Obama Don't Care - Declared Unconstitutional

[oldredfordette]

Don't use facts on these guys, it screws up their brain functions.

[gdogslim]

No one forces you to drive. You choose to drive a car, DUUHHH, no brainer there.
No one should be FORCED to buy something you don't need or want. Obviously!
A twenty five year old does not need another 200.00 dollar a month expense idiots.
It will be overturned because it is a Fascist Law imposed by progressive liberals.

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto: How is this any different from automobile insurance? Is that wrong too?

Automobile insurance laws are instituted by state governments as allowed by the 10th Amendment. Forcing people to buy specific corporate products, however, is not a power delegated to the federal government.

Gee, I wonder where these "unconstitutional" arguments were when the ideas in the health care law were first proposed--by Republicans in the 1990s.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[ghettopalmetto]

Automobile insurance laws are instituted by state governments as allowed by the 10th Amendment. Forcing people to buy specific corporate products, however, is not a power delegated to the federal government.

And the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it, either.

I think about health care in terms of that house in Tennessee that was allowed to burn down, because the yahoo homeowner opted to not pay the $75/year for fire protection.

Let's tweak that story a bit. Say that the fire department was required by law to provide protection for Mr. Opt Out. You know, kind of how doctors are required by law to provide medical care to everyone. Well, what happens when Mr. Opt Out pockets his own $75 and his house catches on fire? The fire department would be legally bound to extinguish the blaze. The fire department, on the other hand, is funded by "everyone else" except the particular beneficiary. Is it reasonable to allow irresponsible people to opt out, while the responsible folks are left holding the bag??? I'd be pretty pissed if I had to cover the expenses for Mr. Opt Out, when he decides that he'll reap the benefits without contributing his part.

[oladub]

And the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it, either.

I think about health care in terms of that house in Tennessee that was allowed to burn down, because the yahoo homeowner opted to not pay the $75/year for fire protection.

Let's tweak that story a bit. Say that the fire department was required by law to provide protection for Mr. Opt Out. You know, kind of how doctors are required by law to provide medical care to everyone. Well, what happens when Mr. Opt Out pockets his own $75 and his house catches on fire? The fire department would be legally bound to extinguish the blaze. The fire department, on the other hand, is funded by "everyone else" except the particular beneficiary. Is it, while the responsible folks are left holding the bag??? I'd be pretty pissed if I had to cover the expenses for Mr. Opt Out, when he decides that he'll reap the benefits without contributing his part.

What happened? Did someone cut the very explicit 10th Amendment out of your copy of the Constitution. Your question was, "How is this any different from automobile insurance? Is that wrong too?" The 10th Amendment empowers, but does not mandate, states to legislate things that are not powers enumerated to the federal government such as auto insurance requirements or for that matter single payer health insurance and probably not being able to opt out of such a state policy. Whether or not it is " reasonable to allow irresponsible people to opt out" is a matter for state and local governments to decide. If you want single payer health care with or without mandatory participation, mandatory fire department coverage, new school buildings, death penalties, gay marriages, or thousands of other possibilities, it is your job to get such things passed in South Carolina. Under the 10th Amendment, you can't bill those things to me in Wisconsin residents. We already have our hands full trying to clean up Governor Doyle's mess.

[Lowell]

I see the normal mouth pieces on this thread talking about the evils of the right wing or the evils of the left wing. Thruth of the matter is neither party has the stones to impliment price controls on greedy doctors, or fix the industry in the advantage of the consumer.

I agree with this. The elephant in the room is health care costs. Why do Americans pay per capita $7200 a year, with an average of 1 visit a year, and a life expectancy of 78 years while Japanese do it for $2500 a year, with 10+ visits and live 5 years longer?? Why do I smell an immense cabal of interests united among the insurers, health care providers and health care suppliers?

At a minimum all health care providers and suppliers should be required to post their prices in very plain view at offices and online. The big problem is that no one has any idea what anything costs. They can tell you the price of gasoline, cars or tv's in a heartbeat, but the prices of a dental crown, getting a broken ankle treated? The fog ascends.

A a governmental level these prices need to be examined against those in, let's say, Japan and then hard questions asked about the vast discrepancies that must exist. I oppose the enforced the insurance buying on the grounds that it creates a vast trillion dollar captive audience for the private health insurance industry while doing nothing about soaring costs. Someone mentioned Michigan auto no fault forced insurance. I remember it well when it came in. Did it cut the price or insurance? No, it just kept climbing.

[ghettopalmetto]

What happened? Did someone cut the very explicit 10th Amendment out of your copy of the Constitution. Your question was, "How is this any different from automobile insurance? Is that wrong too?" The 10th Amendment empowers, but does not mandate, states to legislate things that are not powers enumerated to the federal government such as auto insurance requirements or for that matter single payer health insurance and probably not being able to opt out of such a state policy. Whether or not it is " reasonable to allow irresponsible people to opt out" is a matter for state and local governments to decide. If you want single payer health care with or without mandatory participation, mandatory fire department coverage, new school buildings, death penalties, gay marriages, or thousands of other possibilities, it is your job to get such things passed in South Carolina. Under the 10th Amendment, you can't bill those things to me in Wisconsin residents. We already have our hands full trying to clean up Governor Doyle's mess.

So you're saying that consumer protection mechanisms are illegal, based on your own interpretation of the 10th Amendment?

A historical reading of Supreme Court cases would disagree.

Again--where was your "unconstitutional" outrage when the tenets of the health care law were proposed by Republicans in the 1990s? Back then, even the right-wing Heritage Foundation trumpeted an individual mandate. Suddenly, the Right is outraged because the Democrats co-opted their ideas and actually made them into law. This is what the GOP gets for refusing to govern.

Of course, now we hear the ballyhooing that "How can we possibly force people of modest means to spend more money?" Yeah--as if the GOP gives half a shit about people who work for a living. If they cared so much, why didn't they do a damned thing about it between 2001-2007 while our premiums were skyrocketing?

[oladub]

Canada does not have a national health care program. It has provincial health care programs.
There is no excuse for US health costs. They are the result of both corporate and governmental corruption. Governments in the US already spend more per capita for health care than do governments in Canada so efficiency, rather than spending, is the issue. Are there any nations listed, though, that don't have tort reform as part of their health care package? Yet, Obamacare did not address tort reform and added added more non-medical personnel to our health care structure. While Obamacare did address universality, it almost certainly will make health care less affordable as additional costs are shifted to taxpayers and existing policy holders. States should be allowed to have their own single payer plans, just as Canadian provinces, which include tort reform. it would be one way of providing both universality and reducing health care costs.

[laphoque]

Overturn it. My employer cancelled my health care and I can't afford to buy it on my own. I should not be forced to purchase something that I can't afford to buy. If it gets overturned, then I won't have to pay the "penalty". yay!

....Or I could just go to work for one of the 2OO [[and climbing) companies that the Obama Administration has granted immunity/exemption from the Health Care bill to.....
...which is total crap that any company should receive an exemption imo.

There will be subsidies to make care affordable for you once the healthcare exchange comes online. It'll be here: http://healthcare.gov/

Healthcare is different from other sectors of the economy. In order for it to be affordable it needs to be subsidized by people who are much less likely to actually use the service [[the healthy). But when you get sick, it's there.

This is the very situation for which we have civilization. This is a fundamental responsibility of a state.

IMO we shouldn't have an individual mandate and we should just fund such necessary programs through the general budget. But we like to add another layer of capitalism to any new programs we make. The health insurance industry still gets to exist, even though it mostly functions to ration care and pay bonuses to the CEO.

Eventually I think we'll cut out the middleman like we did with student loans.

[ghettopalmetto]

Canada does not have a national health care program. It has provincial health care programs.
There is no excuse for US health costs. They are the result of both corporate and governmental corruption. Governments in the US already spend more per capita for health care than do governments in Canada so efficiency, rather than spending, is the issue.

Wrong. EVERYONE in the U.S. spends more per capita for health care than in any other developed nation. Up to 50% more, that is, as a percentage of GDP. Medicare, as a not-for-profit entity, has far lower overhead costs than the private insurers.

Are there any nations listed, though, that don't have tort reform as part of their health care package? Yet, Obamacare did not address tort reform and added added more non-medical personnel to our health care structure.

How much money would tort reform save? Does it eliminate the profit motive for private insurers? Does it provide coverage for everyone? Does it eliminate denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions? What percentage of premiums is attributable to lawsuits?

While Obamacare did address universality, it almost certainly will make health care less affordable as additional costs are shifted to taxpayers and existing policy holders. States should be allowed to have their own single payer plans, just as Canadian provinces, which include tort reform. it would be one way of providing both universality and reducing health care costs.

There has been nothing--NOTHING--prohibiting states from enacting universal coverage. Before the federal law was passed, a whopping TWO states [[Hawaii and Massachusetts) had universal health care. The rest of us get fucked on an annual basis so we can pay egregious salaries to insurance CEOs for denying us a fundamental human right. Do you really think Mississippi would ever provide universal health insurance if left to its own devices?

[maxx]

If the Government imposed penalties on employers for not providing health care to employees, it would make sense. To impose penalties on individuals for not buying health care is wrong.

Why is it wrong when everyone expects to be treated medically? And the hospitals are forced by law to treat everyone? In this capitalist society, why is it OK to not pay for services rendered?

[maxx]

RE: high medical costs
We can start here.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto; Wrong. EVERYONE in the U.S. spends more per capita for health care than in any other developed nation. Up to 50% more, that is, as a percentage of GDP. Medicare, as a not-for-profit entity, has far lower overhead costs than the private insurers.

You didn't understand what I was talking about. I was not talking about the total spent: only how much government already spends. If the total amount of local, state, and federal health care expenditures are added up, the total amount divided by the number of Americans is a larger dollar amount than combined Canadian government agencies spend, per capita, on Canadians for health care. I used that fact as an example of how ineffiecient our health care system is; a point upon which we can agree.

How much money would tort reform save? Does it eliminate the profit motive for private insurers? Does it provide coverage for everyone? Does it eliminate denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions? What percentage of premiums is attributable to lawsuits?

In Canada, the last I heard, doctors are largely shielded from law suits so they don't even deem it necessary to take out liability insurance. In turn, doctors can charge lower charges to patients. Patients do not have as great of a need to sue anyway since some mistakes doctors make will be rectified by other 'free' government care. Doctors do not find it necessary to require as much testing to protect themselves from negligence charges so fewer procedures are ordered and billed. Since most medical costs are born by the province, there is little need for patients to purchase insurance. Since relatively few medical liability or personal health insurance policies are purchased, the insurance companies have fewer sales. Since lawyers are almost not in the picture, the need for large policies is decreased.

Insurance companies like to point out to the smaller amount that actually changes hand in court. The practical reality included the cost of liability insurance, personal health insurance to help pay for doctors, hospital, etc. liability costs, , unnecessary procedures to avoid liability claims, hospital wings full of paper workers processing legal and insurance claims, and government agencies regulating everything previously mentioned. by getting rid of these non medical personnel from health care more money is freed up to instead provide affordable and universal medical care. It's a choice. Lawyers and insurance companies vs. inexpensive and universal health care. Take a side.

There has been nothing--NOTHING--prohibiting states from enacting universal coverage. Before the federal law was passed, a whopping TWO states [[Hawaii and Massachusetts) had universal health care. The rest of us get fucked on an annual basis so we can pay egregious salaries to insurance CEOs for denying us a fundamental human right. Do you really think Mississippi would ever provide universal health insurance if left to its own devices?

In Wisconsin there was an attempt to establish a state health care plan . An AARP representative told me that Washington lobbyists rushed to Wisconsin and successfully bought off enough politicians to prevent this from happening. What the majority of Mississippi residents choose to vote for is not my business. What is stopping them from moving to Massachusetts? I'm more concerned with corrupted politicians in my state and in Washington DC than what residents of Oregon [[right to die) or Texas [[death penalty) choose to support.

[gdogslim]

There are many former Obama administration officials now working as lobbyists trying to enrich themselves by having their companies get contracts or mandates that help themselves. [[nothing new)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Lobbyis...administration
2009 list toppers include the health care industry $266 million - for influence peddling;

Looming doctor shortage of est. 160,000 doctors as boomer retire.

'Death panels' Posted at 1:24 PM ET, 01/ 5/2011
Supposedly non-existent death panels removed from ObamaDon'tCare
By Jennifer Rubin http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/he.../05health.html
The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.

How to lower health care costs ? Let patients die, shorten their life expectancy. Ration care.

We don't hear about more than 4,000 expectant mothers who gave birth inside a hospital, but not in the maternity ward, in Britain in just one year. They had their babies in hallways, bathrooms and even elevators. http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/464741#ixzz1BW1J1e3y

[oldredfordette]

Conservapedia????????????

[Gistok]

How to lower health care costs ? Let patients die, shorten their life expectancy. Ration care.

..... and to think he calls Obamacare Facist....

Slimdog.... it is becoming more and more apparent why others on this forum no longer debate you...

[maxx]

Talk about not caring. We pay thousands more per person in the U.S. and some of us have been seeing doctors in animal stalls.
http://news.injuryboard.com/bringing...oogleid=268002

[Jimaz]

Nathan? Is that you?

The Mis-Informant

• Part 1
• Part 2

'Nuff said.

[gdogslim]

The youtube video was pretty funny, jack black is always good.
It reminds me of Sesame Street and their tax subsidized propaganda.

You don't have to pay a dime for health care NOW if you don't want to.
You pay for what you get. You should move to India where it is very inexpensive.
No one is stopping you from moving to Britain, Canada, or better yet, Mexico you'll love it there.
Under the marxist ideoloque's plans, they will control your health care and you will have little choice.

The goal is to wipe out companies health care plans so it becomes so expensive they have to go to the socialist plan, where everyone will have to bow, like obama does, to the government for a handout.

YES! The new Congress has voted to repeal ObamaDontCare. Although symbolic it is a good step.

[gibran]

just think if she needed to get Physical Therapy in order to return to work. they dont do that at the ER

[ghettopalmetto]

The goal is to wipe out companies health care plans so it becomes so expensive they have to go to the socialist plan, where everyone will have to bow, like obama does, to the government for a handout.

Most companies' health care plans are wiping out themselves. In case you haven't noticed, worker contributions have been escalating every year. Premiums are doubling every ten years or less. Are we getting double the quality of care? Evidence--such as life expectancy--suggests not. What's your solution, genius?

If the GOP can cover at least 30 million additional people at a lower cost than specified in the current law, I'd love to hear their plan.

YES! The new Congress has voted to repeal ObamaDontCare. Although symbolic it is a good step.

Wrong. The House has voted to repeal the health care law.

[oladub]

I have a question. First there were supposed to be something like 38M uninsured Americans. Then there was a fuss about coverage for illegal aliens. The plan was modified to only cover US citizens after which President Obama said by insuring the 28M uninsured Americans, health cost savings would occur. Now gp has the number back up to 30M and Organizing for America sent me something yesterday claiming there were 32M uninsured. This is important because if the number is greater than 28M, the promised cost savings won't occur. So why are the uninsured numbers all over the place and which one in correct?

[Detroitej72]

In case you haven't noticed, worker contributions have been escalating every year. Premiums are doubling every ten years or less. Are we getting double the quality of care? Evidence--such as life expectancy--suggests not. What's your solution, genius?

Your wasting your breath Ghetto. Slime has proved time and again that he has no capacity for rational thought and dialog, only the ability to parrot the right wing talking points. Don't forget, these are the same clowns who lovingly refer to themselves as "dittoheads". Translation: I lack the ability to think for myself, so I must repeat what Fox has indoctrinated into my brain.

[maxx]

gdog: It reminds me of Sesame Street and their tax subsidized propaganda.

Oh, boy! A new gdog conspiracy theory!

No one is stopping you from moving to Britain, Canada, or better yet, Mexico you'll love it there.

I don't know about Britain or Mexico, but I had friends who tried to get landed immigrant status in Canada and were denied even though they were both professionals and had family in Canada. This was about 30 years ago. I don't know if Canada has changed their immigration laws since then.
Some Americans have retired to Mexico. But it isn't that easy to move from state to state and stay employed let alone from country to country. SO what are you talking about? Speaking from personal experience, gdog? lol

[maxx]

How dare those evil health corporations make money. That means they may expand and provide even more services and make even more money. They should all be put out of business and have the government run them all.

For-profit HMOs were created in the early 70s. Remember the tape of Nixon saying how he liked the idea of HMOs charging more for less service featured in "Sicko"? We managed for around forty years in the 20th century without a for-profit healthcare system.
http://www.slate.com/id/2161736/

"...Jonathan Cohn, a senior editor at the New Republic, has written such a book, and I would urge Sen. Wyden to read it at least three times. Cohn's book, to be published next month, is Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis—And the People Who Paid the Price. Each chapter of Cohn's book is devoted to one or two patient narratives that illuminate a particular dysfunction of the present medical system, and the chapters are arranged in such a way that the dysfunctions appear more or less in the order in which they first became significant national problems. The result is an 80-year chronology of repeated market failure, with each successive reform serving at best as temporary respite from the previous problem. Read it and weep. Capitalism can't deliver decent health care..."