• 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

Questions for my liberal friends:

How important is conservative acquiesence to Obamacare in view of the inevitable glitches and unforeseen problems that will invariably develop with such a massive piece of legislation?

It's hard to tell until the main provisions take effect. We can worry about fixing the flaws once it becomes clear what they are.

What if the costs of Obamacare hurt the economy and consevatives won't allow liberals to repair and fix the legislation?

Then hopefully the voters will punish the GOP for hurting the economy like that. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Agreed. What we need, quite simply, is Medicare for all.

There may be a time when that is the best solution, but I do not think now is that time, nor is it garunteed that there will be a time when it is best. Finding solutions within the framework that is already in place is the best thing at this time.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

We need to break the link between employment and health insurance. Getting our health insurance through employers is one of the dumbest, inefficient, and most idiosyncratic quirks of the American health care system. It traps people in jobs which they hate or aren't good at, it discourages people from starting businesses or going back to school, and it leaves people's health coverage at the mercy of their employer's whim.

We'd be far better off to transition to a system where employers just give us money, and we buy our health insurance individually. PPACA doesn't go nearly far enough in that regard, but at least it's a start and it opens the door to future expansion. If PPACA encourages employers to drop coverage of their employees, I consider that a feature rather than a bug.

WOW. We agree on that! That is STEP ONE in medical insurance reform, making ALL of the people aware of its HUGE cost. Even under PPACA "private" medical care insurance is virtually guaranteed to ADD 20% overhead/profit to medical care costs, as all amounts over that must be refunded. STEP TWO is to allow, rather than BAN (as PPACA does) the INTERSTATE marketing of "catastrophic" medical care insurance, that has a high annual deductable, but pays 100% of medical care costs over that deductable. Every year that one is NOT spending a lot on medical care, then that money can be saved, building a savings account that allows their "catastrophic" annual deductable to be raised, saving even more money on medical care insurance the next year. When people pay cash, they SHOP AROUND forcing fair market competition to help keep medical care costs in check. As it is now, you can't even find out what the actual care costs are; it is treated as a "trade secret" agreement between the insurance company and the doctor.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Questions for my liberal friends:

How important is conservative acquiesence to Obamacare in view of the inevitable glitches and unforeseen problems that will invariably develop with such a massive piece of legislation?

What if the costs of Obamacare hurt the economy and consevatives won't allow liberals to repair and fix the legislation?

There is not going to be conservative acquiescence on this any time in the near future.

The inevitable problems is why I favored a more gradual, step by step approach to improving health care. That is, make a few smaller changes, see what happens, then look at making more changes, see what happens, make more changes, until we get to where we have a sustainable, accessible, working health care system.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Le sigh. You are slow on the uptake. Use your head. Are employers required to provide health care as a part of compensation? No they are not. They are being compelled to do so. That is forcing commerce as a portion of compensation. The commerce clause has been redefined to be unable to force commerce where it does not already exist. You can compel that behavior through a tax, you cannot mandate it.

This is at the heart of the ruling regarding the commerce clause and the power to tax.

No. That just is not a correct understanding of the decision. You've got the big picture, but you're misunderstanding the details. I'm telling you, 100% for a fact, the decision deals with the individual mandate, not the employer mandate.

The majority said that the commerce clause does not allow Congress to force somebody who isn't engaging in commerce to engage in commerce. But an employer already is engaging in commerce. They are paying employees. That is commerce. The Congress wouldn't be forcing them to move from the not-engaging-in-commerce column to the is-engaging-in-commerce column. They were engaged in commerce all along, by definition. An employer is one who employs somebody. Employing somebody is commerce.

We regulate employment conditions and compensation all the time under the commerce clause. Bans on child labor, minimum wage, rules protecting collective bargaining, OSHA, requirements, etc.

Because it costs less than the coverage that they are offering. See: unintended consequences.

That doesn't make sense lol. So they offered it when there was no fine. Now there is a fine. So they would drop coverage now? That's ridiculous. Think it over before you respond...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It's hard to tell until the main provisions take effect. We can worry about fixing the flaws once it becomes clear what they are.



Then hopefully the voters will punish the GOP for hurting the economy like that. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Oh I think the public will hold some responsibility to the dems for passing the horrible law in the first place. But you likely may be right.

I wonder who gets held responsible when we cant keep paying for all this crap? Or if it causes yet another recession or worse yet, a depression.

The health care act is a gigantic drag on hiring.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

WOW. We agree on that! That is STEP ONE in medical insurance reform, making ALL of the people aware of its HUGE cost. Even under PPACA "private" medical care insurance is virtually guaranteed to ADD 20% overhead/profit to medical care costs, as all amounts over that must be refunded. STEP TWO is to allow, rather than BAN (as PPACA does) the INTERSTATE marketing of "catastrophic" medical care insurance, that has a high annual deductable, but pays 100% of medical care costs over that deductable. Every year that one is NOT spending a lot on medical care then that money can be saved, building a savings that allows their "catastrophic" annual deductable to be raised, saving even more money on medical care insurance. When people pay cash, they SHOP AROUND forcing fair market competition to help keep medical care costs in check. As it is now, you can't even find out what the actual care costs are; it is treated as a "trade secret" agreement between the insurance company and the doctor.

Why deal at all with deductables, co-insurance and all of that crap? Just eliminate health insurance and pay straight up tax for free medical care, at the state level.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It's hard to tell until the main provisions take effect. We can worry about fixing the flaws once it becomes clear what they are.



Then hopefully the voters will punish the GOP for hurting the economy like that. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Obamacare will be like all other social welfare spending. Costs will explode. This will harm the economy. A legislative fix won't be possible.

Your side won't hold sixty seats in the Senate again during our lifetimes.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

We, do not agree :p

Individual payers are more responsible with the purchases if its their money and will hold insurance companies more accountable. Give the insurance regulators some serious teeth and move insurance to individuals and you WILL see costs drop.

That is demonstrably not the case. Most people who have insurance don't even know what theyre being billed, or for that matter, what their insurance costs. If someone's insurance covers an MRI, there is no incentive to shop around for the best deal on an MRI. And doctors are the same way. Mary probably doesn't need an MRI -- it's probably a waste of money -- but she's got insurance so hey, why not just where a belt and suspenders? It's just the insurance company, right?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It's hard to tell until the main provisions take effect. We can worry about fixing the flaws once it becomes clear what they are.



Then hopefully the voters will punish the GOP for hurting the economy like that. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

LOL. Did Nancy Pelosi tell you to say that? We just have to wait YEARS and then see what this massive 3,000+ pages of legal garbage really means.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

No. That just is not a correct understanding of the decision. You've got the big picture, but you're misunderstanding the details. I'm telling you, 100% for a fact, the decision deals with the individual mandate, not the employer mandate.

The majority said that the commerce clause does not allow Congress to force somebody who isn't engaging in commerce to engage in commerce. But an employer already is engaging in commerce. They are paying employees. That is commerce. The Congress wouldn't be forcing them to move from the not-engaging-in-commerce column to the is-engaging-in-commerce column. They were engaged in commerce all along, by definition. An employer is one who employs somebody. Employing somebody is commerce.

We regulate employment conditions and compensation all the time under the commerce clause. Bans on child labor, minimum wage, rules protecting collective bargaining, OSHA, requirements, etc.



That doesn't make sense lol. So they offered it when there was no fine. Now there is a fine. So they would drop coverage now? That's ridiculous. Think it over before you respond...

Its cost. Health care costs are going to skyrocket. Paying the fines allows you to opt out of the uncertainty of insurance coverage on employees and pay a set fine per employee, its a hell of a lot better indicator than what insurance companies want your insurance premiums to be for the quarter.

If youre paying say 2k a year and the fine is only 1k....do the math.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Obamacare will be like all other social welfare spending. Costs will explode. This will harm the economy. A legislative fix won't be possible.

Your side won't hold sixty seats in the Senate again during our lifetimes.

I doubt that the filibuster will be around (at least in its current form) for much longer anyway, so 60 seats probably will not be necessary.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

There is not going to be conservative acquiescence on this any time in the near future.

The inevitable problems is why I favored a more gradual, step by step approach to improving health care. That is, make a few smaller changes, see what happens, then look at making more changes, see what happens, make more changes, until we get to where we have a sustainable, accessible, working health care system.

I agree. That would have been the better approach. Now the glitches and problems that will inevitably develop will have the effect of harming the economy on a major scale. It makes sense for employers without extremely high skilled workers to simply eliminate existing coverage and to throw them into exchanges. Subsidies to exchanges will raise the deficit.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That is demonstrably not the case. Most people who have insurance don't even know what theyre being billed, or for that matter, what their insurance costs. If someone's insurance covers an MRI, there is no incentive to shop around for the best deal on an MRI. And doctors are the same way. Mary probably doesn't need an MRI -- it's probably a waste of money -- but she's got insurance so hey, why not just where a belt and suspenders? It's just the insurance company, right?

WOW. This may be the first time I have EVER agreed with you. As long as a third party, whether the insurance company or the gov't sets the price, then the consumer has NO SAY at all.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

LOL. Did Nancy Pelosi tell you to say that? We just have to wait YEARS and then see what this massive 3,000+ pages of legal garbage really means.

Any large piece of legislation will have unintended consequences. Most smaller pieces of legislation will even.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I doubt that the filibuster will be around (at least in its current form) for much longer anyway, so 60 seats probably will not be necessary.

So what you intend to achieve is permanent power. I understand the temptation. The problem is that those folks who no longer have a stake in the success of the established order will become internal enemies.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That is demonstrably not the case. Most people who have insurance don't even know what theyre being billed, or for that matter, what their insurance costs. If someone's insurance covers an MRI, there is no incentive to shop around for the best deal on an MRI. And doctors are the same way. Mary probably doesn't need an MRI -- it's probably a waste of money -- but she's got insurance so hey, why not just where a belt and suspenders? It's just the insurance company, right?

LOL if it came out of everyone's pocket, you can bet they would suddenly become more interested. People are NOT interested because they have so little control over it. If they were allowed to shop around for rates, they might care about costs a lot more.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Its cost. Health care costs are going to skyrocket. Paying the fines allows you to opt out of the uncertainty of insurance coverage on employees and pay a set fine per employee, its a hell of a lot better indicator than what insurance companies want your insurance premiums to be for the quarter.

If youre paying say 2k a year and the fine is only 1k....do the math.

So think this through. Say you pay $2k/year for insurance. Before the fine, if you stopped offering insurance, you would save $2k/year. Now, with the fine, you would save only $1k per year. So the fine makes you LESS likely to stop offering insurance. You follow?

As for health care costs skyrocketting, I do agree that costs will continue to go up until we get at least a public option. The pressure from the right forced the left to abandon almost every measure that was designed to prevent the costs from going up. But that's nothing new. Health care costs have doubled every 7 years or so for almost 3 decades straight now. That will likely continue until we do something to change it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So what you intend to achieve is permanent power. I understand the temptation. The problem is that those folks who no longer have a stake in the success of the established order will become internal enemies.

Or...
You could just convince the voters of your views and win an election. :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

LOL if it came out of everyone's pocket, you can bet they would suddenly become more interested. People are NOT interested because they have so little control over it. If they were allowed to shop around for rates, they might care about costs a lot more.

Isn't that the point of the Health Insurance Exchanges?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Why deal at all with deductables, co-insurance and all of that crap? Just eliminate health insurance and pay straight up tax for free medical care, at the state level.

Insurance is GOOD for the rare, the unexpected and the expensive. While we may win the medical care cost bet THIS year, that does not mean that we will also NEXT year. As many, myself included, can attest, their are BAD years, and a need for SOME good insurance. Would you drop auto or homeowners insurance as well? I doubt it. The ONLY reason for the super costs of current medical care insurance is the KIND of coverage, thus the frequency of its use. You don't claim tune-ups, oil changes or flat tires on your auto policy, only MAJOR collisions and liability. You don't claim a worn out clothes dryer, repainting the living room or lawn maintanence on your homeowners policy, only strom damage, fire damage or an accidental injury on your property.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

LOL if it came out of everyone's pocket, you can bet they would suddenly become more interested. People are NOT interested because they have so little control over it. If they were allowed to shop around for rates, they might care about costs a lot more.

Right, people aren't interested because the insurance company pays the bills and very often the insured doesn't even see the bill. Our system doesn't work on free market principles.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Insurance is GOOD for the rare, the unexpected and the expensive. While we may win the medical acre cost bet THIS year, that does not mean that we will NEXT year. As many, myself included, can attest, their are BAD years, and a need for SOME insurance. Would you drop auto or homeowners insurance as well? The ONLY reasonfor the super costs of currenr medical care insurance is the KIND of coverage. You don't claim tune-ups, oil changes or flat tires on your auto policy, only MAJOR collisions and liability. You don't claim a worn out clothes dryer, repainting the living room or lawn maintanenece on your homeowners policy, only strom damage, fire damage or an accidental injury on your property.

Replacing private medical insurance with publicly funded care does not mean you don't get care when you need it. There is no need for insurance with public funding.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Or...
You could just convince the voters of your views and win an election. :roll:

The forces of the established order are too powerful to be overcome using the existing political system.

What does one do under those circumstances? One changes the rules of the game or one adopts Han Chinese tactics.

When one no longer believes in the legitimacy of the established order one is at liberty to undermine the entire order. Look at the way the Second Iraq War was undermined by people who didn't believe in the order.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Another giant leap backwards.
 
Back
Top Bottom