|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Supreme Court Obamacare Case -- Pros and Cons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3555 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It looks like the tax question is being dismissed by the court:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...03/26/gIQA5lk0bS_story.html
quote: The next question regards the "individual mandate"
quote: 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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3555 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3555 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3555 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3555 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1784 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025