried, but those greedy insurance companies wouldn't play ball - our only option now is a socialist, single payer national system' (the same system failing all over the world).

Worse, since the entire thing is legislated to be within budget, there will be no choice but to ration care. We've already seen the overtures the democrats have made in this regard. Already there is POLICY IN PLACE to limit care to the elderly (who by the way paid their entire lives for after-65 health insurance = medicare) and the very young. The first nod came when the Obama administration SLASHED reimbursement to cardiologists and payment for cardiology procedures a couple years ago, thus reducing the resources available to the patients of cardiologists, who by the way, tend to be of advanced age. Now the focus is on the very young: newborns and young children, even fetuses. When Obama tries to force insurance companies to provide free contraceptive care to patients such that everyone would get full resources WITHOUT COPAY, most people think its only about the pill. Its also about pre-natal screening and providing for free abortion services (again, without copay to encourage the procedure) especially for persons likely to have a 'bad-baby'.

The implications of this 'law' are so tremendous and the effects would be so wide-spread and ultimately draconian that, in their fruition, they would literally dictate life and death (yes, there ARE death panels) by dictating what services are covered vs not. Worse, the law dis-incentivizes doctors from providing care for you through the IPAB (independent payment advisory board) which dictates what services are reimbursed and at what rate. Want to stop people over 65 from getting a bypass surgery? Don't pay for it! Worse, this IPAB (unlike the medicare advisory board) un unanswerable to Congress! There is no recourse to their dictates. The people who set this whole thing up have so little regard for the individual that they refer to patients not as 'people' or 'covered life' (like an insurance co), but as 'units'. The dehuminization in this crime-of-a-law is so complete that you are no longer 'Bill Jones, father, son, husband, construction worker, etc' but 'unit xxx-xx-xxxx'.

This law is a raw power grab aimed at inserting gov't into our lives in an unprecedented way. Anyone who understands it and has the slightest respect for the concept of the individual, could not possibly support it.
 
RightOfCenter said:
One thing that I think is important to mention: If the individual mandate will only impact 2% of the population as has been reported, how will that lead to enough revenue for insurance companies to keep costs low for all of the people with pre-existing conditions that they must now cover?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone imagines that it will cover the cost completely. The main idea is that it will provide incentive to purchase insurance and thus won't have to be assessed very often.
 
Arbo said:
Many are born to disadvantage, and of those, some overcome and better themselves. And some of those born to affluence throw it all way. So continuing the 'we must take care of these disadvantaged people' really screams of racism.
Click to expand...

First, I don't seem to recall anyone saying a word about race until you dropped the card like an atom bomb. Second, while it's certainly true that some who are advantaged fail and some who aren't succeed, it's clear that the odds are massively stacked depending upon one's family fortunes.

As to Obamacare...

You have to understand, however, the intention of this 'law'. It has very little to do with providing affordable health care - by every estimation, it will expand costs over the current system.
Click to expand...

The main purpose of "Obamacare" is to expand coverage to tens of millions of people who don't have it, so of course it will result in more care being given and thus more expense.

First, the 'fine' that people pay is a joke. It's actually MUCH MUCH cheaper just to pay the 'fine' than to buy ANY type of insurance at all. (the fine doesn't go to the insurance company, by the way!) Its much cheaper to just pay the fine and then, when you're sick, show up to a hospital and demand 'insurance' (which, at that point, isn't really insurance at all - it's forcing a business to pay for some random person's medical bills! Someone who has never taken part in the risk pool and thus can fit an actuarial analysis which allows the insurance company to adjust rates and allocate resources over time appropriately.)
Click to expand...

That's true -- the fine is much too small if you think of it as a cost/benefit analysis. Effectively it's more of a prod to push people to do the right and moral thing. The fines will be used to defray the costs of the program, so it's better than nothing.

This is obviously impossible to sustain. The law was designed this way. Ultimately, people would realize that it's cheaper / better just to pay the 'fine' and would not buy insurance. These same people would show up and demand their care be paid for when they're sick, despite never having contributed to the insurance pool. The insurance companies would respond just they way they have over the last 2 years - raising required capital by increasing the premiums on those who still pay for insurance (projections are an average of 12-15% per year premium increases, indefinitely).
Click to expand...

Obviously it's not impossible to sustain, given the fact that the plan is essentially in place in MA -- thinks to Mr. Romney -- and it's working quite well. MA has by far the lowest uninsured rate in the country.

In the short term, businesses and individuals will respond by reducing benefits and/or increasing the amount of out-of-pocket expenses (increased co-pays, 90% benefits, higher deductibles, etc) to keep the premiums as low as possible. This is where we are now, and the result is that people who pay for insurance are getting less care and paying more for it. This is because, when faced with a medical problem, for example, that might require surgery, people who once went ahead with treatment with a $500 deductible are thinking twice before committing to treatment that demands a $2500 deductible and then only covers 90% of costs after that.

In the long run, most people, finding traditional insurance unaffordable, will find themselves dropped by their employers in favor of the 'exchanges'. Those who can still afford insurance will find their policies costing in the range of a 'cadillac plan' and then be taxed to tarnation based on the cost of their policy, forcing even more into the state plans.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why the plan would have that effect over and above the extent that this is already taking place.

This law is NOT about insurance, It's about control and ultimately ensuring that no one can get anything more than anyone else regardless of input. The goal of this law is to achieve this by bankrupting the insurance companies so that the gov't will then be in a position to say 'well, we tried, but those greedy insurance companies wouldn't play ball - our only option now is a socialist, single payer national system' (the same system failing all over the world).
Click to expand...

Oh please. The plan is about expanding health insurance coverage -- full stop. Why do you think the insurance companies support it? If the mandate goes down, however, it will change the landscape considerably.

Worse, since the entire thing is legislated to be within budget, there will be no choice but to ration care.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter rubbish. If I'd seen your idiotic "death panel" nonsense I wouldn't have bothered, but I'll just post what I've written.... :roll:
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
First, I don't seem to recall anyone saying a word about race until you dropped the card like an atom bomb.
Click to expand...

BS, it is standard practice for liberals to talk about the 'poor' and 'disadvantaged' and how they need those liberals and there government plans in order to save them. Racism, sexism, ageism, whatever is appropriate in terms of the group of people that liberals are suggesting are helpless without the assistance of liberals.

AdamT said:
Obviously it's not impossible to sustain, given the fact that the plan is essentially in place in MA -- thinks to Mr. Romney -- and it's working quite well. MA has by far the lowest uninsured rate in the country.

...

Complete and utter rubbish. If I'd seen your idiotic "death panel" nonsense I wouldn't have bothered, but I'll just post what I've written.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Sure, its not impossible to sustain if we have an unlimited supply of money. Hmm, who has that? Oh, nobody. And even if the left managed to soak every penny from the rich, thus destroying our economy even more, what happens once they have spent all that money?

Take a look at other countries systems, care is rationed. Age of the patient is considered. Is the panel that decided that an 80 year old doesn't need a heart transplant or cancer treatment because the cost outweighs the benefits a 'life panel'? Or are you in denial that rationing of health care would be quite the norm when funds are limited? If so, can you tell us how this plan for the USA would avoid rationing when every other country has not managed to avoid it?
 
TurtleDude said:
tea bagger? LOL, so until the FDR lapdogs twisted the commerce clause, no such authority existed. This clause was to allow congress to prevent one state from interfering with commerce between others. It had nothing to do with regulating say firearms or wheat or medical marijuana or making me buy healthcare.

remind me of your law degree?
Click to expand...

Actually, it did exist before FDR. Look at cases dealing with railroads and water ways in the 1800s

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

TurtleDude said:
many in the extreme left seem to think that anyone who had industrious parents never worked a day in their lives

in reality, people tend to be like their parents-those who have hard working well educated parents tend to be that way, those whose parents were sloths and lived off the government tit tend to be teat sucklers themselves.
Click to expand...

Then shouldn't you want to ensure this kids don't become parasites like their parents?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

Arbo said:
xxx'.

This law is a raw power grab aimed at inserting gov't into our lives in an unprecedented way. Anyone who understands it and has the slightest respect for the concept of the individual, could not possibly support it.
Click to expand...

You're a nut. Obama didn't want the mandate. He wanted a public option that operated at cost in order to force insurance to get better. The republocrats supported the mandate, hell even the heritage foundation did, until democrats hoped on bored.

IMO, the alternatives to the mandate being proposed right now sound good though. Requiring insurance to cover anyone and finning late comers (while allowing insurance companies to also charge people more to compensate) sound like it will achieve the same result without the unconstitutional road block.

on topic: IMO, theres only two ways the court can/well rule. Either either mandate is constitutional or its not. Every other part of the law that is being challenged will be upheld because the courts abhor getting into matters of policy (which us the rest of the law).

So, honestly, the case is a win-win for Obama. If the mandate is voided it reopens the debate for the public option, which hr preferred. If it stands (not likely) it vindicates him.
 
Arbo said:
BS, it is standard practice for liberals to talk about the 'poor' and 'disadvantaged' and how they need those liberals and there government plans in order to save them. Racism, sexism, ageism, whatever is appropriate in terms of the group of people that liberals are suggesting are helpless without the assistance of liberals.



Sure, its not impossible to sustain if we have an unlimited supply of money. Hmm, who has that? Oh, nobody. And even if the left managed to soak every penny from the rich, thus destroying our economy even more, what happens once they have spent all that money?

Take a look at other countries systems, care is rationed. Age of the patient is considered. Is the panel that decided that an 80 year old doesn't need a heart transplant or cancer treatment because the cost outweighs the benefits a 'life panel'? Or are you in denial that rationing of health care would be quite the norm when funds are limited? If so, can you tell us how this plan for the USA would avoid rationing when every other country has not managed to avoid it?
Click to expand...


Would you "give" an 80 year old a 17 year old heart?
 
TurtleDude said:
many in the extreme left seem to think that anyone who had industrious parents never worked a day in their lives

in reality, people tend to be like their parents-those who have hard working well educated parents tend to be that way, those whose parents were sloths and lived off the government tit tend to be teat sucklers themselves.
Click to expand...
And the bankers that sold goods tainted by their ratings company yacht club buddies in crime were, of course, following in their parents footsteps as well - swindling the working class for every dime they could. It's just that this time it failed, they got caught, and they took the rest of us down with them.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

Study the term in the English tradition starting with the Anglo-Saxon fyrds. (Merriam-Webster. Puh-leeze.)
Click to expand...
Would you prefer Black's?
 
AdamT said:
I see enumerated "provide for arming". I don't see any enumeration of "force them to buy their own weapons and gear".
Click to expand...

:) check out Paragraph 18.

Just as it is enumerated that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but there's no enumeration of any insurance mandate.
Click to expand...

yes. and if you wanted to (for example) get rid of the state boundary restrictions, then Congress could certainly do that - that would be regulating the commerce among the several states. It just doesn't give congress the right to force individuals to engage in commerce for the purpose of regulating that commerce - if so it would have read that they have the power to regulate commerce among the people.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Some infractions have been issued. You all need to stop the personal attacks, or MORE will be issued, with a topping of thread bans, too.
 
SypherAL said:
The Supreme court is not going to rule based on the constitution....if that was the case they would have voted 6-0 in favor of Obamacare today. It's always been about political ideology and returning the favor to the party that put you in the seat, its always been like that, and always will be.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the 5 Supremes are pissed at getting dissed at the State of the Union speech a couple of years ago.

Payback's a bitch.
 
danarhea said:
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

No one is not eligible for drugs purchasing with out prescription
 
So far the arguments "for" and "against" the mandate have been interesting to hear. I can see both sides of the argument and both have legitimate claims. Will be interesting to hear the outcome of this.
 
Arbo said:
BS, it is standard practice for liberals to talk about the 'poor' and 'disadvantaged' and how they need those liberals and there government plans in order to save them. Racism, sexism, ageism, whatever is appropriate in terms of the group of people that liberals are suggesting are helpless without the assistance of liberals.
Click to expand...

Again, no one has mentioned race but you. The principle applies regardless of skin color or gender. If you are born to a wealthy family you have a big advantage. That's not making any kind of value judgment -- it's just a fact of life.
 
cpwill said:
:) check out Paragraph 18.



yes. and if you wanted to (for example) get rid of the state boundary restrictions, then Congress could certainly do that - that would be regulating the commerce among the several states. It just doesn't give congress the right to force individuals to engage in commerce for the purpose of regulating that commerce - if so it would have read that they have the power to regulate commerce among the people.
Click to expand...

As the government argued, everyone engages in health care commerce, whether they want to or not. The only question is whether those who can afford to pay for it but won't should be allowed to skim off of everyone else. When they do it drives up the cost of health care for responsible individuals.
 
AdamT said:
As the government argued, everyone engages in health care commerce, whether they want to or not. The only question is whether those who can afford to pay for it but won't should be allowed to skim off of everyone else. When they do it drives up the cost of health care for responsible individuals.
Click to expand...

Those damn poor people skimming off everyone else! FINALLY, a president that will get the economic burdens of the poor off of corporate and private landowners.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: Their definition of "militia" is quite incomplete. The "puh-leeze" is that you think it has some authoritative weight on terms of art used in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well, you could look at Black's Law Dictionary:

"Militia: The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army."

Nope -- still nothing about about buying their own weapons and gear.
 
joko104 said:
Those damn poor people skimming off everyone else! FINALLY, a president that will get the economic burdens of the poor off of corporate and private landowners.
Click to expand...

There certainly seems to be a trend with regard to 'undisclosed'. Not surprising.
 
joko104 said:
Those damn poor people skimming off everyone else! FINALLY, a president that will get the economic burdens of the poor off of corporate and private landowners.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to be sarcastic? Is so it's a fail. The truly poor are covered by Medicaid. The working poor, under AHCA, receive subsidies on a sliding scale to help them purchase health insurance. They are not subject to the mandate.
 
AdamT said:
As the government argued, everyone engages in health care commerce, whether they want to or not. The only question is whether those who can afford to pay for it but won't should be allowed to skim off of everyone else. When they do it drives up the cost of health care for responsible individuals.
Click to expand...

I am not as confident that the law will be overturned, as many in the media seem to be... But, I have known people that have never been to a doctor in their adult lives prior to dying. They did not engage in health care commerce.
 
buck said:
But, I have known people that have never been to a doctor in their adult lives prior to dying. They did not engage in health care commerce.
Click to expand...

Those people are far and few in between and quite rare nowadays.
 
buck said:
And yet they will be forced to engage in commerce.
Click to expand...

No, they won't. But they may have to pay a penalty. More likely they won't, as people who can afford insurance generally have it, either through an employer or purchased individually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom