HEALTH CARE LAW UPHELD
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
It's law, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is valied under the taxing authority.
Yes, I know healthcare is one word....
However, states can opt out with the Medicaid portion. Now what?
I am 100% AGAINST the government requiring the people to purchase healthcare or face a penalty. I am also against the federal government forcing the states to provide healthcare for those that aren't covered by private insurance.
America became the great nation we were because of the free enterprise system. We are now on a course of becoming a socialist country. The working class will be taxed more and more to cover those that do not want to work, and provide for themselves. The government run healthcare system will be like every other government program, overpriced and impossible to access.
We are already paying billions of dollars in California in medical expenses for released convicts (because we can't afford to keep them in prison and 40,000 were released), sexual predators, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. Why should the working taxpayers be required to pay more to cover those that choose not to work?
It's not even the direct penalties, etc. for the working class should they opt out of insurance. The entire system needs reformed. The liberals have expanded disability, healthcare, etc. to such extremes, that soon there will be no business left in California to create the tax base necessary to suport it. You can only tax people and business so much, and when there's more taking than giving, the country collapses, and we become Greece!
I'll stand for a free country, with personal choice, and a free enterprise system, and forego Big Brother thank you.
J Scott - I'd suggest reading Dr. Walter E. Williams' recent column "Forced Charity Is Legal Plunder." Private charity is to be praised. Government taking from some and giving to others, with plenty or most blead-off to bureaucracy is not.
As for a "right" to health care, there is none. If charities choose to help, that is their choice. Bad actions have to have bad consequences, or society falls apart. If they are lucky, those who do not behave properly will find a relative or charity to help.
Of course, those few born with birth defects are a special case, as they ad their parents (in most cases) did nothing worng.
...
Of course, those few born with birth defects are a special case, as they ad their parents (in most cases) did nothing worng.
First, you say that there is no right to health care. Then, you say that those with birth defects are an exception. May I ask where -- specifically -- you are getting this information about who does and doesn't have the right to health care.
If I read the Constitution, it says nothing about on those with birth defects having the sole right to subsidized health care. If I read any major religious text, it says nothing about only those with birth defects having the right to health care. In fact, other than your comment, I've never heard -- anywhere -- that the only people with the right to subsidized health care are those with birth defects.
So, what is your source? Or is this something you're just making up opinions on?
Assuming you're just making up an opinion, I can make up an opinion also. And the opinion I'm making up (which I believe is just as valid as what you're making up) is that everyone deserves health care.
That said, I love how everyone in this thread who believes that not everyone deserves health care also has a list of "exceptions" to their no-health care rule. We've heard that age is an exception, disability is an exception, birth defect is an exception, etc.
Sorry, but defining something as (not) a "right" and then making exceptions is slippery slope.
Nathan still hasn't answered whether low IQ is considered a disability. I'll pose the same question to Stephen: Is low IQ considered a birth defect? Certainly at a certain point it is. Is that point 90, 80, 70, 60, lower? Even the courts say we can't execute criminals at a certain mental capacity because they don't have the ability to understand what they did -- certainly, we can't hold these people responsible for their own medical care, can we? If so, how are they different than those born with birth defects?
If you have to create a rule that has lots of "exceptions," you probably haven't thought through the rule enough. And you almost certainly haven't thought through the exceptions enough.
And that's just my opinion...
Sorry, but that argument is a logical fallacy. You've confused causation with association. Just because one incarnation of subsidized health care results in one set of (unfortunate) circumstances doesn't mean every incarnation of subsidized health care will result in those same circumstances.
That would be like me coming to this board and saying, "You really ought to go visit my friend's rental properties -- the tenants are destroying them, he's losing $1000 per month on each in negative cashflow and the city is about to condemn them all and knock them down."
If I said that, would you say, "Whoa, I guess owning rentals is a bad idea!"
Or would you (more likely) say, "Your friend is an idiot...he's not doing it right."
I'm all for arguing different points of view, but I highly prefer those arguments to be factual and logical. When you make an illogical argument in defense of a position, all you do is weaken that position for others who may want to make a similar argument.
A perfect example was when the health care bill was first released -- Conservatives had LOTS of great arguments on why it was a bad bill (again, I completely agree), yet before they could really coalesce those arguments into a logical rebuttal, their colleague Sarah Palin comes along and starts yelling about "death panels." From that moment, anything the Conservative leadership may have had to say was completely watered down, as the media and most people with half a brain could no-longer take that faction seriously on this matter. The best the Conservative leadership could do at that point was to jump on board the "death panel" train and try to solidify its merit, as logic was already out the window.
I firmly believe that this bill could have been overturned (at least in the minds of the American public) with a bit of serious, logical rebuttal which would have forced the Democrats to revisit much of the bill...but one stupid argument from the right pretty much solidified its acceptance with the American people.
That's the danger of basing your arguments on emotion as opposed to logic.
And again, just my opinion...
I will preface this by saying I have not read the 900 page healthcare bill, but am in the process of reading the 200 page Supreme Court decision. Below is an excerpt from that ruling:
In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization).
This is significantly more expensive than $95 - $2,000.
Although, it also says that even if the penalty is paid to the IRS, there is little ability for the IRS to actually enforce or collect the penalty.
The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes.
Who is exempt from the mandate?
The individual mandate requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage.26 U. S. C. §5000A. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens.§5000A(d).
So in reality, it is not funded by all tax payers, it will still only be funded by those with the ability, and willingness, to do so.
My views/opinion
Yes it does seem ethically right for universal health care.
At individual/family/local society levels we would like to make a lot of things right/better – poverty, illiteracy, other social evils like drug abuse etc. We contribute time/money and help in other ways we can. But at the same time, in the end we make decisions based on what we can afford/is possible- Does it balance the books?
There is no point in forming a charity if one can’t fund its ongoing financial costs (ie it’s not going to exist in the future). As a LL, when tenant doesn’t pay the rent, irrespective of the reasons (valid or not), it’s not in the financial interest of the LL and eviction results.
So in the end financial cost effectiveness should be the basis, for implementing a program. Granted at this stage we can’t foretell the future.
What worries some is the track record of US govt wrt Medicare and Medicaid, among other things. It needs to be fixed. But no govt – left/right will fix it based on lobbies/vote bloc/…. other reasons. If we all felt that the govt is a good entity to handle money issues, tax paying American’s won’t have an issue with raising taxes.
So it seems this is going to be yet another Huge bottomless money pit, for which money will have to be found.
What are the ways socialized medical systems try to reduce costs – Rationing is one of them. So how would Rationing affect people who currently have access to health care (? 85% of US) – it dilutes their current health care benefits based on rationing . Is this selfish? , it might be so. But not(?every) ordinary person would say – universal care is for the good of society, so I will be ok with me/my family member not having/having a delayed(with its associated increasing medical morbidities) medical intervention. Its ok me /my grandpa/grand ma doesn’t need the surgery; cancer/ infertility/… treatment.
So a lot of us, would be agreeable if the us govt were to fix Medicare/Medicaid financial issues before starting on this endeavor. Kind of looking at the borrower’s financial past/record.
(Not that it would matter, if this law stands the election - “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” -Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts)
Marc Freislinger The penalty/tax starts in 2014 with a min of $95 for single people. It grows to the numbers you stated in 2016. Even when it reaches 2.5% of income there is a cap at around $2000 for a family. The penalty/tax will get people thinking about dollars wasted versus dollars spent on a plan, and I assume that was the goal. But I don't believe it will be real motivator for many. IMO, the penalty failed to take into account the real cost of an insurance policy. The real cost is premium plus deductible (and out-of-pocket maximum). A $250/mo plan for a family of 3 for a non-group applicant, if you could find one that cheap, would likely have a $5K deductible (cheap plans come with high deductibles). That's $8K out-of-pocket annually before insurance helps people who are now being forced to buy it for their own good. These calculations will not go unnoticed in the coming years as many Americans freak out about being forced to buy something that they really can't afford. Unlike the penalty, which will come at tax time, an insurance plan requires payment upfront.
Marc Freislinger The cap on the penalty will be the average annual cost of a policy for an individual or family (nationwide). The $2K number I quoted came from projections for such an average in 2016. So, again, it's being used to get people to think they are wasting money if they don't buy a plan. $2K will buy you a plan but it won't buy anything for self-employed and non-group applicants without a high deductible and more limited coverage. I think people with employer coverage may not be aware that their policies are affordable not only because their employer is making contributions but because they belong to groups that get very good rates. We have family members who work for the government and at private universities who say they could afford their plan even without employer contributions. What they couldn't afford is that same plan without belonging to the employee group.
Just heard that they expect 4 million not to comply, just over 1% and that the number will decrease in time as the penalty increases or as people become employed.
Great comments!
Lots of assumptions about costs going up, any basis for that? Or going down?
I'dlike our Dr.s to address specifics they may be aware of that address the thoughts of just how people would not be able to walk in and see a doctor as they do now, private pay or otherwise.....?
Why would it be any worse than the uninsured sitting in the emergency rooms for the flu?
Bill Gulley, Thank you for starting this thread...it has been so informative. The new law is a start, it will need modifications as time go on and I can see physician practices hiring new doctors as needed. The Family Practice I go to has at least 12 physicians on staff at present and they ask patients for assessments of the visit with the physician. I can see more of this and then they will know where to improve.
Carole M.Where are they going to get those "new doctors"? As stated in a previous post there already is a shortage of primary care Drs. and when Obamacare gets fully implemented with the suppression of Drs. ability to make decisions about patient care because of government panel oversight the independent minded people who go into medicine will not do so because they don't want to spend their youth in school and residency, come out with $200,000+ in debt and then be told how to do their job by the gov't. That's why the shortage of Drs. will get worse and access to care will be limited. Those few in private practice will not accept people who have the gov't (you and me) paying for them.
Let's pretend I don't have medical coverage.
Right now, if I have to go to the hospital, I have to pay for those services. If I can't, they sue me and collect however the law allows.
Under the new law, if somebody doesn't buy insurance, and pays the penalty, does that mean they are paying the government to insure them? I assume the answer is no. Meaning, if I don't buy insurance and I get injured, I will owe the hospital out of my own pocket, AND I will owe the government.
Maybe this is selfish, but where is the benefit to (uninsured middle class citizen) here? It sounds like I spend more money (on the penalty or an insurance plan), for benefits received only by others.
Of course, the answer is to not buy insurance, and not pay the penalty, which as I pointed out earlier, the government has little recourse for. At which point, we are right back where we started (except for the millions the government is now paying for extended Medicaid coverage).
No one is going to change anyone's mind on this topic. It will all come down to the November elections. If you like Obamacare, you should vote for Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate. If you are against this law, you should vote for Romney and the Republicans.
I am a Libertarian and am totally against this law or any other expansion of government. While I wish it was Ron Paul that was running against Obama, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney because I believe that Obama is totally destroying our country and must be stopped. I don't think there is any "right" to healthcare. I have a right to free speech and a right to carry a gun, which I do. The 10th ammendment to the Constitution states that anything not covered in the Constitution is left to the states. If individual states wanted to have their own healthcare plans, that would be fine. We could all vote with U-Haul trucks on whether it was good or bad law. To have a blanket law covering the entire country is just plain wrong.
We used to be a strong nation made up of 50 individual States united as one.
There is no right to healthcare, a good job, a big flatscreen, a fancy car, education, or most other things in the Constitution, just the freedoms to use our God-given abilities and opportunities.
There is also the matter of religious freedom which is trampled by Obamacare, which forces religious institutions to pay for things which are against their beliefs (e.g. abortion drugs). The lawsuit by the Catholic Church will be a very big deal if Obama wins. Hopefully, it will be moot when Romney wins and Obamacare is repealed.
Marc Freislinger I'm understanding that the penalty doesn't kick in until the family income is 133% of top of the "poverty" or low income guidelines, so that put's them over by 33% and where a policy can be purchased and I understand that through re-insurance those premiums will be subsidized according to income. You're right, it is a dollar out of your pocket, but you won't go broke it seems.
Rob K. I agree in many areas that not only do the feds but also the states overstep many bounds that restrict our freedoms, Imean really, I should be able to ride my motorcycle at 140 mph without a helmet on interstates, I should be able to put red lights on so people would get out of my way too! But, all societies have rules and laws....
Dr. Dennis, so you believe that kids won't become Dr.s due to costs of education and think they will be limted to earning say 400K a year instead of 800K? Maybe education cost will come down if there is less demand. Maybe more doctors from India will be jumping at the chance to earn 400K. So, those who have the ability to become a doctor will choose another career path, what might that be? I know the average doctor makes more than the average attorney. But really, from an economic standpoint I can't buy that assumption, I think it's more complicated than that, as doctors will still have many opportunities to earn much more than most.
I also don't think the Act will put health insurance companies out of business. I'm understanding that there will be new competiton in new products and more profit centers in the law of large numbers reducing risks through pools.
If you look at Romney's track record (as opposed to his campaign sound-bites), he is for MORE LIBERAL implementation of universal health care than Obama is.
Let's look at some facts:
- In 1994, Romney was trying to beat Edward Kennedy for the Massachusetts Senate seat; during his campaign, he supported the health care alternative to Clinton’s health-care initiative. The big selling point of that proposal was an individual mandate. As recently as 2007 (when it was time to put together a conservative Presidential campaign platform), Romney was still supporting the idea of an individual mandate.
- "Romneycare," signed in 2006 by Romney himself in Massachusetts, includes an individual mandate.
- "Romneycare" in Massachusetts is not much different than "Obamacare." But, there are two key differences:
1. Romneycare can be used for abortions (Obamacare can not); and
2. Romneycare covers undocumented immigrants (Obamacare does not).
Granted, neither of those are specifically called our in Romney's health care bill, but they are both supported by state supreme court rulings and programs instituted in Massachusetts, and which have not been challenged by Romney during his time in office. So, what Romney HAS ALREADY implemented is more universal/liberal than what Obama's health care bill has passed.
- In Massachusetts, since Romneycare was passed, there has been widespread support for the bill by BOTH the citizens of the state AND the employers.
So, feel free to vote for Romney, but if history is any indication, you're not getting a much different attitude.
Btw, I'm happy to support any of the above with references if anyone wants to see them...
Do you have support for that statement? Is that based on your personal opinion (which is fine but you should clarify that it's just an opinion of yours)? Or is there some inherent function of universal health care systems where you can logically deduce that they CANNOT work, regardless of implementation.
If there is some inherent truism in universal health care systems that makes them unsupportable, I'd love to hear the logic behind it, as I've never heard that argument from anyone, including any of the economists who I've read on this issue.
Wow! Bill GulleyGet some real info before you opine. Don't make up fantasy #'s on somebody's income. It only shows your obvious bias. I refer you tohttp://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2012/public?src=google&ef_id=4OtPgcosNHAAAIwT0812:s
to get informed on the subject.
Regarding laws to protect us from dangerous behavior (driving 140 mph) that's a far cry from the gov't takeover of 1/6 of the economy.
Rob K
I am a Libertarian and am totally against this law or any other expansion of government.
Kind of giggled when I saw that together in one post ;).
If you mean the incomes of 800k for a radiologist and 750k for the perfusionist, they were clients of mine so I know what they made, the 400k was simply half and my own doing as an example, there are many Drs here in town making more than 400K. I was only pointing out that some laws are necessary for society especially when such a large part of the economy is at steak as well as our national defense. When a third of the kids can't pass a physical to get into military service, we have a problem.....
Sorry, I couldn't follow the link, doesn't work.....I do wonder who the link is to and the source of the information.....
I never get on my bike or allow anyone to get on without a helmet, BTW.
Stephen Masek I've been ignoring the apparent lack of information (and your confusion about the different between "socialism" and "single payor") in your previous posts. But your take on abortion funding is just flat out misinformed and others here who are equally misinformed should take note. OC requires that each state offer at least one plan where no abortions are covered. The plans that do cover it are required to charge a "surcharge" to those individuals who buy those plans. No one has to work with an insurance company that covers aboration. No federal dollars can or will be used for abortion.
No matter what any one thinks of either party or OC, the Dems weren't stupid enough on this one to think they could slip that through. They are hoping for re-election.
Everyone should consider posting less and studying/researching more. If you're not into primary source material, then at least attempt to find more objective sources than cable news or radio.
You all completely missed it. This law has nothing to do with health care. It has everything to do with control. The road to socialism starts with universal healthcare. For years progressives have cHipped away with their social programs, getting more and more Americans on the government dole. At some point there will be so many on the dole that it cannot be reversed. Debts and deficits will continue to rise as there is less output from the private sector and as taxes are raised to attempt to raise revenue (the. Oppossite l happen). But people will not have the will to suffer the pain and will ultimately keep respecting the liars whom promise them Utopia.
Sad how history keeps repeating itself because we are too lazy to open a history book and just suck up the regurgitated bull crap that our media and politicians spoon feed us.
I have lived in Europe and experienced their hc system. It ain't so great. And look what is happening to them now. Too much social spending on things like health care.
There are many common sense ideas that could greatly improve the current hc system. The gov screws up everything it touches, so why would you be nuts enough to trust them to run hc effectively? If the law were so great, why did they need to ram it thu? Why is it 2700 pages and include school loans and other crap ?
At the end of the day, pure and simple this is a huge leftist power grab, nothing more.
I could write anothe 20 pages, but I'll stop here