Obamacare - RIP

[cybrsage]

Oddly enough, having you buy it yourself is an Outrage To Freedom, but having them take your money and buy it for you is not.

One is constitutional, the other is not. Why is it so odd to you that Americans want the Constitution followed? You really should be asking what is odd about you that you do NOT want it followed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Depends on what you mean by the make up of Congress. The Republicans will lose seats in the House almost no matter what happens in the general election, they will most likely gain some in the Senate.

I actually don't think that the removal of the mandate would help Obama at all, it would most likely hurt him in fact. The damage to his prospects from a primary part of his signature legislation being ruled unconstitutional would affect him much more than the percentage of people who would say 'oh man I'm glad I don't have to do that in 2014'. People don't vote that way.

I'm trying to remember which paper had this up. NYT perhaps but maybe not. Anyway the thought was that since more are against the mandate than not then the Reps lose their most popular contentious bone if it's struck down. The majority is for some kind of reform but not by this means. Obama and the dems will have to rethink their approach but theres not much else that can be used to make much hay. The Reps will have no popular point to cry about. On the flip side if the mandate survives then those who like out will be satisfied but the opposite crowd will not be pleased. That is the view which has momentum and would backfire on the dems, but the degree to which it influences the election is anyones guess. Should be interesting to see how things unfold.

 

[nageov3t]

they should have included an opt-out in the law.

don't buy insurance, don't pay fines... but forfeit any right to visit the ER without paying cash upfront or being billed for thousands after the fact.

 

[theeedude]

they should have included an opt-out in the law.

don't buy insurance, don't pay fines... but forfeit any right to visit the ER without paying cash upfront or being billed for thousands after the fact.

Everyone is billed for the ER. Many just can't pay the bills. Are you expecting people to carry suitcases of cash with them in case they get into a crash?

 

[fskimospy]

they should have included an opt-out in the law.

don't buy insurance, don't pay fines... but forfeit any right to visit the ER without paying cash upfront or being billed for thousands after the fact.

This is exactly our situation now.

 

[theeedude]

Liberal justices had to explain the free rider problem to conservatives. Aren't rightwingers supposed to be good at economics?

 

[nageov3t]

This is exactly our situation now.

where does the free rider problem come into play, then?

 

[fskimospy]

where does the free rider problem come into play, then?

That those who are billed cannot afford to pay, and so they don't.

 

[apac]

they should have included an opt-out in the law.

don't buy insurance, don't pay fines... but forfeit any right to visit the ER.

Fixed. There was an interview with some woman on NPR this morning and she said that she couldn't afford the $100/month insurance payment, and was therefore against mandatory health coverage. What does she think will happen if she gets seriously ill or injured? I don't understand how people don't see the the long term benefit of health insurance. Or is it that they think they have every right to use emergency medical services without paying for them?

 

[cybrsage]

Fixed. There was an interview with some woman on NPR this morning and she said that she couldn't afford the $100/month insurance payment, and was therefore against mandatory health coverage. What does she think will happen if she gets seriously ill or injured? I don't understand how people don't see the the long term benefit of health insurance. Or is it that they think they have every right to use emergency medical services without paying for them?

Most likely she is deciding between food, shelter, clothing, electricity, bus fare, and health insurance. Out of those items, if anything must be removed to make ends meet it obviously must be health insurance.

I wonder what will happen to her when she must buy insurance or pay a fine. Which of the other items will she give up? Obviously not bus fare, she loses her job without it. Probably food, and keeping her house VERY hot and VERY cold in the summer and winter, respectively. This will make her sick, but then she gets to use the health insurance...

 

[apac]

Most likely she is deciding between food, shelter, clothing, electricity, bus fare, and health insurance. Out of those items, if anything must be removed to make ends meet it obviously must be health insurance.

I wonder what will happen to her when she must buy insurance or pay a fine. Which of the other items will she give up? Obviously not bus fare, she loses her job without it. Probably food, and keeping her house VERY hot and VERY cold in the summer and winter, respectively. This will make her sick, but then she gets to use the health insurance...

True, something would have to give to afford it. But let's look at those other essential commodities you mentioned. If you were unable to afford a bus ride, would the bus service still let you on? If you were hungry but unable to afford food, would a grocery store let you continue to shop and take food if you never paid for it?

So, why then, do uninsured people feel it's A-okay to use medical services without paying any bills? It's an ugly thing to say, but if you can't afford medical coverage, and the American people are not willing to pay taxes for public health services, then you should be shit out of luck.

Instead, there is this ass-backwards subsidization where people get sick and a hospital immediately turns into a charity. The hospital can't collect money from people that don't have any
...which causes medical services for those who can pay to be even more expensive
...which makes health insurance that much more important, and more expensive
...which makes it harder for people to afford insurance
...which leads to more people using the ER who can't pay for it
...which leads to more ass-backwards subsidization

 

[Ninjahedge]

Fixed. There was an interview with some woman on NPR this morning and she said that she couldn't afford the $100/month insurance payment, and was therefore against mandatory health coverage. What does she think will happen if she gets seriously ill or injured? I don't understand how people don't see the the long term benefit of health insurance. Or is it that they think they have every right to use emergency medical services without paying for them?

I am over $1500 (between myself and the company) per month for my families HCP....

$100? Can't pay for it? Or don't WANT to pay for it?

$100/mo, especially if it is tax free, is NOTHING compared to what many other daily expenses are. 90% of the people in the US would be able to foot this bill, especially compared to what they pay now.

What I want is just an expansion of what some government workers and soldiers now get for Health Insurance. Maybe instead of offering and mandating this, the government should just start offering its own health insurance plan for a fraction of what private insurance now costs....


Or wasn't that something that was shot down by "representatives" that were already in the pockets of Big Insurance?

 

[First]

It is impolite to talk to yourself while in the company of others. Your mom did a bad job teaching you basic manners.

No one takes you seriously. FYI.

 

[Ninjahedge]

No one takes you seriously. FYI.

Seriously?

 

[theeedude]

Most likely she is deciding between food, shelter, clothing, electricity, bus fare, and health insurance. Out of those items, if anything must be removed to make ends meet it obviously must be health insurance.

I wonder what will happen to her when she must buy insurance or pay a fine. Which of the other items will she give up? Obviously not bus fare, she loses her job without it. Probably food, and keeping her house VERY hot and VERY cold in the summer and winter, respectively. This will make her sick, but then she gets to use the health insurance...

There are subsidies for the poor to purchase coverage in ObamaCare.
I do agree with you that it's a form regressive tax though. There is a reason this was proposed by the conservative Heritage foundation in late 80s.
Health care should be paid for out of progressive income taxes, not requiring people to buy insurance for themselves.

 

[werepossum]

So you are fine with the government saying you must buy a new car or pay a fine if you do not? You know, forcing you to engage in commerce or be fined?

We have things similar to that now when Congress passes a law (or the agencies invent one) requiring compliance in something with a time-limited grandfather clause, e.g. by such and such date you must replace your scrubbers or install a catalytic converter meeting the new standards or replace your existing site lighting with turtle-safe site lighting. Personally I find being disallowed from growing your own grain to feed your own livestock a much more egregious misuse of the Commerce Clause. Same with rules limiting you to two weeks of stored food.

Also, unless SCOTUS specifically tosses the whole law over the lack of a separability clause, kicking out the mandate won't kill Obamacare. It will just drastically increase the national debt and/or result in even more cuts to Medicare/Medicaid to fund the spending.

One more point - there are some good things about Obamacare, things on which both parties can agree. (Well, at least outside of an election cycle.) Things like abolishing the right to discriminate against pre-existing conditions (which raises everyone's premiums but is the only way someone with a pre-existing condition can get health insurance.) I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it would be cruel to repeal the law without another way to address these needs, as our pre-ACA free market system (hard to call it that without laughing) just doesn't work for these people. A civilized nation needs more than "sucks to be you" if someone is diabetic.

 

[jackstar7]

One is constitutional, the other is not. Why is it so odd to you that Americans want the Constitution followed? You really should be asking what is odd about you that you do NOT want it followed.

We've outgrown it before...

 

[Balt]

Reporting seems to suggest the Solicitor General shit the bed during some of the proceedings today when it came to addressing the limits of what the government can force citizens to purchase by mandate.

 

[xBiffx]

Reporting seems to suggest the Solicitor General shit the bed during some of the proceeding today when it came to addressing the limits of what the government can force citizens to purchase by mandate.

I saw that as well. At least he was shitting the bed when Kagan wasn't hand holding him and basically making arguments for him that is. No bias detected. :whiste:

 

[theeedude]

I don't see an issue here. It is usual for the court to look for a limiting principle. And there is a clear one here, individual mandate is targeted at eliminating a free rider problem in the interstate health insurance marketplace. And the argument that if the government requires you to buy health insurance they can require you to eat broccoli is intellectually weak. There is no free rider problem if you don't eat healthy as long as you have health insurance to cover your health risk.

 

[theeedude]

We have things similar to that now when Congress passes a law (or the agencies invent one) requiring compliance in something with a time-limited grandfather clause, e.g. by such and such date you must replace your scrubbers or install a catalytic converter meeting the new standards or replace your existing site lighting with turtle-safe site lighting. Personally I find being disallowed from growing your own grain to feed your own livestock a much more egregious misuse of the Commerce Clause. Same with rules limiting you to two weeks of stored food.

Also, unless SCOTUS specifically tosses the whole law over the lack of a separability clause, kicking out the mandate won't kill Obamacare. It will just drastically increase the national debt and/or result in even more cuts to Medicare/Medicaid to fund the spending.

One more point - there are some good things about Obamacare, things on which both parties can agree. (Well, at least outside of an election cycle.) Things like abolishing the right to discriminate against pre-existing conditions (which raises everyone's premiums but is the only way someone with a pre-existing condition can get health insurance.) I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it would be cruel to repeal the law without another way to address these needs, as our pre-ACA free market system (hard to call it that without laughing) just doesn't work for these people. A civilized nation needs more than "sucks to be you" if someone is diabetic.

If individual mandate is eliminated, there will be no private market way to address these needs. If you require private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions you have to also require people to not wait till they have a pre-existing condition to get insurance. With that option gone, the only legal way would be for the government to directly insure these people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing condition. But this would mean that many people would just ditch their private insurance and decide to wait till they get sick to get on the government plan. So long term, this would mean a transition to universal single payer coverage. Which is fine by me, it's just puzzling that it's the conservatives who would eliminate the private insurance market solution.

 

[351Cleveland]

We've outgrown it before...

Then amend it (the Constitution). That is the remedy prescribed by the framers.

 

[Slew Foot]

No preexisting conditions allowed, or a mandatory buy-in. Pick one.

 

[xBiffx]

No preexisting conditions allowed, or a mandatory buy-in. Pick one.

You CAN have both. Amendment to the US Constitution or states passing a law lets you have your cake and eat it too. The possibility of getting both is another matter.

 

[Bitek]

Fixed. There was an interview with some woman on NPR this morning and she said that she couldn't afford the $100/month insurance payment, and was therefore against mandatory health coverage. What does she think will happen if she gets seriously ill or injured? I don't understand how people don't see the the long term benefit of health insurance. Or is it that they think they have every right to use emergency medical services without paying for them?

That's what its all about tho right? Its not an immediate need, so some people blow it off knowing someone will save their ass if some accident happens, and they don't really believe it will happen anyway.

Then comes some freak accident, they slip and break their leg, and $50K later they are in a cast and claim they can't pay.

What will she do? File for Bankruptcy and stiff everyone else with the bill.

Hospitals are not allowed to let people just die out on the sidewalk, so the only other choice is to make sure everyone tosses in their fair share.