Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[12thMan]

@mlmpetert,

This is a really good way to frame the discussion. Good questions. Some I've considered but mostly on the pro-side. Before I delve into my answer(s), I just want to correct one or two things you said and then take a step back to help understand "Obamacare" from a slightly different angle.

It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. I know you know that, but it makes a difference in terms of how we discuss and/or debate the law. Once we peel back the term "Obamacare" for a second and call it by it's proper name, The Patient's Bill of Rights/Affordable Care Act, that too makes a huge difference. Most people hear "Obamacare" and immediately certain images, right or wrong, pop into their heads. For the sake of our discussion, Obamacare is fine. Just wanted to point that out.

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

As it states, the law provides a tax credit to go toward the purchase of health insurance for those who qualify. Those who don't qualify (earns below a certain amount) will be covered by Medicaid's extended program. So while only 30 million would be covered under the tax credit, you how many more millions now will qualify for Medicaid? Obama has already came out, against his own party's will, and announced rising taxes for those making $250,000/per year and more, so we know that somebody has to cover the expensive of the extension of Medicaid.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

This kind of sounds like a statement of a card carrying Democrat, lol! So, if it succeeds, it's the Democrats, but if it fails, it was a Republican concept?

Originally Posted by 12thMan

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

Of course there's free health insurance. The Supreme Court past the decision that would allow this program to offer Medicaid extensions to cover those who "fall between the cracks" that otherwise before would not qualify for Medicaid. That money HAS to come from somewhere, where you do think the government is going to get that money? Again, President Obama has already came out this week and stated that he's pushing to have taxes raised for those making $250k+ a year instead of just millionaires now. So, even the President realizes that he's going to have to tax more in order to fund this program.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.

We've been waiting for years for social security to improve, and alas, I won't have social security by the time I'm old enough to retire, so that's probably a bad example to compare this "law" to. As far as the Medicaid extension goes, in the end, it doesn't matter if the states have the right to opt out or not, they'll more than likely adopt the program, because it will probably wind up costing the states more in the long run not to.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan;924128It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. [/quote

some of the "history" of how Obamacare became law:
The American Spectator : Obamacare's Hideous History, Recounted

quote]And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

Obamacare as it was written (and unread by many in Congress) is certainly no conservative "concept". You can point to Romneycare, however the law that passed in MA was with (8) over-ridded Romney vetos. For those that are interested in the differences in Romneycare vs. Obamacare here's a good link:

The American Spectator : Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference

The court killing the Commerce Clause argument was HUGE and absolutely necessary to curtailing an already out of control, over-regulatory, federal gov't. Here's Roberts' opinion, and while I'm no fan of Obamacare being upheld as a constitutional tax, I'l take that loss while the SCOTUS curtails the federal gov'ts expansion of power.

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

@mlmpetert,

This is a really good way to frame the discussion. Good questions. Some I've considered but mostly on the pro-side. Before I delve into my answer(s), I just want to correct one or two things you said and then take a step back to help understand "Obamacare" from a slightly different angle.

It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. I know you know that, but it makes a difference in terms of how we discuss and/or debate the law. Once we peel back the term "Obamacare" for a second and call it by it's proper name, The Patient's Bill of Rights/Affordable Care Act, that too makes a huge difference. Most people hear "Obamacare" and immediately certain images, right or wrong, pop into their heads. For the sake of our discussion, Obamacare is fine. Just wanted to point that out.

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.

12th, my bad in not responding to you sooner. I honestly appreciate you taking the time to voice your thoughts, of which I enjoyed hearing.

I used to like these political threads because they moved slowly and allowed me to hear things I normally wouldn’t, think about things in a thoughtful way, and have informative debate less focused on opinion and more focused on reason. In addition, of course, to calling out and making fun of politicians and their often ridiculous policies. Not saying that isnt true anymore, but for me some of these threads move too fast to keep up with in a casual manor. Not sure if ive changed or if these political threads turn into 15 pages faster than they used too.

When I was putting my post togather asking for your thoughts I literally started typing out Affordable Care Act (I was still gonna call it a bill though), but I just couldn’t do it. The works of Ayn Rand popped into my head and I became even more disgusted with our political system than I normally am. Weve all been hearing about the impending expiration of The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (aka The Bush Tax Cuts), which just like ObamaCare and depending on the person or context can be viewed in opposite extremes. I wonder if Bush or Obama was thinking of Rand’s Equalization of Opportunity Act when they signed their respective bills? So while our populist jargon may do more to conjure up emotion than fact i got to think its much better than deceptive names decided for us, no matter your side of the aisle.

Honestly my biggest issues with The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act To Save Your Mom’s Life isn’t the forced participation (aka individual mandate). It’s the complexity and length of the law. Like most I don’t know much about the law, its hard to understand because its hard as hell to figure out the particulars of it. And in my opinion transparency is the most important thing in a good law, even if its not…. I guess that’s the emotion before reason political ideology im guilty of. But while I am the type of person that says pull your own weight, I will admit that youre more than right in that pulling your own weight in terms of healthcare costs has become a fiscal burden and drag on others/our economy. But im not too sure Obamacare fixes that?

And im not too sure you do either as our biggest concern is shared; how do we address cost containment. This is a huge issue and what I thought the bill was supposed to fix (in addition to saving our moms). I mean me and you are expecting healthcare costs to continue to rise. And while actuarial tables may say more people = less risk/average cost, elementary school tables say more people covered also equal higher total costs (even if the average is less). I just don’t see how this ends well. At some point the actuary’s "proverbial" (sounds ridiculous right?) slide rule breaks.

But while ill say thats my biggest concern its only my biggest concern when it comes to this bill…err law of the land. Obviously that’s the case with most people, but this law has kind of broken politics for me. I just think people are getting too worked up about things that are out of their control.

Don’t get me wrong I still care and like to follow politics and their affects/effects on the world. And I still thoroughly believe that progressivism is a cancer and acts as democracies only kryptonite. If people can vote to entitle themselves to stuff then its only a matter of time. Sadly progressivism is a cancer that even Obamacare cant cure. But I now realize that carcinogens/progressivism is something that democracies allow for. So while getting cancer sucks its also inevitable.

[NC_Skins]

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters

Why is it we keep being spoon fed about how wonderful our system is and how we have the best care in the world....blah..blah...blah


Not even remotely close.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters

Why is it we keep being spoon fed about how wonderful our system is and how we have the best care in the world....blah..blah...blah


Not even remotely close.

for someone who decries using Fox News as a source, listen to how the study publisher is described in the linked article:

Previous reports by the nonprofit fund, which conducts research into healthcare performance and promotes changes in the U.S. system, have been heavily used by policymakers and politicians pressing for healthcare reform.(emphasis added)

Anytime the US is compared in a world study, you need to ask yourself, is the US going to stack up equally with a country like the Netherlands(#1 on the list). They are two completely different animals with 2 different economies. Sometimes statistics just don't say the whole truth.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

for someone who decries using Fox News as a source, listen to how the study publisher is described in the linked article:

Did you just compare Reuters to Fox?...lol Also, I'm missing your point about The Commonwealth Fund group.(the people who conducts these surveys)

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Anytime the US is compared in a world study, you need to ask yourself, is the US going to stack up equally with a country like the Netherlands(#1 on the list). They are two completely different animals with 2 different economies. Sometimes statistics just don't say the whole truth.

Well, I'm not looking as much as what we pay out as compared to these aspects.

The report looks at five measures of healthcare -- quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives.

The economies should have absolutely nothing to do with the quality and efficiency of the health care received. Aren't we touted as having the best doctors in the world, yet the foreigners get better quality care? The major thing that economies would affect is the cost and the access to health care.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Did you just compare Reuters to Fox?...lol Also, I'm missing your point about The Commonwealth Fund group.(the people who conducts these surveys)

The point is, Reuters is just reporting what a survey group reported, a la Fox, the underlying group has a very specific axe to grind, and the impartiality of their survey is what has to be questioned. Reuters did due diligence by stating the group's bias, but that doesn't suddenly mean that the report has no flaws...

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Well, I'm not looking as much as what we pay out as compared to these aspects.



The economies should have absolutely nothing to do with the quality and efficiency of the health care received. Aren't we touted as having the best doctors in the world, yet the foreigners get better quality care? The major thing that economies would affect is the cost and the access to health care.

Go look at the underlying questions and how the rankings were achieved, then see if it doesn't also have to do with how societies are structured, and what the surveyer are trying to achieve.

[NC_Skins]

Yovany Gonzalez's Wells Fargo Lawsuit Alleges Bank Fired Him, Cut Dying Daughter's Health Insurance



Reality sucks big time when it comes to capitalism. It's not as pretty as we are told it is. Also, **** Wells Fargo.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The point is, Reuters is just reporting what a survey group reported, a la Fox, the underlying group has a very specific axe to grind, and the impartiality of their survey is what has to be questioned. Reuters did due diligence by stating the group's bias, but that doesn't suddenly mean that the report has no flaws...

I think there was a difference in what Fox was doing and what Reuters did. First off, the guy who wrote the Fox piece is a psychiatrist. He should have known the study was flawed and that while he wasn't dishonest, he didn't go out of his way to point out the flaws with this. Now, had the guy been a simple reporter, I wouldn't have had as much as issue, but this is a professional in that particular field and should have known better. That's where I think the difference between the two pieces are.

I'll concede the point that yes, there probably are flaws with the US health care ranking as noted in this article.

An Ill-Conceived Health-Care Ranking - WSJ.com


My other issue is with your assertion that the group doing the survey has a axe to grind? What axe do they have to grind? Mind you, this report was done after Obamacare was already passed through legislation. Also, these type of reports have been out long before Romney/Obamacare even existed. Whatever "axe they have to grind" certainly isn't clear.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Go look at the underlying questions and how the rankings were achieved, then see if it doesn't also have to do with how societies are structured, and what the surveyer are trying to achieve.

We are the most prosperous nation on the planet (well china is) yet we rank as low as we do? I think culture aspects play a bigger part in all of this than does the economics of it. Obesity rates are astronomical in our country and probably plays a huge part in many of our healthcare issues.

What is the surveyor trying to achieve? I still haven't come across anything that would say otherwise. To improve health care in the US? If that's what they are trying to achieve, than that's a good goal to have.