View Full Version : Good news!
I hesitate to call this a 'win for Obama' or a "win for the democrats' as some in the media are doing. I think that makes this very important piece of legislation for all way too political. This first step in health care reform is a win for us all. No one checks party affiliation at the emergency room door.
Now, I agree there are problems with this, most importantly we are still tethered to the insurance companies. And although this law is largely insurance regulations and guidelines, I would love to see us circumvent them all together, if we want.
Remember, this was a republican idea first. I hope they now embrace the spirit of it and work with the democrats to make this law even better for everyone. No one ever claimed this was a best and final product. Just a beginning.
On a personal note, frankly I was surprised this court upheld the law, and the mandate. Not that I think it's unconstitutional, it isn't, but because this court is largely republican and seems to lean way over that way. I admit I sold them short. I will have to look at their decisions with a finer, and clearer, eye from now on. I haven't read the justices opinions on this yet but am looking forward to doing that, including the opposition opinion.
ToomuchStuff
6-28-12, 1:45pm
To truely make it universal healthcare, I want all those in Congress, the President, and everybody, to be EQUAL and waiting in same line.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-12, 2:05pm
Now, I agree there are problems with this, most importantly we are still tethered to the insurance companies. And although this law is largely insurance regulations and guidelines, I would love to see us circumvent them all together, if we want.
Remember, this was a republican idea first. I hope they now embrace the spirit of it and work with the democrats to make this law even better for everyone. No one ever claimed this was a best and final product. Just a beginning.
Hard to get socialized medicine from here if that is desired. Because this further entrenches the vested interests of for profit insurance companies (which were already of course hopelessly entrenched and big donors or we wouldn't have gotten this particular health care bill at all - we would have at the least have gotten the public option).
The legal fight is over. The political fight will continue.
You know the health care part of the bill was never an issue with the court. It was the method used to make it work, namely the individual mandate and other forced elements such as the Medicaid changes placed upon the individual states.
I've always believed the individual mandate to be unconstitutional and the court seemingly agrees. It's just been converted to a tax, although the result is the same. At least it signifies that the Commerce Clause does not infer a right to force people to buy something, as many of the law's proponents have espoused over the last several years.
I think this ruling will have far-reaching consequences since it seemingly gives the federal government the ability to force anything it wants upon us, as long as they use the right terms. Tax=Good, Fine=Bad
You know the health care part of the bill was never an issue with the court. It was the method used to make it work, namely the individual mandate and other forced elements such as the Medicaid changes placed upon the individual states.
I've always believed the individual mandate to be unconstitutional and the court seemingly agrees. It's just been converted to a tax, although the result is the same. At least it signifies that the Commerce Clause does not infer a right to force people to buy something, as many of the law's proponents have espoused over the last several years.
I think this ruling will have far-reaching consequences since it seemingly gives the federal government the ability to force anything it wants upon us, as long as they use the right terms. Tax=Good, Fine=Bad
I didn't see it that way - it's "forced" much in the same way that I am "forced" to have dependents or a mortgage. If I decide not to do either of those, I pay more in taxes.
I'd use the NDAA as a better example of federal governments gone wild. The government already has the ability to force anything it wants upon us, as long as they use the right terms.
And the court did gut the only real means for the federal government to force the states to make changes in Medicaid. I'm curious where this will go - will the ruling bleed over into things like education funding, highway funding, etc?
I think what they're calling it is a "win for the American people."
I think what they're calling it is a "win for the American people."
Really? The largest tax ever imposed, something along the lines of $1.2T, and, according to the CBO, approximately 20 million workers will lose their employer provided health insurance. I don't think you're talking about all the American people.
And the court did gut the only real means for the federal government to force the states to make changes in Medicaid. I'm curious where this will go - will the ruling bleed over into things like education funding, highway funding, etc?
From a constitutional perspective, we can only hope.
Really? The largest tax ever imposed, something along the lines of $1.2T, and, according to the CBO, approximately 20 million workers will lose their employer provided health insurance. I don't think you're talking about all the American people.
Really Allen? A 1% tax ONLY on those who choose not to carry health care, but who choose to, you know, breath, is hardly the largest tax ever imposed. I don't know where you get that 20 million will lose health care.
The right keeps saying we don't need this cause everyone is covered already. Well, good, then no one will be taxed!
To truely make it universal healthcare, I want all those in Congress, the President, and everybody, to be EQUAL and waiting in same line.
I agree. We should all have the same health care.
You know the health care part of the bill was never an issue with the court. It was the method used to make it work, namely the individual mandate and other forced elements such as the Medicaid changes placed upon the individual states.
I've always believed the individual mandate to be unconstitutional and the court seemingly agrees. It's just been converted to a tax, although the result is the same. At least it signifies that the Commerce Clause does not infer a right to force people to buy something, as many of the law's proponents have espoused over the last several years.
I think this ruling will have far-reaching consequences since it seemingly gives the federal government the ability to force anything it wants upon us, as long as they use the right terms. Tax=Good, Fine=Bad
It always was a kind of tax in my opinion. Only for those who refuse to carry coverage. A law and a tax. the law being you will carry coverage, and if you don't want to, then you will be taxed to cover it, cause you will need it at some point. We pay tax to cover police protection and we pay tax to cover fire protection, this is a tax to cover health protection.
Really? The largest tax ever imposed, something along the lines of $1.2T, and, according to the CBO, approximately 20 million workers will lose their employer provided health insurance. I don't think you're talking about all the American people.
I wasn't quoting myself. Actually, I think it will probably end up guaranteeing a win for President Obama in November. Also, I think you need to look at those CBO numbers beyond the first few years. Please be more specific with the source/explanation of your "20 million workers will lose their employer provided health insurance" statement. Thanks.
No, I don't think it will be a win for ALL Americans. The law is far too narrow in its scope for that. On the balance, more people insured with guarantees that they will be able to keep their insurance regardless of what happens to them is a win for a lot more Americans than doing nothing which had been the case for the many years since the last attempt to fix this mess that took place during Clinton's first term.
Please be more specific with the source/explanation of your "20 million workers will lose their employer provided health insurance" statement. Thanks.
Sure, it's included as one of 4 possible scenarios in the following CBO publication: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43090
An excerpt:
In the four alternative scenarios examined, the ACA changes the number of people who will obtain health insurance coverage through their employer in 2019 by an amount that ranges from a reduction of 20 million to a gain of 3 million relative to what would have occurred otherwise. Compared with the March 2012 baseline projections for that year, the estimates under those alternative scenarios range from an additional decline of 14 million to a gain of 8 million people with employment-based coverage. In the scenario with the greatest additional reduction in employment-based coverage owing to the ACA (14 million), the number of enrollees who purchase health insurance through insurance exchanges is 9 million higher, the number of enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP is 2 million higher, and the number of uninsured is 2 million higher, than in the baseline projections.
http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/winnersmiley.gif http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/yattasmiley.gif http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/hapydancsmil.gif http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/loveshower.gif http://www.talkbaja.com/images/smilies/yessmiley.gif
The decision, and the other opinions released, make for interesting reading. I encourage folks to dig into some of the substance.
Sure, it's included as one of 4 possible scenarios in the following CBO publication: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43090
An excerpt:
It's not 20 million will lose then, it's 20 million might lose. On the other hand 3 million more might gain employer based insurance.
"One piece of evidence that may be relevant is the experience in Massachusetts, where employment-based health insurance coverage appears to have increased since that state’s reforms, which are similar but not identical to those in the ACA, were implemented."
It's not 20 million will lose then, it's 20 million might lose.
You're right. I should have said 'may' rather than 'will'. Perhaps that distinction will make it a "win for the American people". :doh:
I hope this leads to the eventual disentangling of health care from employment.
I understand Vermont is moving toward single-payer care. This is how Canada got started--one province at a time.
You're right. I should have said 'may' rather than 'will'. Perhaps that distinction will make it a "win for the American people". :doh:
No, that distinction puts your statement right up there with, '20 million might also get transported up by aliens therefore being pulled out of the insurance pools'. See, I can put my scenario right up there next to yours.
It's time to stop talking scenarios and deal with reality. Right now, today, my adult daughter, along with 2 1/2 million other young adult children, can stay on the family plan until 26. That is a big help to Americans across the nation, right now, today.
With this plan, my brother can get insurance for his young adult son who was born needing very expensive health care and will need periodic expensive health care, maybe, all his life. Here is a young man who can, and i expect will be a valuable, and productive member to his community, but because of the nature of his health issues may require periodic expensive care, maybe. Up to now no insurance company would touch him, at any price, and they have had to rely on the good graces of their state and charities, but now, at least they can cover him. This kid may never need another surgery in his life, but insurance companies didn't want to take that chance, so wouldn't cover him. Obamacare says we can take that chance because everyone will put into the co-op that is our health care system.
Mind you, my brother is a right wing republican who fought tooth and nail against Obamacare. When i questioned him on the fact that his son was alive today largely due to his good, tax paying neighbors, well, that was different.
Blind ideology robs people of their reason.
With this reform, no one will have to face bankruptcy due to medical bills, the largest segment of bankruptcy cases.
If you can find a doctor and hospital that will take chickens in trade for cancer treatment, or even a broken arm, then we can talk about doing away with this reform. But as long as we need insurance companies to gain admission to health care, I'm glad our government had the backbone to put some regulations in place into this most powerful industry. These are the true death panels, and Obamacare just removed a bit of their 'god power'.
But, I realize some will never like this. Fair enough. But the fact is, the supreme court has ruled, so let's move forward. I have a lot of faith in the 'brain power' of the members of this board. Let's look at all of the provisions of the law, bit by bit if we have to, and discus them. Keep them as they are, make them better, let's do it.
We've solved so many other problems,:D let's turn our attention to this.
I hope this leads to the eventual disentangling of health care from employment.
I understand Vermont is moving toward single-payer care. This is how Canada got started--one province at a time.
Oh Jane, I hope so!
flowerseverywhere
6-28-12, 8:38pm
the other night I was in the emergency room with a neighbor. It was packed with non emergencies. As we waited hours I struck up a lot of conversations and made many observations as my neighbor was treated in the hall due to lack of beds.
Per the nurses it was like that a lot- people don't have insurance so wait until it is an emergency and go to the ER, because they can't be turned away. Really crappy way to get health care in my opinion.
I am hoping it might help this one problem.
You are aware I hope, we currently pay one way or another for health care for everyone, either through medicaid, or increased premiums to cover the uninsured.
flowerseverywhere
6-28-12, 8:41pm
and I was watching on CNN when they said it was struck down then backtracked once they turned the page and realized it was upheld for a different reason- quite interesting reporting.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-12, 8:48pm
the other night I was in the emergency room with a neighbor. It was packed with non emergencies. As we waited hours I struck up a lot of conversations and made many observations as my neighbor was treated in the hall due to lack of beds.
Per the nurses it was like that a lot- people don't have insurance so wait until it is an emergency and go to the ER, because they can't be turned away. Really crappy way to get health care in my opinion.
There are 2 urgent care clinics within a 3 mile radius of me for that type of thing (not including the ER).
does this mean i can change my job if i get a pre-existing condition?
wow, cool.
No, that distinction puts your statement right up there with, '20 million might also get transported up by aliens therefore being pulled out of the insurance pools'. See, I can put my scenario right up there next to yours.
If you'd examined the link I provided, or the direct copy I provided from the link, you'd realize that's not my scenario, it's the Congressional Budget Office's scenario. That means it's not a conservative scenario, it's not a republican scenario, it's not a Libertarian scenario, a Tea Party scenario or a talk radio scenario. It's your government's scenario. Of course, maybe Doug Elmendorf has been listening to Rush/Beck. :confused:
......Blind ideology robs people of their reason.
Obviously! ;)
Alan, can i go for a ride on your bike!
But as long as we need insurance companies to gain admission to health care, I'm glad our government had the backbone to put some regulations in place into this most powerful industry. These are the true death panels
Opponents to this health program seem so convinced that it will give rise to panel of anonymous bureaucrats deciding what treatments people may get and which drugs may be reimbursed when prescribed. News flash for them -- those panels are already here, in the form of groups of bureaucrats at insurance companies and health organizations who decide on treatment protocols and formularies. It is absolutely no different. And I don't exactly see a "run for the border" by people on Medicare, so apparently government health care is OK for most older folks. I just don't get it.
There are 2 urgent care clinics within a 3 mile radius of me for that type of thing (not including the ER).
We have urgent care clinics, too, but many of them close at 5 most days and almost certainly no later than 8 or 9. The ER is open all the time. UCs (at least around here) also don't want to treat pain anywhere between the neck and the backside unless there's a bone or blood coming out of you; for indeterminate pain they send you to the nearest ER anyway.
You're right. I should have said 'may' rather than 'will'. Perhaps that distinction will make it a "win for the American people". :doh:
It makes a distinction that the -20 million was one scenario - and +3 million was another scenario. It would be interesting to see how the other 2 scenarios came out, if they were closer to the low point or the high point.
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-12, 10:22pm
http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/winnersmiley.gif http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/yattasmiley.gif http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/hapydancsmil.gif http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/loveshower.gif http://www.talkbaja.com/images/smilies/yessmiley.gifOK Gotta fess up, just broke my media fast by coming here and finding out the outcome and I really really really like your take on it, Mrs. M!
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-12, 10:22pm
)1
Oh Jane, I hope so!+1
I hope this leads to the eventual disentangling of health care from employment.
I understand Vermont is moving toward single-payer care. This is how Canada got started--one province at a time.
If that happens vermont may well become a contender if SO and I are able to save enough money to retire before 65. Unknown health insurance costs have always been the quantity that has prevented us from seriously expecting to be able to retire early. Of course the fly in that ointment is if it happens everyone else may have the same idea, making vermont's demographics look like Florida's are today and make Vermont's plan untenable.
That said, I agree with you completely. Separating health insurance from employment would be a good good thing on many levels. The devil, though, is in the details. How to do it in such a way that young people will see the value in purchasing coverage by not making it so expensive that they would choose to risk being uninsured, yet still collect enough from them to be able to keep premiums affordable for older people. This key problem is one of the reasons that I tend to think the only really tenable plan for full coverage is a single payer system run by the government or some non-profit entity.
gimmethesimplelife
6-28-12, 10:32pm
I just don't get how anyone could not at least support some overhaul of heallh care. To me, the fact that health care is mostly employer based is inexcusable as it ties you to an employer if anything goes wrong with you and severely cuts off your freedom. And how do I forgive America for all the fear of getting sick and loosing everything and working until I am dead or no longer at all able to work to pay off medical bills - or flee the country in the night to reclaim my dignity and intregrity from such a situation? I get that my take on this may seem radical to some, but without insurance, if you look at things calmly and coldly, this is indeed a realistic situation one could face in America. How does one forgive this, any answers? I have yet to ever hear a good answer to this from either side of the equation actually.
At any rate, I don't think ObamaCare is perfect but at least it cuts down on the inexcusable fear of US citizenship to me....that nagging what if what if what if, and the knowledge that citizens in many other (but not all, to be fair I will admit this) countries don't have to face - and I've never had the ability to sugar coat or deny this.....So today for me is a landmark victory, I don't know any other way to put it.
But I still we be going to Mexico for my medical and optical lol.....Rob very relieved and glad and actually impressed by the system for once!!!!!
Obamacare? Seriously? There is no government program covering me.
If there was, I'm walking in to my clinic and saying, "Obamacare is picking up my tab, ma'm!"
yah right.
Obamacare? Seriously? There is no government program covering me.
If there was, I'm walking in to my clinic and saying, "Obamacare is picking up my tab, ma'm!"
yah right.
Here's the timeline. A lot of it is already in place, but it looks like (nearly) full coverage is slated for 2014:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html
This is interesting:
"Workers meeting certain requirements who cannot afford the coverage provided by their employer may take whatever funds their employer might have contributed to their insurance and use these resources to help purchase a more affordable plan in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges. These new competitive marketplaces will allow individuals and small businesses to buy qualified health benefit plans."
Opponents to this health program seem so convinced that it will give rise to panel of anonymous bureaucrats deciding what treatments people may get and which drugs may be reimbursed when prescribed. News flash for them -- those panels are already here, in the form of groups of bureaucrats at insurance companies and health organizations who decide on treatment protocols and formularies. It is absolutely no different. And I don't exactly see a "run for the border" by people on Medicare, so apparently government health care is OK for most older folks. I just don't get it.
I'm with you on this. My dad usually talks about this and the concept of "fewer choices in health care." But I point out to him that insurance companies have already done this with their "in network" providers, how they don't often reimburse even when they say they will (we are still owed about $1500 from our former insurance company for using an out-of-network provider), and how that inhibits choice.
My dad counters "then get different insurance." Except that we all know that getting different insurance independently costs 2-3x what we can get through the employer benefits.
And then, I have repeatedly asked people to show me the insurance company that provides: comprehensive chiropractic care; acupuncture and traditional chinese medicine; physical therapy and kinesiology and related *until* the situation is sorted (as determined by patient/practitioner, not "you get 10 treatments!"); and last, but not least, actual freakin' birth choices -- i.e., that insurance would cover home birth midwife as it would cover a hospital midwife.
Here in NZ, my choices are pretty good. UNder ACC, the emergency care is excellent. Usually, if you have an accident that 'tweaks' you (i.e., you're walking and strain your ankle, not sprain it), then you can rock up to a physiotherapist, acupuncturist, or osteopath, or chiropractor, and tell them the accident. THey'll file your ACC paperwork, and you only owe the copay. And, it will cover you until the *practitioner* writes in that the problem is solved (yes, there is room for corruption here, on the part of the practitioner, but few practitioners 'take advantage' because here, it's important that clients AND ACC feel/think/believe that these alternatives *work*). And, they can write scripts -- to provide acc coverage -- for other alternative therapies wherein the client gets reimbursed. Ie, the osteopath sends the client to yoga, putting the recommendation in to ACC, and the client pays us, gets a receipt, and submits it to ACC getting a reimbursement for part of their payment to us as part of their on-going medical care.
Midwifery care here is standard, and you have total free choice. You can choose to go with an OB, or a midwife, and that midwife can attend at the hospital, at a birthing center (her "offices" usually) or your home. And, you can change your mind during treatment if you wish, or your midwife can put you over to the OB (or risk you out). Total, free choice.
And of course, people can buy health insurance to cover more things if they want. Most of it covers alternative health care or the ability to "jump the line" of allopathy. I priced it out last year. $500 per year for our whole family -- and it included a lot of bells and whistles such as hearing and eye tests (which cost extra beyond what the physical gives), full blood work (instead of the partial but decent bloodwork you get with your physical), and things like massage, acupuncture, yoga classes (or similar), part of your gym membership covered if you have one *etc*
I mean, for cheap! Not bloated, extreme US prices. And even pre-existing conditions can get coverage, though you'll pay more. My friend's son has an injury to his hip that has caused problems for the boy, and so he now has a preexisting condition because of it. When they bought different insurance, it cost them an extra $100 per *year* to cover it.
Honestly, I can only see this as a positive thing for people. I think it will create less bloat of the system, and more opportunities for health care and for people to get the health care that they *want* and need.
That said, I agree with you completely. Separating health insurance from employment would be a good good thing on many levels. The devil, though, is in the details. How to do it in such a way that young people will see the value in purchasing coverage by not making it so expensive that they would choose to risk being uninsured, yet still collect enough from them to be able to keep premiums affordable for older people. This key problem is one of the reasons that I tend to think the only really tenable plan for full coverage is a single payer system run by the government or some non-profit entity.
I don't think "young people" are that foolish.
I was thankful for the health care that I had. We mostly had high-deductable, basically emergency care coverage that allowed for annual physicals as well. And basic dental. We paid the least we could (via DH's employer) which was about $200-300 per month over the 10 years we were with that company. So, between $2,400-3,600 per year. THat's pretty darn high considering what insurance costs here where we have a system that covers emergency care (covered by taxes).
I think that if people could get basic emergency coverage (which is really all that young people need in case they are in accidents) or you could get affordable care for pre-existing conditions, young people would get it.
I'd be willing to pay $100-150 a month for health insurance. But when you get me to $200-300/mo, I'm not willing to pay that. Our house was $800, our car was $150, and our food was $1000 (what I considered our medical care). Pretty much after that, we didn't really have a lot of bills per month. to stack on $300 for insurance. . . probably wouldn't' have. But $100-150? Yeah, definitely. My auto insurance per year was probably $200? My liability insurance for yoga was $150 per year. so.. . yeah.
ToomuchStuff
6-29-12, 5:40am
You know the health care part of the bill was never an issue with the court. It was the method used to make it work, namely the individual mandate and other forced elements such as the Medicaid changes placed upon the individual states.
I've always believed the individual mandate to be unconstitutional and the court seemingly agrees. It's just been converted to a tax, although the result is the same. At least it signifies that the Commerce Clause does not infer a right to force people to buy something, as many of the law's proponents have espoused over the last several years.
I think this ruling will have far-reaching consequences since it seemingly gives the federal government the ability to force anything it wants upon us, as long as they use the right terms. Tax=Good, Fine=Bad
I have a lot more reading to do on this, to make anything other then assumptions, at this point. But as a tax, I do expect the potential for additional challenges, based on the government not providing the service for the tax, and the for profit company aspect.
flowerseverywhere
6-29-12, 7:01am
Obamacare? Seriously? There is no government program covering me.
If there was, I'm walking in to my clinic and saying, "Obamacare is picking up my tab, ma'm!"
yah right.
Obamacare is not going to pick up your tab. It will give you the opportunity to purchase health insurance regardless of age, health history or how you make your money. Everybody pitches in good times and bad, and when you need it, you draw on it. Like house insurance, auto insurance etc. I have paid house insurance for 40 years and never made one claim. I feel lucky, not swindled.
per cnn money: The number of people who lacked health insurance last year climbed to 49.9 million, up from 49 million in 2009, the Census Bureau said Tuesday.
Nationwide, 16.3% of the population was uninsured last year, statistically unchanged from 2009.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm
for those who are opposed to this act, what solution are you proposing to these people. Those who have lost their jobs, who don't make a lot of money but too much to qualify for any programs- those with preexisting conditions- I would love to hear an alternate proposal that would help. So far just vague promises and those aren't going to help you if you break a leg or get breast cancer without insurance.
Our President was adamant that the Affordable Health Care Act does not impose a "tax" and he refused to use this word, "tax," and I am sorry that more of you are not taking his word for it, including Justice Roberts.
But now when those right wing tea party types take over the federal government they can mandate that all citizens buy a handgun or else pay a "tax." That will force citizens to take a step toward protecting themselves and will reduce the load on local police departments, money that society will need to fund Obamacare.
See? I can do the convoluted logic as well. Sign me up for White House duty.
It's too bad taxation has become a dirty word, when it's just the price you pay to live in a civilized society. My federal taxes are a fraction of what I pay locally, and not hugely regressive like my property taxes, which I grouse about regularly. I'm sorry President Obama didn't/couldn't just declare the mandate a tax and get on with it.
It's too bad taxation has become a dirty word, when it's just the price you pay to live in a civilized society. My federal taxes are a fraction of what I pay locally, and not hugely regressive like my property taxes, which I grouse about regularly. I'm sorry President Obama didn't/couldn't just declare the mandate a tax and get on with it.
Tax has become a dirty word because part of the populace pays little or no tax while the part paying the tax doesn't perceive benefits in relation to the amount of tax paid.
While I disagree with the decision, I am thankful we have separation of powers to prevent President Obama/Bush/Clinton etc. from declaring laws at their whim. Hopefully there is procedure for challenging the President's selective enforcement of certain laws.
It's too bad taxation has become a dirty word, when it's just the price you pay to live in a civilized society. My federal taxes are a fraction of what I pay locally, and not hugely regressive like my property taxes, which I grouse about regularly. I'm sorry President Obama didn't/couldn't just declare the mandate a tax and get on with it.
It's too bad it could not have been set up just calling it a tax credit for carrying health insurance. It would be perceived differently although it's essentially the same thing.
SteveinMN
6-29-12, 11:14am
But now when those right wing tea party types take over the federal government they can mandate that all citizens buy a handgun or else pay a "tax." That will force citizens to take a step toward protecting themselves and will reduce the load on local police departments, money that society will need to fund Obamacare.
See? I can do the convoluted logic as well. Sign me up for White House duty.
Except that we already have tax-funded police departments and National Guards and military troops to provide for peace and protection. Making everyone buy a gun or pay a "tax" is redundant. Disband police departments and the National Guard and the armed forces and then make me buy a handgun or tax me and then you have an appropriate comparison.
There is no current entity in the U. S. which provides universal health care. Well, there sort-of is; it's called "all of us insured people" because the charges for unpaid treatment of the uninsured fall on the provider and they recoup them through the people who are paying, be that the uninsured who pay their own way or those folks covered by employee-group insurance or the government (e.g., Medicare).
In addition, I don't think many of us believe that having insurance means we don't have to care about our health anymore. Got car insurance? Why even look behind you in the parking lot? You're covered! Got home insurance? Don't worry about locking the doors or storing greasy rags next to the furnace. You've got insurance! :)
As flowerseverywhere points out, while having protection is important, no one should feel cheated if they don't need it.
"As flowerseverywhere points out, while having protection is important, no one should feel cheated if they don't need it."
What an excellent post! I've been blessed with a sturdy constitution; I hope to emulate my ancestors who lived into their eighties and nineties without a lot of medical interference and presumably without obsessing over health issues (although I admit that last part gets harder as I age). Just as I have no beef with paying for police and fire protection I'll likely never need, I have no problem kicking in to help provide health care for others.
Yossarian
6-29-12, 11:56am
It's too bad it could not have been set up just calling it a tax credit for carrying health insurance. It would be perceived differently although it's essentially the same thing.
The Yossarian Plan proposed on this (predecessor) forum several years ago was universal coverage with a tax credit for buying your own policy. Still think it's better than what we have.
The Yossarian Plan proposed on this (predecessor) forum several years ago was universal coverage with a tax credit for buying your own policy. Still think it's better than what we have.
The Yossarian plan sounds good. Maybe the next step. Whatever happens, even if Republicans manage to retake the house, senate and white house, we simply can not go back to 'what was'. I don't think the populace would let them just reboot to zero.
If you'd examined the link I provided, or the direct copy I provided from the link, you'd realize that's not my scenario, it's the Congressional Budget Office's scenario. That means it's not a conservative scenario, it's not a republican scenario, it's not a Libertarian scenario, a Tea Party scenario or a talk radio scenario. It's your government's scenario. Of course, maybe Doug Elmendorf has been listening to Rush/Beck. :confused:
Obviously! ;)
My point was that it was just one of many many scenarios, with about equal weight as my own. 20 different economist will have 20 different scenarios. But you only quoted the one that gives the most dire consequences. The flip side being there were some positive scenarios, and I could quote thoes. So do our scenarios cancel each other out? ;)
Why don't we just both hope it works really really well.... that scenario being the best for us all.
Thanks, Gimmethesimplelife!
As a Canadian who enjoys the benefits of having THE BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, I believe those in the US, should also be afforded (comparably) with the same.
To add, I do not understand all the kerfuffle over this... Then again, as with all things, there will always be those who bitch.
Universal, standardized (MANDATORY HEALTH-CARE) for the working-class (in Canada), has been around for FOREVER. That is for as long as I can remember.
We Canadians, have always been gobsmacked as to why the US, has had such a deficient, feeble, and lame health-care system for so long...
ApatheticNoMore
6-29-12, 3:26pm
I'm not sure why people argue for this and think they are arguing for socialized medicine, when it clearly isn't. Might there be reasons to be skeptical of true socialized medicine in the U.S.? Yea, maybe, but they aren't the same reasons to be skeptical of corporatism (what this is). If corporatism, where all profiteers must be appeased (and this is not going to get better, not with the money flowing in - they OWN the politicians. The insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, like all mega-corporations, have staked their claim), is somhow made to be affordable for all I will be surprised (and yes more affordable health care is a worth goal IMO).
To add, I do not understand all the kerfuffle over this...
Americans have a historical tradition of being free citizens, not subjects, and don't like being told what they "have" to do.
In many ways, I am quite happy with this Supreme Court opinion, because it took the wind out of the sails of "the Commerce Clause lets us do whatever we want..." argument.
I'm not so happy that, in light of repeated testimony that "this is not a tax", the majority decided a) it was a tax (well, I'm OK with that part, for it is...) b) so it was legal (sure, a tax likely is) c) so this law passes muster (that is the leap that seems unfounded, as the majority is speaking to some theoretical law not-yet-passed, as opposed to the text in front of them).
I think there would not have been nearly the pushback if the supporters of the legislation had up-front marketed it as a tax.
I wish the Supreme Court would have come back with "well, you have the power to do this, but not this way, rewack these pieces and you are good-to-go".
Americans have a historical tradition of being free citizens, not subjects, and don't like being told what they "have" to do.
In many ways, I am quite happy with this Supreme Court opinion, because it took the wind out of the sails of "the Commerce Clause lets us do whatever we want..." argument.
That may be a silver lining of this decision, if it sets some precedent for limiting the government’s power to supervise the details of our lives under the guise og regulating the economy. Roberts certainly seems to have upset Justice Ginsberg, who referred to his idea of limits on the Commerce Clause as “stunningly regressive”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304058404577496662674376768.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304058404577496662674376768.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion)
We seem to be in one of those periods where we fight over what kind of country we want to be: European style "Social Democracy", or a "stunningly regressive" pack of free citizens who don't like being told what to do, even if it's "for their own good". In the long run, that's probably more important than who gets billed for colonoscopies.
Well, I'm learning Icelandic atm, so if I decide I want a European-style setup, I'll just move there. Otherwise, north-to-Alaska.
Well, I'm learning Icelandic atm, so if I decide I want a European-style setup, I'll just move there. Otherwise, north-to-Alaska.
Ppsssst...Alaska is still America...FYI
bae said "Americans have a historical tradition of being free citizens, not subjects, and don't like being told what they "have" to do."
Well I had to serve in the US Army against my wii in a time of war. A war I was against.
It does not sound like I was a free citizen. Vietnam was never a threat to the US. I would much rather be forced to buy health insurance than to go to war!!!!
Edited: to clairif I did not serve in Nam. I did not want warrior Allen to get the wrong idea.
And Alaska is a lot more expensive than the Lower 48. Same issues perhaps even more. Seniors are having a terrible time getting doctors to see them there.
Americans have a historical tradition of being free citizens, not subjects, and don't like being told what they "have" to do.
In many ways, I am quite happy with this Supreme Court opinion, because it took the wind out of the sails of "the Commerce Clause lets us do whatever we want..." argument.
I'm not so happy that, in light of repeated testimony that "this is not a tax", the majority decided a) it was a tax (well, I'm OK with that part, for it is...) b) so it was legal (sure, a tax likely is) c) so this law passes muster (that is the leap that seems unfounded, as the majority is speaking to some theoretical law not-yet-passed, as opposed to the text in front of them).
I think there would not have been nearly the pushback if the supporters of the legislation had up-front marketed it as a tax.
I wish the Supreme Court would have come back with "well, you have the power to do this, but not this way, rewack these pieces and you are good-to-go".
Well, 'Americans' can pretend they fight against being told what to do, but the fact remains, we are told what to do from the moment we get up (work starts at 8 sharp!) to lunch break (sorry, can't run the stop light or throw your lunch trash on the road, or pound three beers then drive back to work) to going home (can't drive as fast as you want home so you can beat your wife then blast your stereo till 3 AM). This is a society of rules, most designed so we CAN all live together in peace. This is true of any civilized society, some more restrictive than others. You simply can not do as you please whenever you please, and I'm sure you would be the first to complain when someone else isn't following the rules! Your history here on this forum shows that. Fine. I'm all for following the rules, because I'm an adult who knows there must be rules to have peace and harmony in a fairly compact society. This IS what makes us civilized.
The health care law is just a part of that. Being civilized. It's not a matter of 'being told what to do' any more than stopping at a red light is 'being told what to do' and a thing to fight against. If you think it is then you are , like, 13. The price of civilization is laws and regulations, and sometimes they cost. If you want to sit in the good seats, you need to pay the price. America is the good seat. This is front row living. And it costs. Especially for those who take up the first five rows.
We are a UNITED country, supposedly, so let's act like it. There are problems with the health care of this country, the richest country on the planet. Obama care tries to address that. At least it's a start.
And yes, even if they had framed it as a tax from the beginning, the far right WOULD have found a problem with it. Job #1. Period. The fact that this was a republican idea direct from the heritage foundation first seems to be lost in the damnation of it.
awakenedsoul
6-29-12, 8:46pm
Australian Health Care sounds like my kind of thing. They're so open minded there!
I just got a card in the mail from Anthem Blue Cross today. I've had catastrophic insurance with them for the past 15 years. Never made a claim. One time I had an ear infection. I went to Urgent Care and got an antibiotic. It was inexpensive. Anyway, this card says that now preventive care is covered 100%. They want me to get a health exam every year and get tested for high colesterol, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colon cancer. I don't do any of this, but I'm impressed that people can, if they want to have these procedures. I pay $125.00 a month.
I use Eastern methods of healing and self care. I'm lucky to be so healthy, but I put a few hours each day into preventive practices. I think it's pretty exciting!
gimmethesimplelife
6-29-12, 8:46pm
Universal, standardized (MANDATORY HEALTH-CARE) for the working-class (in Canada), has been around for FOREVER. That is for as long as I can remember.
We Canadians, have always been gobsmacked as to why the US, has had such a deficient, feeble, and lame health-care system for so long...So have I......So have I.
bae said "Americans have a historical tradition of being free citizens, not subjects, and don't like being told what they "have" to do."
Well I had to serve in the US Army against my will in a war I was against. It does not sound like I was a free citizen. Vietnam was never a threat to the US. I would much rather be forced to buy health insurance than to go to war!!!!
The difference being that the draft was determined to be Constitutional in 1917 based upon the Constitution granting to Congress the power to raise armies.
The Affordable Care Act's central premise, the individual mandate, which allowed the government to punish a citizen for failure to purchase a product from a private company, enjoyed no similar approval in constitutional governance. The fact that the Supreme Court elected to declare the mandate a tax, something that was not a part of the original legislation and was denied at every level of government until yesterday, doesn't change the fact that people will still be punished for inactivity, to the detriment of liberty.
The implications of that are potentially far reaching and, I suspect, result in a precedent we'll all regret before long. It reminds me of Franklin's declaration: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
By the way, I thought you spent your entire tour in Germany.
Well, 'Americans' can pretend they fight against being told what to do, but the fact remains, we are told what to do from the moment we get up (work starts at 8 sharp!) to lunch break (sorry, can't run the stop light or throw your lunch trash on the road, or pound three beers then drive back to work) to going home (can't drive as fast as you want home so you can beat your wife then blast your stereo till 3 AM). This is a society of rules, most designed so we CAN all live together in peace. This is true of any civilized society, some more restrictive than others. You simply can not do as you please whenever you please, and I'm sure you would be the first to complain when someone else isn't following the rules! Your history here on this forum shows that. Fine. I'm all for following the rules, because I'm an adult who knows there must be rules to have peace and harmony in a fairly compact society. This IS what makes us civilized.
The health care law is just a part of that. Being civilized. It's not a matter of 'being told what to do' any more than stopping at a red light is 'being told what to do' and a thing to fight against. If you think it is then you are , like, 13. The price of civilization is laws and regulations, and sometimes they cost. If you want to sit in the good seats, you need to pay the price. America is the good seat. This is front row living. And it costs. Especially for those who take up the first five rows.
We are a UNITED country, supposedly, so let's act like it. There are problems with the health care of this country, the richest country on the planet. Obama care tries to address that. At least it's a start.
And yes, even if they had framed it as a tax from the beginning, the far right WOULD have found a problem with it. Job #1. Period. The fact that this was a republican idea direct from the heritage foundation first seems to be lost in the damnation of it.
I think it's a given that most statists have no problem granting the state authority in order to transfer responsibility away from themselves. What surprises me is that so many don't realize what they're giving away.
gimmethesimplelife
6-29-12, 8:57pm
I find it amazing, absolutely amazing, that there are people still debating and bickering so passionately over the points of ObamaCare.....what it boils down to me is....does this pass or do I leave the country? That cut and dry, that simple, that black and white....and very few things in life are anywhere near this black and white to me, very few. ObamaCare (or something modified and somewhat similar) not passing for me = why stay here and expose myself to such risk of financial ruin when in other countries I would not have to deal with this? Once again, that simple, that cut and dry. I'd love to see the media find and focus on a few people brave enough to take this stance in public.....To those that chose to bicker and debate, more power to you, and I even support your right to do so, all I'm saying is that bickering and debating over this is a luxury to me. It all boils down to if it didn't pass, is America worth this level of risk of financial ruin to me should I get sick? Those who have read my posts probably know my answer to that (LOL) so I'll skip it. Rob
I find it amazing, absolutely amazing, that there are people still debating and bickering so passionately over the points of ObamaCare.....what it boils down to me is....does this pass or do I leave the country? That cut and dry, that simple, that black and white....and very few things in life are anywhere near this black and white to me, very few. ObamaCare (or something modified and somewhat similar) not passing for me = why stay here and expose myself to such risk of financial ruin when in other countries I would not have to deal with this? Once again, that simple, that cut and dry. I'd love to see the media find and focus on a few people brave enough to take this stance in public.....To those that chose to bicker and debate, more power to you, and I even support your right to do so, all I'm saying is that bickering and debating over this is a luxury to me. It all boils down to if it didn't pass, is America worth this level of risk of financial ruin to me should I get sick? Those who have read my posts probably know my answer to that (LOL) so I'll skip it. Rob
Like most people here, I think you're not listening to the debate. Healthcare is not the issue for the dissenters, it's the method by which it's implemented.
gimmethesimplelife
6-29-12, 9:09pm
Like most people here, I think you're not listening to the debate. Healthcare is not the issue for the dissenters, it's the method by which it's implemented.Alan, that's fine, if people want to debate how it's implemented certainly, I support that. But I'm not getting any younger, I'm 45 now without insurance, and without insurance, for me the question has remained - do I want to stay here and expose myself to possible financial ruin or not? I am afraid, for me personally, this question far trancends any issues with how healthcare reform gets implemented - provided it addresses the issues that question whether or not it is my best interest to pull up stakes or not. I guess I can't get beyond my personal stake in this one, but at least I can admit that....Rob
Alan, that's fine, if people want to debate how it's implemented certainly, I support that. But I'm not getting any younger, I'm 45 now without insurance, and without insurance, for me the question has remained - do I want to stay here and expose myself to possible financial ruin or not? I am afraid, for me personally, this question far trancends any issues with how healthcare reform gets implemented - provided it addresses the issues that question whether or not it is my best interest to pull up stakes or not. I guess I can't get beyond my personal stake in this one, but at least I can admit that....Rob
Well, if one issue is that important to you and you think you'd be better off elsewhere, I'd suggest that you make your break and go. You may only have one chance at happiness.
gimmethesimplelife
6-29-12, 9:23pm
Well, if one issue is that important to you and you think you'd be better off elsewhere, I'd suggest that you make your break and go. You may only have one chance at happiness.True, you have a point. For the time being I am sticking around for my mom's health issues and to get some debts paid down, should I leave, I want to do it cleanly and ethically. There are some countries in South America that are quite affordable and that have decent quality health care once again quite affordable, and without the insurance games and headaches that we are hopefully in the process of fixing.....Something I can say is that before the cartels became such an issue in Mexico, there was a large and growing group of folks in their 50's, laid off and could not find a similar job at similar pay due to age discrimination, who became permanent residents in Mexico on FM-3 permanent residency cards, which entitled them to socialized medicine in Mexico I think I read for something like US $300 a year - some of these former corporate bigwigs were quoted as saying the quality of health care was even better in the big cities on this plan than in the US as the health care staff actually had time to spend with you.....
My point? I guess there's more than one way around a problem.....That said, I can see that this option is not going to work for many, I get that. Rob
A side question on the subject of using taxation as the basis for forcing participation in the Affordable Care Act. This administration made a big deal recently of their insistance that religious charities and other religious organizations violate their principles and provide free contraception to their workers. If the mandate is no longer a fine, but rather a tax, can the government still force them, as tax exempt entities, to violate their principles?
I am afraid, for me personally, this question far trancends any issues with how healthcare reform gets implemented - provided it addresses the issues that question whether or not it is my best interest to pull up stakes or not. I guess I can't get beyond my personal stake in this one, but at least I can admit that....Rob
I guess if I thought that my continued happiness was dependent on getting things I needed by using force against those who have had offered me no harm, I'd look into other options.
gimmethesimplelife
6-29-12, 9:39pm
Hmmmm.....this seems to me to be getting dicey. With all due respect to all here, I'm going to bow out of this thead.....Rob
loosechickens
6-30-12, 12:28am
Josh Marshall over at TPM says it all for me, regarding the "tax" issue.....
"At the risk of stating the obvious: if you construe the mandate as a ‘tax’, it only applies to people who do not have health care insurance and refuse to get it after receiving subsidies that allow them to buy it.
How many people is that?"
iris lily
6-30-12, 12:40am
...We paid the least we could (via DH's employer) which was about $200-300 per month over the 10 years we were with that company. So, between $2,400-3,600 per year. THat's pretty darn high considering what insurance costs here where we have a system that covers emergency care (covered by taxes).
No it's remarkably low.
...I'd be willing to pay $100-150 a month for health insurance. But when you get me to $200-300/mo, I'm not willing to pay that. Our house was $800, our car was $150, and our food was $1000 (what I considered our medical care). Pretty much after that, we didn't really have a lot of bills per month. to stack on $300 for insurance. . . probably wouldn't' have. But $100-150? Yeah, definitely. My auto insurance per year was probably $200? My liability insurance for yoga was $150 per year. so.. . yeah.
So? So we should we all pay what we are willing to pay?
You know, I'm willing to pay $7,500 for that new BMW convertible. Why won't they give it to me for $7,500?
Iris: Well, that is a pure free market, but since other people are willing to pay more, then you'll pay what hte market bears.
The thing is that insurance is not a free market. And that's the trick of it. This actually creates a free-er market (obama care does), and one impact will be a reduction in rates. Just because the prices are what they are for insurance in the US right now does not mean that's what the market will bear out naturally when you have an open, competitive (free-er) market.
Here, there is a free market in a sense. Because basic coverage is managed through ACC (which is technically a form of insurance paid for through taxes and also ACC levy). Then, any additional coverage that you want is covered by insurance that you purchase.
My business insurance is $129/2months. I priced health insurance for my family (which includes dental) and it's coming in around $250/annum. It's basic, but it would provide what we need. It's ridiculously affordable, and most people don't bother having it because ACC is enough for them. So they pay the rest out of pocket.
Also, under hte Obamacare, DH and I might have considered going with something that wasn't our employer-provided. But before we couldn't. The employer probably paid $200-300 into the pot, too. And I know that when I priced out other insurance plans, It was going to come in at $800/month, and there's no way we could ahve afforded that. So, there wasn't any choice for us. We didn't feel "free in the market" per se. we felt like you take what you are given. So, our employer chooses the plans, and we pay or we don't have insurance. So we paid our portion.
ToomuchStuff
6-30-12, 1:56pm
My point? I guess there's more than one way around a problem.....That said, I can see that this option is not going to work for many, I get that. Rob
I wish I could find the old story, but I read an article a few years ago, that dealt with how someone dealt with this. There was/is? a site that was called Marry a Canadian, in which case you end up paying the fee that Canadians do, for out of the country care. I did wish it went into more depth on marriage taxes and other issues though.
Josh Marshall over at TPM says it all for me, regarding the "tax" issue.....
"At the risk of stating the obvious: if you construe the mandate as a ‘tax’, it only applies to people who do not have health care insurance and refuse to get it after receiving subsidies that allow them to buy it.
How many people is that?"
I don't think anyone knows, UNTIL it is time to file, and I expect more challenges then.
Hmmmm.....this seems to me to be getting dicey. With all due respect to all here, I'm going to bow out of this thead.....Rob
An admin bowing out? Kinda hard if it does get too dicey, you have to deal with it. LOL
Although I think you have the correct idea.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.