Supreme Court upholds Obamacare...

[dickay]

The talk about health insurance being "good for you" is an elaborate mischaracterization of the rationale for the ACA mandate. While obviously, health care and insurance for such is "good for you," that has nothing to do with why they passed it. It's not designed to be a prophylactic measure to improve anyone's health care, aside from the poor people who didn't have it, but now do.

It essentially is an extension of a variety of social programs already in existence, but now applied to health care. Does anyone seriously dispute that you shouldn't need car insurance to drive on public streets? I've never heard any real argument against that policy, aside from maybe a strict libertarian objection to any govt. mandate. Buying car insurance doesn't make you a better driver. Everyone buys car insurance because it makes sure that insurance isn't crazy expensive, and because when you do get into an accident, you can get back on the road without buying a new car yourself.

The health insurance mandate is the same thing, and it's done for the same reason. Having health insurance to live is just as mandatory as having car insurance is to drive, in that, maybe you won't ever have to use it, but without it only the wealthy can absorb the costs.

Giving poor people more access to health care is just like giving them food stamps. Food stamps don't make poor people healthy, because you can spend all your food stamps on junk food. But it does prevent poor people from starving.

____


Putting the "role of government" argument aside, really the only arguments against Obamacare are that A: the reform is deficient in some way/should be better, or B: it goes too far because healthcare should be a privilege bought with wealth.

big difference between car & health insurance. Car insurance doesn't cover the costs of preventative maintenance. It doesn't cover the cost of a breakdown for that matter either.

Health insurance should be the same way. We SHOULD be paying out of pocket for routine physicals, stitches, medications in many cases, even minor surgeries. We should have HSA's (which this act actually reduces as the govt. doesn't want you stashing untaxed money) that we pay into to cover these costs. That would bring personal responsibility as we'd take better care of ourselves so we wouldn't break down. If insurance were just for the catastrophic claims and similar needs, the costs would be dramatically lower.

that said, this bill is bad because it doesn't do enough. I hate the "its-the-best-we-can-do" line. Why? Why can't we do better? Do we need a 3K page bill filled with hidden taxes? Why do we need the govt. to mandate what type of coverage we need, why not have multiple options...one being a catastrophic plan? Why not allow business organizations to group together and buy insurance in bulk? Why not permit competition across state lines? Why not include a public option, or multiple public options, this way people can choose whether or not they want the govt. healthcare or stick with the private industry? Why not mandate those in congress get the same public option plans offered to the public? Why can't we do vastly more on promotion of healthy lifestyles? I'd much rather pay for someones gym membership than for their type II diabetes care. And god forbid, why can't we stash as much as we want into a healthcare savings account tax free????? If the money is taken out for something other than healthcare than fine, the govt. can tax it then just as they do retirement accounts.

[haveacigar]

big difference between car & health insurance. Car insurance doesn't cover the costs of preventative maintenance. It doesn't cover the cost of a breakdown for that matter either.

Health insurance should be the same way. We SHOULD be paying out of pocket for routine physicals, stitches, medications in many cases, even minor surgeries. We should have HSA's (which this act actually reduces as the govt. doesn't want you stashing untaxed money) that we pay into to cover these costs. That would bring personal responsibility as we'd take better care of ourselves so we wouldn't break down. If insurance were just for the catastrophic claims and similar needs, the costs would be dramatically lower.

That's a really good point. However, I think that's a difference unique to each type of insurance. Yes, car insurance doesn't cover preventative car of a car, but it also typically doesn't cover if your car breaks down from faulty maintenance. There's usually a distinction to be drawn. With people, you can't usually distinguish between what health problems are one's own fault, and what develops through no fault of their own. I don't know if it's really practical to divide health insurance in a similar manner.

that said, this bill is bad because it doesn't do enough. I hate the "its-the-best-we-can-do" line. Why? Why can't we do better? Do we need a 3K page bill filled with hidden taxes? Why do we need the govt. to mandate what type of coverage we need, why not have multiple options...one being a catastrophic plan? Why not allow business organizations to group together and buy insurance in bulk? Why not permit competition across state lines? Why not include a public option, or multiple public options, this way people can choose whether or not they want the govt. healthcare or stick with the private industry? Why not mandate those in congress get the same public option plans offered to the public? Why can't we do vastly more on promotion of healthy lifestyles? I'd much rather pay for someones gym membership than for their type II diabetes care. And god forbid, why can't we stash as much as we want into a healthcare savings account tax free????? If the money is taken out for something other than healthcare than fine, the govt. can tax it then just as they do retirement accounts.

It's definitely not the best we can do. I hope that, now that the bill's opponents can't just dismiss the law, there will be a renewed dialogue on how to create a good, comprehensive reform.

[ragecage]

For some reason I want to see Pete troll **** in this thread to make me laugh.

[Kobie]

If I'm not mistaken, free is in favor of universal healthcare, rather than forcing people to give their money to private corporations. And I agree.

As do I.

[Kobie]

Sounds fine to me too. But we gave up on that dream in 2009 when SOSHALISM and death panels and right wing idiocy scared our entire collective representation into removing the single-payer, or anything that even smelled too much like it.

I want universal healthcare and a single payer system, more than anything, but that ship sailed and we're dealing with the current, best-we-can-do system. Sometimes in this system you are dragged down by idiots and can only get 40 or 45% of the way towards what you want. Some people say ok, thats a step at least, and let's deal with it, while others just wash their hands of the whole thing and play ideologues. While some of that idealism is good, too much gets you the hard-line Republicans that form the Party of No today...so I'll take a small victory over nothing.

Me too. I don't like the mandate ... I'd prefer single-payer. But the GOP just took it up the tailpipe, and it serves them right.

[dps]

haaahaa, yes, Canada is the answer to your non-socialized healthcare desires

funny how a majority of people scared/angry/confused about this law happen to be ignorant in general

Not really. On just about any issue, the majority of people on any side of it will be ignorant in general.

[guidi2009]

Me too. I don't like the mandate ... I'd prefer single-payer. But the GOP just took it up the tailpipe, and it serves them right.

Did they really? Here's an interesting discussion.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=8548

[dickay]

Did they really? Here's an interesting discussion.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=8548

Thats a terrific review guidi.

The quote below which was a reply to your link is perfect. This bill was not a victory for America, it was a defeat. The only victory was political gain for democrats and even that is the result of spin. It's bad policy, and more specifically it again highlights the puppetry all in Congress use of the media to ensue emotion out of the masses and further our divide as citizens. We fall for it again and again. It's amazing that somehow a bill that brings us closer to full privatization of our healthcare system is being lauded by democrats. Sure there are some good things of this bill, but it's one step forward and three giant leaps backwards.

Note the differences in the political reality of this bill and the emotionally-potent simplification designed for public consumption. What is called "Obamacare" is a bill treated like a hedge-fund by both parties. A victory or loss represents a hedged bet for some lobbying interest. These interests have "preferred outcomes" -- and use the media as a public relations platform to render the population emotional over illusions.

I also like this reply too because it's so perfect:

Obama threw single-payer under the bus and let Max Bachus carve up the Public Option until it was dead. He wanted this corporate welfare plan so he could say that we achieved "universal coverage." Well chattel slavery can create "full employment" too.

Obama pu$$ied out with this bill and fell into the political trap by caving to democrats who just wanted to pass a bill so they could say they provided "universal coverage" and did a great thing and to republicans who wanted to say they rid the public option. Obama had the political capital to fight for Americans and caved to political pressures. Don't get me wrong, Congress is much more to blame for this failure, and maybe no President can change the ways of Congress...but Obama was supposed to be the hope and change who would fight it and ended up just like all the others.

[guidi2009]

Thats a terrific review guidi.

The quote below which was a reply to your link is perfect. This bill was not a victory for America, it was a defeat. The only victory was political gain for democrats and even that is the result of spin. It's bad policy, and more specifically it again highlights the puppetry all in Congress use of the media to ensue emotion out of the masses and further our divide as citizens. We fall for it again and again. It's amazing that somehow a bill that brings us closer to full privatization of our healthcare system is being lauded by democrats. Sure there are some good things of this bill, but it's one step forward and three giant leaps backwards.



I also like this reply too because it's so perfect:


Obama pu$$ied out with this bill and fell into the political trap by caving to democrats who just wanted to pass a bill so they could say they provided "universal coverage" and did a great thing and to republicans who wanted to say they rid the public option. Obama had the political capital to fight for Americans and caved to political pressures. Don't get me wrong, Congress is much more to blame for this failure, and maybe no President can change the ways of Congress...but Obama was supposed to be the hope and change who would fight it and ended up just like all the others.

Right and every Republican justice would have voted for this Heritage Foundation plan but they wanted ammo for the election.

[YetiTaz]

Right and every Republican justice would have voted for this Heritage Foundation plan but they wanted ammo for the election.

That's pretty much how I see it. I honestly believe that if you left Obamacare word-for-word, called it Bushcare, and introduced it in 2006, the Republicans would have voted yes and the Democrats would have voted no.
This is the political process in America today.

[HoustonGM]

That's pretty much how I see it. I honestly believe that if you left Obamacare word-for-word, called it Bushcare, and introduced it in 2006, the Republicans would have voted yes and the Democrats would have voted no.
This is the political process in America today.

Of course they would. It was originally a Republican plan, created by the Heritage Foundation, as guidi said, which is a conservative think tank, and it's pretty much the same exact system that Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. Another Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, once supported it too. It's insane.

[Ole Geezer]

Well Alloutwar, I hope you have a country left when the "anointed one" is out of office. If you didn't read CJ Robert's complete disortation at the end of his decision, you should! He is a very estute and clever individual. Knowing that 60% of Americans were against the law and that the liberal media were ready to claim the court was playing politics, he found a way to uphold the majority of the law, appease the liberal media and place the blame where it belonged, on Congress, the Administration and the voters who elected them. Roberts said the court could only interpret the constitutionality of the law, and that it was not the court's responsibility to judge the financial ramifications nor the merits of the law. By upholding the mandate as a 'tax' he threw the ball back in the administration's back yard. Obama and his cohorts had agued vehemently that it was not a 'tax' but rather a 'penalty'. Roberts further stated that the court was not there to 'protect' the American people from their politcal choices. In other words, if you don't like the law, vote Obama out of office in November. The 60% of American against the law will see to that, I also hope.

[etothep]

Pete's neighbor posts now, how wonderful

[Kobie]

Knowing that 60% of Americans were against the law

I stopped reading here, since this is patently false.

[dickay]

Of course they would. It was originally a Republican plan, created by the Heritage Foundation, as guidi said, which is a conservative think tank, and it's pretty much the same exact system that Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts. Another Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, once supported it too. It's insane.

much of this is false. rumor spread by democrats through their puppetry of the media to pass off ownership of the mandate. lets not be mistaken. dems own the mandate. they put it in obamacare and passed it in partisan fashion.

as for the republicans prior endorsement of it, this is true but there were significant differences in the heritage plan. if they were the same we could simply ask why dems opposed it under a republican assembly and now endorse it? it goes both ways. regardless, even if the mandates were exactly the same, which they arent, theres the remaining 2400 pages in obamacare that clearly have differences from the heritage plan.

as for romneycare, i agree its very similar to obamacare in terms of the mandate. romney is an a$$. realize though he passed it in one of the most liberal states in the nation. he lost to mccain last primary for many reasons,alarge one being that republicsans didnt support his healthcare bill.