Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supreme Court Obamacare Case -- Pros and Cons
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 39 (657190)
03-26-2012 4:16 PM


So we've had day one of the opening arguments.
One of the arguments I've heard for upholding the healthcare law is that healthcare involves interstate commerce, and the federal gov't has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
That healthcare is interstate commerce should be readily apparent to anyone, especially anyone who has traveled to other states and received healthcare.
I also live in RI but have paid Blue Cross Blue Shield to an address in Massachusetts: that would seem to me to meet the definition of interstate commerce.
I have NOT heard any strong arguments against the law, just political outrage and posturing.
I've heard it called a tax, but I don't see how it fits that description when you can chose your coverage and the amount you pay.
Anyone care to enlighten me on what the beef is against this bill? What is the court case, not personal opinions and feelings.
(I'm not saying it is the best bill that could be written (ie make it single payer, or just expand medicare to cover everyone while letting people choose their "gap" coverages), but what is constitutionally wrong with the bill as written ... especially when compared to laws like the patriot act?).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 4:26 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 3 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 4:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 4:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 2 of 39 (657191)
03-26-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-26-2012 4:16 PM


Anyone care to enlighten me on what the beef is against this bill?
Mostly, the idea that the government can force you to buy a product from a private corporation.
This differs slightly from states requiring you to purchase car insurance in that driving is not a constitutionally protected right.
On the flip side, the idea behind the law is to get young, healthy people into the system to reduce costs for the sick and not so young. The bill would be a LOT better if there was a new tax that fed into a federal catastrophic insurance system with people buying insurance as they see fit to fill in the gaps for non-catastrophic care. That is completely constitutional, but impossible to get through congress. This was the workaround.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 4:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 6:02 PM Taq has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 3 of 39 (657193)
03-26-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-26-2012 4:16 PM


I'm for the bill, though as you say, it's not strong enough.
The major complaints, as I've heard them, deal with the mandate. People feel it is unconstitutional for the government to force you to buy something. I can sort of see the argument, but if that's the case, there are a lot of things that I'm forced to buy that I wouldn't necessarily want to. The ones I can think of off the top of my head, though, are all state laws, not federal ones.
Edited by Perdition, : Replaced Giantish "fo" with English "of"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 4:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 39 (657195)
03-26-2012 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-26-2012 4:16 PM


ARGUMENT AGAINST
It looks like the tax question is being dismissed by the court:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...03/26/gIQA5lk0bS_story.html
quote:
The court began the first of three days of oral arguments on the 2010 law by examining a statute that keeps courts from hearing tax challenges before they go into effect. But the justices’ questions indicated skepticism that the penalties prescribed for those who do not buy health insurance by 2014 amount to taxes under the 1867 law forbidding tax challenges.
The next question regards the "individual mandate"
quote:
The court began the first of three days of oral arguments on the 2010 law by examining a statute that keeps courts from hearing tax challenges before they go into effect. But the justices’ questions indicated skepticism that the penalties prescribed for those who do not buy health insurance by 2014 amount to taxes under the 1867 law forbidding tax challenges.
This was also a part of Romneycare, and is necessary to funding the care provided under that law.
We've also seen that Mass covers healthcare for emergency room visits from people out of state -- again showing that we are dealing with interstate commerce.
If we had universal healthcare then everyone would de facto have an individual mandate to be covered.
What's the beef?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 4:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 4:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 5 of 39 (657198)
03-26-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
03-26-2012 4:29 PM


Re: ARGUMENT AGAINST
If we had universal healthcare then everyone would de facto have an individual mandate to be covered.
What's the beef?
People feel they don't need to buy insurance because they "never go to the doctor." This, of course, is untrue. Everyone, at some point, has to visit some sort of doctor.
The common response is, "Well, if I do go, I'll pay for it myself."
The cost of surgery or even setting a broken bone, however, is far above what a common individual could just pay for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 4:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 5:22 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 18 by Artemis Entreri, posted 03-27-2012 4:13 PM Perdition has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 39 (657206)
03-26-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Perdition
03-26-2012 4:32 PM


Re: ARGUMENT AGAINST
Hi Perdition,
People feel they don't need to buy insurance because they "never go to the doctor." This, of course, is untrue. Everyone, at some point, has to visit some sort of doctor.
The common response is, "Well, if I do go, I'll pay for it myself."
The cost of surgery or even setting a broken bone, however, is far above what a common individual could just pay for.
And when people don't have insurance they get aid from the hospital and the state to cover some of the costs if they can't pay it.
quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/...obama-healthcare-law-040313360.html
In the United States, annual healthcare spending totals $2.6 trillion, about 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product, or $8,402 for every man, woman and child
What this doesn't show is the cost of untreated illnesses etc, behavior that impacts business and other people.
I also read in the Boston Globe today that a hospital near New Hampshire had ~10% of it's budget unpaid emergency care for people from out of state.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 4:32 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 5:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 7 of 39 (657209)
03-26-2012 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
03-26-2012 5:22 PM


Re: ARGUMENT AGAINST
And when people don't have insurance they get aid from the hospital and the state to cover some of the costs if they can't pay it.
Exactly. People tend to see only the impact on themselves and their loved ones. They assume they're taking the risk of a major injury or illness upon themselves, but in reality, they're putting it on everyone else.
This is what needs to be voiced far and wide. Health insurance isn't there to protect you (though it does that, too) it's there to protect everyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 5:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 5:45 PM Perdition has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 39 (657213)
03-26-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Perdition
03-26-2012 5:32 PM


ARGUMENT FOR
Hi again Perdition,
Exactly. People tend to see only the impact on themselves and their loved ones. They assume they're taking the risk of a major injury or illness upon themselves, but in reality, they're putting it on everyone else.
So let them purchase insurance with $10,000.00 deductibles and pay a modest premium.
The other issue is that some medical costs are high so that part of this money can be used to write off those uninsured cases.
This bill isn't perfect, but it is a necessary step forward.
I also think that we should have a change to Medicare, to lower the age requirement by a year every year, and cover children, starting with newborns and increasing the age covered by a year every year, letting people purchase policies to cover those parts of healthcare not currentlyh covered.
We should also have a single payer system.
Finally I think that all health industries should be non-profit, rather than have leaches benefiting from the misfortunes of others.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 5:32 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 6:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 39 (657216)
03-26-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Taq
03-26-2012 4:26 PM


ARGUMENT FOR
Hi Taq
Mostly, the idea that the government can force you to buy a product from a private corporation.
And yet you aren't forced to by any specific product.
Part of the problem comes when people from one state use healthcare (ie emergeny room care) from another state without paying for it (or paying in full), putting costs onto other people.
Part of the problem comes from the health insurance companies being multistate and multinational rather than regional. My premium last year was paid to an address in another state, so it did not benefit the economy in my state.
The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
For instance they can regulate the sale of marijuana ... preventing me from buying it even though my state allows use for medical purposes.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 4:26 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 6:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 10 of 39 (657217)
03-26-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
03-26-2012 5:45 PM


Re: ARGUMENT FOR
We should also have a single payer system.
I completely agree. With one pool of people, the costs would be significantly lower, both for medical procedures and for medicine.
Without the profit motive, there would be a lot more morality to the coverage, as well. No more would there be much incentive to gouge people who are already going through a tough time.
As you say, this law isn't perfect, it's only a first step on the long road to rational healthcare, but I bet, assuming it stands up in the court case, that in a decade or so, people will feel this can't be gotten rid of, much like Medicare and Social Security.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 5:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 11 of 39 (657220)
03-26-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
03-26-2012 6:02 PM


Re: ARGUMENT FOR
And yet you aren't forced to by any specific product.
Specific, no. Product, yes. If I understand the law correctly, you are required to buy private health insurance or pay a tax. If I am wrong, someone please correct me on this one.
If this is true, I think it should pass muster. Afterall, taxation is well within the powers of congress, as is deferring taxes for specific purchases (e.g. hybrid vehicles). This also means that no one is "forced" to buy health insurance, they just face a harsh tax if they don't.
For instance they can regulate the sale of marijuana ... preventing me from buying it even though my state allows use for medical purposes.
In this context, you would have the choice of buying $500 dollars worth or face an $800 dollar tax for not buying it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 6:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 6:22 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 7:38 PM Taq has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 12 of 39 (657222)
03-26-2012 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taq
03-26-2012 6:13 PM


Re: ARGUMENT FOR
Specific, no. Product, yes. If I understand the law correctly, you are required to buy private health insurance or pay a tax. If I am wrong, someone please correct me on this one.
This issue was the very one argued today. The government was very vocal in saying that nothing in this bill was a tax. There was a penalty, a fee, for not buying health insurance, much like there is a penalty or fee for breaking traffic laws.
In court, it was argued that this was, in fact, a tax, and therefore could not be challenged until it was actually collected, in 2015, meaning this court case couldn't proceed until then.
The Supreme Court saw through this argument, and agreed that it wasn't a tax. Now, the interesting thing is, the government will still argue that they can levy this fee under their taxation powers, because the SC has allowed the government the right to levy fees under their taxation powers that are not labelled or described as taxes.
Confused yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 6:13 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 03-26-2012 6:39 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 39 (657226)
03-26-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Perdition
03-26-2012 6:22 PM


Re: ARGUMENT FOR
Confused yet?
Yes. The government already collects taxes and gives out various forms of tax relief to people purchasing certain products (tuition, business expenses, etc.).
I don't see why this should be viewed any differently even if its implementation is completely different.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Perdition, posted 03-26-2012 6:22 PM Perdition has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 39 (657239)
03-26-2012 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taq
03-26-2012 6:13 PM


Re: ARGUMENT FOR
Hi Taq,
Specific, no. Product, yes. If I understand the law correctly, you are required to buy private health insurance or pay a tax. If I am wrong, someone please correct me on this one.
But it's not a tax, it's a penalty. The same kind of penalty if you don't pay taxes, but a penalty rather than a tax.
You could say it is a $0.00 tax that is offset by a deductible for purchasing health insurance, but with a penalty if there is no deduction taken.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taq, posted 03-26-2012 6:13 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:45 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 16 by Taq, posted 03-27-2012 11:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 39 (657268)
03-27-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
03-26-2012 7:38 PM


Re: ARGUMENT FOR
But it's not a tax, it's a penalty.
Isn't this a distinction without a difference? The homebuyer's tax credit is exactly the same thing as a tax penalty for not buying a house. Money is money.
That something may not be a tax under the terms of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act doesn't mean that it's not a tax at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2012 7:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024