Obama's Healthcare Law

[catman]

Will it survive judicial review?  A federal judge has said that it is unconstitutional to require everyone to have health insurance.  Here is a story:  http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/13/judge-strikes-down-mandated-health-coverage-supreme-court-revie/
Comments?

If he loses that reform I don't think he stands a chance in '12 against Huckabee or Romney. Enter Clinton? He could probably beat Palin, though.

I don't think the Supreme Ct. will find it unconstitutional, though. It doesn't seem like a stretch to consider the mandate a "tax" to promote welfare rather than a "penalty." I do think that the other pillar of his argument, that the law tramples on a person's right to choose which commodities to purchase, is very compelling. And, a conservative Court might be less willing to protect the law by considering it an essential component of the national welfare.

"Make no mistake-- individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively engaged in economic decision making-- the decision to pay for health care out-of-pocket or to seek uncompensated care."
This is an interesting statement- the new law does not dispense with indigent care, or make illegal payments by government or charity organizations; so it is FALSE!!!!
The decision to not buy health insurance still has limited to no penalty, as far as health is concerned, and therefore at least biases the decision being made. You are correct saying it is a decision (frequently the priority of food today or health care tomorrow). When you penalize lack of health insurance significantly, such that the penalty outways the cost of health care, and recoup the costs of indigent care, then you can tell me it is an honest decision.
Otherwise, it is like a few years ago a small community decided to mandate recycling. The cost of recycling was $10 a month, added to your trash collection bill (municipally operated). The communtiy billed on a quarterly basis- so $30 a quarter.
The fine for not recycling was $15! Considering the enforcement was quarterly, on your municipal trash bill, it was cheaper to not recycle than to pay the nuisance penalty for not recycling!
It they made the penalty $50, a lot more people would participate... almost universally!
In the meantime, universal insurance (unsubsidized) is nearly impossible- just like flood insurance in certain areas. If you want to subsidize health care, or otherwise improve the current system- go ahead! But don't penalize me by making me pay MORE than I am now... I have health insurance, and pay for it. I should not have to pay for your health insurance as well!
Certain groups, like maybe students or those on legitimate unemployment, I can see having government supplied benefits- everyone else (especially the illegal immigrants who don't even pay taxes to support the government, much less the medical establishment) should either pay for insurance, pay directly for treatment, or go without!!!!
Additionally, I think those who have significant outstanding medical bills should be denied addtional treatment- just like a bankruptcy attorney! He doesn't represent you unless paid upfront, because he KNOWS you won't pay afterward! Get rid of the freeloaders... and the rest can afford to take care of themselves!

[Poe]

What you're missing is that no one "goes without" in this country.  The choice is whether to use tax dollars before (cheap) or after (expensive).  This is about as much of an economic no-brainer as there can be.

The reason you have to pay for the other guy is because you live in a society.  It's just the way it is.  People who don't like the bad parts of living in a society should move to an uninhabited island.  But pirates would steal your stuff so you'd need to hire armed forces.  Those armed forces would have wives and children and all of them would need food, clothing and shelter.....and, oh yeah, healthcare.  So you'd be right back where you started.

Of all people, you in the military should understand this best.  You lay down you lives so that fat white people can keep their land and indulgences.  Should those fat white people not have to pay for that.....at least part of it?  So then how about fire protection, law enforcement, etc?  Healthcare is an extension of these services.  It should never have existed in the private sector.  The care of it's people is the very purpose of a government.

[Rick]

There is something wrong in a government where they who do the most have the least.  There is something wrong when honesty wears a rag, and rascality a robe; when the loving, the tender, eat a crust, while the infamous sit at banquets.

-Robert G. Ingersoll

[Blutarsky]

[The care of it's people is the very purpose of a government.]

What you're missing is that no one "goes without" in this country.  The choice is whether to use tax dollars before (cheap) or after (expensive).  This is about as much of an economic no-brainer as there can be.

The reason you have to pay for the other guy is because you live in a society.  It's just the way it is.  People who don't like the bad parts of living in a society should move to an uninhabited island.  But pirates would steal your stuff so you'd need to hire armed forces.  Those armed forces would have wives and children and all of them would need food, clothing and shelter.....and, oh yeah, healthcare.  So you'd be right back where you started.

Of all people, you in the military should understand this best.  You lay down you lives so that fat white people can keep their land and indulgences.  Should those fat white people not have to pay for that.....at least part of it?  So then how about fire protection, law enforcement, etc?  Healthcare is an extension of these services.  It should never have existed in the private sector.  The care of it's people is the very purpose of a government.

That's a nice thought.  I'll leave my pessimistic side out of the discussion, for the moment, on whether we live in a world where governments exist for people, or people exist for governments/country.   

If what you say is true, the question still remains; how does the government best take care of it's people?  Because it's not as simple as supplying everyone with health care through taxes.   As soon as you begin with that as your premise, the next question arises; to what extent?   

Up here, in the land of socialism, there's a growing number of people who think the best way to fix our health care problems (that being the financial aspects and service/accessibility), we need to move toward a two-tier system.   Of course, there already is such a system, but most of it is underground, or not spoken of. 

I haven't been following it that closely, but I think that's what may be in store for the U.S., eventually.    And I think that's the way you should go. 

You have my permission to send this to the President. 

[Poe]

That's a nice thought.  I'll leave my pessimistic side out of the discussion, for the moment, on whether we live in a world where governments exist for people, or people exist for governments/country.  

If what you say is true, the question still remains; how does the government best take care of it's people?  Because it's not as simple as supplying everyone with health care through taxes.   As soon as you begin with that as your premise, the next question arises; to what extent?  

Up here, in the land of socialism, there's a growing number of people who think the best way to fix our health care problems (that being the financial aspects and service/accessibility), we need to move toward a two-tier system.   Of course, there already is such a system, but most of it is underground, or not spoken of.  

I haven't been following it that closely, but I think that's what may be in store for the U.S., eventually.    And I think that's the way you should go.  

You have my permission to send this to the President.  

You operate under the false premise that the money belongs to the people until the government takes it.  That is exactly wrong.  The money belongs to the government, it is merely on loan to the people for the purpose of promoting a sustainable economy and trade with other nations.  if people want to go back to trading gold and silver as commerce so be it.  but the fat cats who bitch about taxes and having to "pay for the lazy bastards" are the same ones waving their VISA cards the highest in the convenience stores and fast food restaurants and JC Penny's.  They very much like the system THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES FOR THEM.  they just usually forget to remember that THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES IT FOR THEM.

As for the specifics of particular healthcare systems, that's semantics as far as I'm concerned.  Hospitals and doctors treat you here in America no matter what.  It's one of the good byproducts of having never gone hungry.  in nations where large percentages of the population go hungry at times, people tend to be more callous.  So one-tier, two-tier, twenty five-tier; I couldn't care less about that, it's semantics.  if you have a brain tumor they're going to take it out no matter what tier you're in.  Hell, they're going to take it out even if you're not in a tier just as they do right now.  you only need to go to a teaching hospital where patients cannot be refused treatment even if the hospital was callous enough to do so.

Then the money is partially covered by government grants (see tax dollars after the fact) and partially covered by the hospital charging $25 for two aspirin.  Gotta love a "free" system that costs twice as much.  Good, solid republican logic, the ultimate oxymoron.

What you're missing is that no one "goes without" in this country.  The choice is whether to use tax dollars before (cheap) or after (expensive).  This is about as much of an economic no-brainer as there can be.

The reason you have to pay for the other guy is because you live in a society.  It's just the way it is.  People who don't like the bad parts of living in a society should move to an uninhabited island.  But pirates would steal your stuff so you'd need to hire armed forces.  Those armed forces would have wives and children and all of them would need food, clothing and shelter.....and, oh yeah, healthcare.  So you'd be right back where you started.

Of all people, you in the military should understand this best.  You lay down you lives so that fat white people can keep their land and indulgences.  Should those fat white people not have to pay for that.....at least part of it?  So then how about fire protection, law enforcement, etc?  Healthcare is an extension of these services.  It should never have existed in the private sector.  The care of it's people is the very purpose of a government.

I get that "noone goes without"...
I disagree that my only option is to accept society as is, or move to an uninhabited island- its called coventry, send the ones that don't play to the uninhabited island, and reduce the cost to the rest of us!

For those of us in the military (I have 1 year left on active duty before retirement), most of us do not feel we lay down our lives for the fat cats... we lay down our lives to protect our society as a whole. It doesn't mean we agree with all of the package, just that it is the best package currently avaialble! Gov't is here to protect the people, care for the people, etc- but not everyone, just those that are members! Those who chose to not play, who chose not to contribute but still take, those are the pirates the gov't is supposed to protect the rest of us from!
I'm all for helping someone in trouble, when that person pulls his weight; I have an issue with those who don't pull their weight but want to receive all the benefits...

it really is too bad nobody assassinated that nigger yet, but I guess that is what you idiots get for voting for a porch monkey piece of shit

[Rick]

Thought I would cover dalydaly's commentary.  Most disturbing to me was the assassination reference.

["RIVERS"]

It's fun to see how the Republicans, Fox News, and thier felonious, fat, drug addict mouthpiece  Rush  Limbaugh never hesitate to use the phrase 'Obama-care' when talking about last year's enactment of a health care change.

Thier 'best-boy' passed and campaigned for the same thing in Massachusetts a few years prior...it will be interesting to watch Mitt Romney try to distance himself from his own State's health care reforms and mandatory coverage. From what I've seen from him so far?...he is trying to turn it into a 'right of the individual State issue', i.e. 'the Federal Government has no right mandating what people should do'.

A States Rights and individual freedom argument...his only hope. Sorry thing is?...folks will buy-it.