The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

You should pay attention to previous posts in the thread. And I believe I've been over this exact issue with you before. You are being disingenuous here; the Democrats and Republicans both wanted to open competition across state lines, but the Republican proposal for how to do it was a massive scam. It would result in less competition and worse treatment of customers.


That's a lie. There was some tort reform in the PPACA. Probably not as much as the Republicans wanted, and there could probably be more done in this area, but that is actually not as big a contributor to rising healthcare costs as is often claimed.


The individual mandate was an attempt to dealt with those issues. What company is going to insure the exclusively high-risk pool? You know those patients are going to get shafted on their premiums and deductibles.

How was it a scam, because it didn't have government throwing itself into the ring? Dude, that would guarentee the only player left would be government because government also makes the rules.



Actually you're the one that is in error.


Whatever else he said Wednesday evening at the town hall hosted by Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate Howard Dean let something incredibly candid slip out about President Obama's health-care reform bill in Congress.

Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka "Tort reform"), Dean responded by saying: “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth,”

Dean is a former physician, so he knows about skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates, and the role of the trial lawyers in fueling the "defensive medicine" approach among medical personnel who order too many tests and other sometimes unneeded procedures "just to be sure" and to protect themselves against litigation.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... al-lawyers



The individual mandate is Unconstitutional, and any judge and/or lawyer that tells you otherwise is either dishonest, so partisan that they can't get their heads out of their behinds, or need to go back to law school.

The argument that’s had the most traction is based on the limitations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause explicitly allows the federal government regulate interstate commerce. But it also has been used to justify federal laws that affect other kinds of economic activity. The question raised by the lawsuit against the health reform bill is whether refusing to buy insurance constitutes interstate commerce. In his ruling Vinson says that in the past the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate activities like growing marijuana or navigating a waterway, but not used to force someone to do something they weren’t already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” he writes.

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/davidwhelan/201 ... itutional/

Also you can read the Florida Judge's 78 page ruling.

He can say whatever he likes but that's just his opinion. There are just as many arguments suggesting it's Constitutional. Spamming one view won't influence events.

I could also demean those who think it's Unconstitutional but that wouldnt actually achieve anything or influence the outcome. That's just word vomit.

Then I guess this would be Constitutional under your definition too:

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun


Seriously, if the individual mandate is Constitutional, then the Feds can tell you to do anything they want.

You can spam right wing links all day. There is another class of arguments on the pro side. I'm not getting into a link war with you because I don't value your opinion. I dont see you as a reasonable person.

How about you actually read the link, it is about an actual law being proposed in South Dakota?

Btw, at least I actually source things rather than making stuff up on the fly and claiming then I have impecible sources.

Let me go write that down. I'll be right back.

Are you going to read the article?

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.


Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”


The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”


Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.


“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2011 ... ns-buy-gun

A key thing you need to understand is that Obamacare DID NOT solve any real problems.

America follows a paradigm of HEALTH INSURANCE. This means you buy a policy which indemnifies you in the event your medical expenses in a calendar year exceeds X dollars. You do not buy HEALTH CARE...you buy INSURANCE.

The problem is that you must then consider monthly premium x 12 = out of pocket insurance cost then factor in the deductible and co-pay you must bear before insurance picks up the tab.

For many people, the cost of insurance would make it impossible to afford a doctor's visit. My own calculations shows I'd have to pay about $5,000 a year just to have insurance. That's money I could use for doctor's visits, and I'd still have to absorb something like another $10,000 EACH YEAR before insurance picks up a dime.

By that point, I'm already broke and so deep in debt that I will have to file bankruptcy.

America needs to shift to a paradigm of HEALTH CARE. The problem is that Obamacare did absolutely nothing in that regard. Other than some mandated reforms on health insurance companies, it was just a demand that all Americans buy an insurance policy. It solved nothing. It contains very little that Americans actually needed and excluded many needed reforms to bring the cost of health care back under control (like tort reform for malpractice claims).

In the end, Obamacare was just a vehicle for a government power grab. It was all about agendas and politics and not about getting health care out to every American.

It's not just a mandate, it's a cap on costs for most people. Essentially subsidized insurance. What you pay will depend on your income level. That modifies the deductibles and premiums. Depending on the plan, you also have x % of each bill covered. If you don't want insurance you can get a simple catastrophic plan that covers nothing but costs above the deductible or just pay the fine/tax.

It's a stool with three legs
A) the mandate
B) increased requirements for the insurance companies to provide/maintain coverage
C) subsidized premiums and deductibles through the exchanges

+ Just under half of the uninsured are being folded into Medicaid. Those who make under 15k+ in 2014 dollars.

@ simon_says

Since when is a government subsidized entity remotely efficient?


Anyways looks like you need a new stool.

It does not matter if Obamacare needs the individual mandate or not, the individual mandate is in and of itself an overreach. The ends do not justify the means, it is unconstitutional, so Obamacare goes bye bye.

The real reason Obama is trying to drag this out though is he's hoping a conservative justice dies so he can push a lackey onto the Supreme Court.

I'm just laying out the details of the plan. Best of luck.

I don't particularly care, the ends do not justify the means. The individual mandate is an invitation to tyranny.

For once, I agree with you.

So, what's the constitutional alternative? How does government ensure that every person has access to affordable, medically necessary care?

Well for starters.

1. Competition across state lines.

2. Tort Reform

3. Some sort of legislation that insurance companies cannot deny someone coverage because of pre-existing condition. Couple that with something where if the person was uninsured when diagnosed with said condition they not the insurance company are required to pay for x years concerning said condition. If however it is someone that got removed from parents insurance and they have pre-existing condition have the old insurance company have to reimberse the new insurance company for x years on medical costs pertaining to said condition (assuming parents are on the same insurance coverage when child was kicked off).

That would in theory be more likely to pass Constitutional Muster than an individual mandate. You can choose not to get insurance, but if you end up with a condition and then get insurance you can't force the insurance company to foot the bill first thing.

There is no constitutional way. To insure such care is to compel people to give it, which is slavery and that is outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

ruveyn