To those against Obamacare -

I oppose Obamacare immensely. I do not think that anyone should be mandated by the government to purchase a private product/service as a condition of living/being a citizen of a country. It is something I would definitely have expected more from the right than the left. (And if this offends anyone, then maybe the Republicans shouldn't have come up with the idea of it first, at least for this country. Many Republicans would say that it was a "personal responsibility" issue, before Obamacare came out fully anyway.)

I definitely don't believe that trying to make it Constitutional would be better. It would make it worse, in fact, since we would have to repeal the Amendment before we could implement any better plan.

I want a UHC system put in place. That would have been much better.

I only support healthcare initiatives on the state level. The last thing needed is another addition to the bloated national bureaucracy that will fiscally run itself into the ground. The national debt does not need any encouragement to grow larger.eace

If it were passed as an amendment to the US Constitution I would accept its legitimacy. I would also leave the United States permanently and rescind my US Citizenship if that were to happen.

earthworm said:

I still do not understand the how and why our Constitution can be involved with health care. When the Constitution was written, there simply was no such thing as health care; hospitals were in their infancy; life was totally different way back then....
I favor a health care plan that benefits the masses and that solves problems.....the emergency room for one....
Health care should be socialized
We need something akin to that of the advanced European nations....how many years are they more advanced than us ????
Its ludicrous to tie health care into a document written in the "dark ages"...

Click to expand...

While life was without its Playstations, iPods and Droid Razors in 1787, life was pretty much the same. People worked in order to provide food, shelter and clothing for their family. Health care was much different two hundred years ago, but the concept was the same. Hygienic practices and a lack of risky behavior lent itself towards a healthier,longer life. People received the medical attention they could afford. Just like people ate the best food they could afford, wore the best clothes they could afford or possessed the best luxuries they could afford. Doctors used their own discretion in whether or not to provide free care to individuals. The reason our Founding Fathers didn't fabricate a right to health care and codify it in our Constitution is because they correctly recognized that individuals do not have a right to receive free (or "low cost") healthcare, nor does government have the right to mandate the purchase of any good or service by an individual. Such a mandate would have doomed the ratification efforts of the Federalists. In fact, the Founders specifically left such decisions to the states by ratifying the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution as the final and, James Madison believed, most important piece of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Congress has not empowered to deal with health care, not because health care didn't exist in 1787, but because the Founders properly understood that it was an issue best dealt with on a state-by-state basis. If the people of Massachusetts wanted a law providing that all doctors must provide their services to any individual whose life was threatened, regardless of that person's ability to pay the doctor for his time and services, Massachusetts was able to pass such legislation at any time in its history. If New York wanted to require that all its residents be required to see a doctor once a year for a check-up, it could have done that. Had North Carolina deemed it necessary to tax its citizens in order to pay for amputation procedures for poor people, let's say, there was nothing stopping it. No such laws existed at the time of our Founding, not because we lived in some "dark ages" but because the people in government understood that it wasn't government's role to do such things and that liberty, not luxury, was a citizen's birthright.

Times have changed, although human nature and right and wrong have not. The Founders bequeathed to us a mechanism for altering the Constitution which we have rarely deemed necessary to use. Of course over the past eighty years in particular the progressive mindset seeping into our judicial system has rendered the amendment process less necessary given how frequently original intent is rejected as the basis of judicial review. Be that as it may, in order to make Obamacare constitutional all one has to do is get two-thirds of both houses of Congress to recommend an amendment to the states, where 38 or more states must ratify it in order for it to take effect. That's "how...our Constitution can be involved in health care".

If you think Europe is more "advanced" than the United States, I would ask when you are planning to move to that utopia.

Something can be better without being Utopia. It's a false argument to suggest that trying to improve is living in a Utopian fanasty.

As for health care reform, we'll see what the courts say.

I'm against the mandate because of the slippery slope argument, because based on its use, the government can force you to buy only Wheaties cereal because of the regulated Wheat market.

I'm against the law as a whole because its not the government's place to fundamentally alter an entire industry's basic premise. With the law, they've changed the rule that "insurance protects against a possible outcome" to "insurance protects against anything than can happen, will happen, or did happen". With that change, its no longer insurance.

Samhain said:

I'm against the mandate because of the slippery slope argument, because based on its use, the government can force you to buy only Wheaties cereal because of the regulated Wheat market.

I'm against the law as a whole because its not the government's place to fundamentally alter an entire industry's basic premise. With the law, they've changed the rule that "insurance protects against a possible outcome" to "insurance protects against anything than can happen, will happen, or did happen". With that change, its no longer insurance.

Click to expand...

Not likely. The slippery slope is often called a fallacy for a reason. You would have to show that you not eating your weaties harms soeone else. We can show that with lack of insurance. You don't have it, get hurt, treated and the cost is passed on to all of us. We pay for you. This is a fact.

Boo Radley said:

Not likely. The slippery slope is often called a fallacy for a reason. You would have to show that you not eating your weaties harms soeone else. We can show that with lack of insurance. You don't have it, get hurt, treated and the cost is passed on to all of us. We pay for you. This is a fact.

Click to expand...

You honestly think the law would clearly define that a design to mandate product purchase must be made on any specific condition? And even if they did use some sort of "general good" clause, you realize it would be incredibly easy to come up with a reason why Wheaties is necessary for the "better good", or why Chevy is the only acceptable manufacturer from whom you can purchase cars, or why you can only buy appliances made by GE, etc., etc., etc?

Where is the "Good God No!!" option?

tessaesque said:

You honestly think the law would clearly define that a design to mandate product purchase must be made on any specific condition? And even if they did use some sort of "general good" clause, you realize it would be incredibly easy to come up with a reason why Wheaties is necessary for the "better good", or why Chevy is the only acceptable manufacturer from whom you can purchase cars, or why you can only buy appliances made by GE, etc., etc., etc?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think they can come up with equally viable rationale. When you make me pay for you, it is fair for me to demand some responsibility out of you. This is the very same rationale used with auto insurance. It isn't whether one product is beter than another, as no one is saying what insurance you have to purchase, but only that you're covered. This is insisting that you protect us from your irresponsibility.

Boo Radley said:

No, I don't think they can come up with equally viable rationale. When you make me pay for you, it is fair for me to demand some responsibility out of you. This is the very same rationale used with auto insurance. It isn't whether one product is beter than another, as no one is saying what insurance you have to purchase, but only that you're covered. This is insisting that you protect us from your irresponsibility.

Click to expand...

We all pay for shoplifters and destructive children in increased prices at the grocery store. Should the government modify retailer regulations and laws in order to "protect" us from the harm of others?

We all pay for the increased costs of law enforcement when neighborhoods degrade and crime increases. Should the government mandate that we all buy specific products designed to decrease our risk of break-in/robbery?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Mandating that we buy health insurance because we're paying for the actions of others and assuming that such a mandate somehow "protects" anybody in the process is....silly. And yeah, it is a slippery slope.

Boo Radley said:

No, I don't think they can come up with equally viable rationale. When you make me pay for you, it is fair for me to demand some responsibility out of you. This is the very same rationale used with auto insurance. It isn't whether one product is beter than another, as no one is saying what insurance you have to purchase, but only that you're covered. This is insisting that you protect us from your irresponsibility.

Click to expand...

But being alive and getting ill or hurt is not being irresponsible. If a person, such as myself, does not feel that they will be a responsible driver, they can simply choose not to get a driver's license, and they no longer need to get insurance. But that won't work for this mandate because a person who believes in using no medicine or curing themselves will still have to get insurance, or even if they could pay for something that happens to them that they can't take care of themselves.

tessaesque said:

We all pay for shoplifters and destructive children in increased prices at the grocery store. Should the government modify retailer regulations and laws in order to "protect" us from the harm of others?

We all pay for the increased costs of law enforcement when neighborhoods degrade and crime increases. Should the government mandate that we all buy specific products designed to decrease our risk of break-in/robbery?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Mandating that we buy health insurance because we're paying for the actions of others and assuming that such a mandate somehow "protects" anybody in the process is....silly. And yeah, it is a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

And shop lifting is a against the law. So are kids destroying things. The law says they can't do that. The does not presently say you can't be unisured or be treated if you can't pay.

Where you're trying to go isn't really working for me. This is an easy fix in which we ahve nothing in place presently to fix. Unlike the things you cite, there is no law to cover it until now.

roguenuke said:

But being alive and getting ill or hurt is not being irresponsible. If a person, such as myself, does not feel that they will be a responsible driver, they can simply choose not to get a driver's license, and they no longer need to get insurance. But that won't work for this mandate because a person who believes in using no medicine or curing themselves will still have to get insurance, or even if they could pay for something that happens to them that they can't take care of themselves.

Click to expand...

Not being prepared for it is. As sure as we live, we know there is a chance of getting ill or injured. It happens and we know it happens. And while not as easy to avoid as not driving, the fact remains, we know it is going to happen to someone.

And if someone truely can show they will not accpet care, simply die on the street, and have family pick them up, and handle it, that might be cause to opt out. But both those people can likely ahndle that.

tessaesque said:

You honestly think the law would clearly define that a design to mandate product purchase must be made on any specific condition? And even if they did use some sort of "general good" clause, you realize it would be incredibly easy to come up with a reason why Wheaties is necessary for the "better good", or why Chevy is the only acceptable manufacturer from whom you can purchase cars, or why you can only buy appliances made by GE, etc., etc., etc?

Click to expand...

Given that Republicans look likely to take the Senate and even odds at least to take the White House, you would think they would be more careful about expanding the power of the federal government so


"All Americans benefit from Republican leadership, but some Americans refuse to pull their fair share by purchasing membership in the GOP, which only costs 5% of your take-home pay. We therefore mandate that the Americans who haven't been pulling their weight, but rather expecting others to cover them...."

tessaesque said:

We all pay for shoplifters and destructive children in increased prices at the grocery store. Should the government modify retailer regulations and laws in order to "protect" us from the harm of others?

We all pay for the increased costs of law enforcement when neighborhoods degrade and crime increases. Should the government mandate that we all buy specific products designed to decrease our risk of break-in/robbery?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Mandating that we buy health insurance because we're paying for the actions of others and assuming that such a mandate somehow "protects" anybody in the process is....silly. And yeah, it is a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

kinda seems like the obvious solution is to have the person receiving the healthcare pay.

as for Obamacare... we're at the point now where it can't be fully implemented. it was a disastrous, slapdash mess that nobody understood to begin with, and our national fisc has now reached the limit of it's ability to take on that kind of burden.

As for ObamaCare, cpwill is going to make a sweeping post with a few unsubstantiated claims as usual. Other than that, not much else is going on.

cpwill said:

kinda seems like the obvious solution is to have the person receiving the healthcare pay.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that. We have present day examples showing it isn't happening, even with serious collection efforts.

whysoserious said:

As for ObamaCare, cpwill is going to make a sweeping post with a few unsubstantiated claims as usual. Other than that, not much else is going on.

Click to expand...

:lol: well, so far we've seen $500 Bn of the "savings" wiped away when they passed the doc fix, another 130Bn or so of "savings" wiped away when they got rid of the CLASS Act, government at all levels is way behind their deadlines, growth turned out to be way lower than they estimated when they scored the bill, and now we are learning that the number of people who will be flooding the exchanges and taking the subsidies is likely to be about 4 times the number predicted by the CBO.

meanwhile, Medicare goes broke in 2021, Social Security is running a permanent deficit, our current budget was already planning on trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

i'm telling you man, this ain't gonna happen the seams are already coming apart, and if we stuff another major expense in there like this, the thing explodes.

Redress said:

I think it was last year Don posted a thread about the request for reimbursement increases submitted by the AMA or whoever does it and the numbers where scarey. The system was broken.

Click to expand...

It wasn't broke, before Obamacare was passed.

Boo Radley said:

Not being prepared for it is. As sure as we live, we know there is a chance of getting ill or injured. It happens and we know it happens. And while not as easy to avoid as not driving, the fact remains, we know it is going to happen to someone.

And if someone truely can show they will not accpet care, simply die on the street, and have family pick them up, and handle it, that might be cause to opt out. But both those people can likely ahndle that.

Click to expand...

I would much rather have a UHC system than mandated health insurance. At least with a UHC, I know which doctors I can go to and should know pretty quickly how much it will cost me to get treatment from them.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I would actually do the opposite. The healthcare industry is woefully underregulated... or at least underregulated in the wrong areas. I would take away most of the coverage and standards from the states and give it to the federal government so that there starts to be some uniformity, consistency, and ease of transferring coverage.

Click to expand...

They are the ones who messed it up Cap. A lot of people don't know this, but the reason that group benefits exist today and specifically group health coverage is because of depression era wage freezes initiated by Roosevelt, employers needed some way to entice employees to stay so they started to get creative. That was the beginning of intervention.

Many M.D.s have only the option of taking no payment rather than barter, which means if they do want to show mercy to an indigent patient they must make up for it later. There is no excuse for an artificial student ceiling mandated against med schools, and we have insurance commissioners in our own states to decide what the state's needs are. Federal intervention has created a huge mess.

Boo Radley said:

Not likely. The slippery slope is often called a fallacy for a reason. You would have to show that you not eating your weaties harms soeone else. We can show that with lack of insurance. You don't have it, get hurt, treated and the cost is passed on to all of us. We pay for you. This is a fact.

Click to expand...

Me not eating my Wheaties harms the farmers who grow wheat. Just ask Wickard v. Filburn.

You are assuming that when I get hurt and treated that I don't pay for it.

LaMidRighter said:

They are the ones who messed it up Cap. A lot of people don't know this, but the reason that group benefits exist today and specifically group health coverage is because of depression era wage freezes initiated by Roosevelt, employers needed some way to entice employees to stay so they started to get creative. That was the beginning of intervention.

Many M.D.s have only the option of taking no payment rather than barter, which means if they do want to show mercy to an indigent patient they must make up for it later. There is no excuse for an artificial student ceiling mandated against med schools, and we have insurance commissioners in our own states to decide what the state's needs are. Federal intervention has created a huge mess.

Click to expand...

If we are going to talk numbers, then we at least have to admit that UHC has a huge advantage over any private scheme - and that's law of large numbers. With UHC, anyone who has an income would be paying in. That, in and of itself, should reduce uncertainty drastically, which lowers the premium that is required to insure each individual. So we can blame this or that, but UHC is inherently cheaper because of its ability to reduce uncertainty. Then, after that, you can start discussing prevention vs treatment, since more people would be able to visit family doctors and search for early warning signs. This, too, makes health care cheaper.

Anyway, I felt that was worthy of being pointed out - just by a quick look at numbers UHC should work out cheaper in the long run. And, according to cost of health care per person world wide, statistics do show that countries with UHC pay roughly half of what we pay.

*Edit:

****, and then if you were to provide some sort of amnesty to illegal workers, getting documentation for taxation - my God. We might actually have a workable system.