"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
I can't deal with that - I'll wait to read the stories afterwards.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Can any explain to me how the individual mandate of a citizen to purchase a product is constitutional without misinterpreting the commerce clause yet again?
Doesn't this open the door to forcing people to have life insurance? how about a national law that you must carry a certain amount of car insurance? If no, why can they mandate this purchase through invoking the commerce clause and not others?
Health care is interstate commerce. It comprises 1/6 of the economy. We live in Pennsylvania and took our son to Delaware for an operation. Sounds like interstate commerce to me. I am not misinterpreting the clause. The constitution says that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
The reason for the individual mandate is to keep insurance premiums at a reasonable level. It is to prevent what we actuaries call "adverse selection." Adverse selection is when only, say, sick people or bad drivers buy health insurance or car insurance. The original idea for the individual mandate was a right wing think tank, and it was demanded by insurance companies in negotiating PPACA.
All that said, the law should be able to function reasonably well without the individual mandate, if that's how the Court rules. The penalty is fairly toothless anyway; a maximum penalty of about $700 per year. As long as they don't throw the whole thing away... :twisted:
The intent of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate agriculture and manufacturing crossing state lines for the purposes of sale. As products have become different in nature, it has been used to regulate many industries. Some of the things the court has held in the past under the commerce clause I consider to be a bastardization of intent. This is an expansion of the commerce clause to include the forcing of a transaction for the purposes of regulating it.
Congress shall regulate interstate commerce, not create commerce to regulate. A person could possible go through their life without medical care of any kind other than maybe preventative visits which could be paid out of pocket. So they are forcing that person to buy something they may well never use and not really allow them to simply pay out of pocket if the need shall arise. So in all reality they are creating a national exchange where insurance policies are bought and sold, they are forcing people to engage in that commerce, and then they are regulating it. You cannot start with the interpretation and build a law that creates the situation so that it can be regulated. We all may think it is a bad idea not to have health insurance, but it shouldn't be forced on people who may never use the product or who can pay for their healthcare out of pocket.
While fines for people may not be a lot to you, it could be a lot to them...same as it could be a lot to be required to have a certain level of coverage.
Am I wrong in thinking that insurance companies plans right now do not cross state lines? that their products are limited to and have to be registered in those states? and if that is the case, health insurance is not interstate commerce although they may pay for care that is administered in other states due to a variety of factors. it is conceivable to think that opening up the borders may well be good for the insurance industry or it may prove to raise costs...either way...by mandating the purchase of insurance on a national exchange, they are in fact CREATING interstate commerce to be regulated. This is an expansion of the most misinterpreted clause in the entire constitution. It is forcing commerce.
How about my next question, what is to stop other products deemed essential by the US government from being forced on the people?
Since industry and regulating of interstate commerce applies to the forcing of a product on people or face a penalty...what is to stop them from levying a fine on people who choose not to buy a hybrid? This is a dangerous door to open, but then again, people don't buy the slippery slope argument in discussions fed gov't police powers, so I'm not sure why I think they would possibly be interested here...It is a dangerous precedent.
Also, I love how people get mad at the conservative members of the SC for a perceived political agenda...but forget to mention that the "liberal" judges could be seen as doing the exact same thing.
I would say health care is already interstate commerce whether the government does something or not. Insurance plans have to cover out-of-state events; what happens if you go on vacation?
Can anyone explain to me why Social Security & Medicare are constitutional if the individual mandate of PPACA isn't?
The slippery slope issue is just ridiculous. Anybody can be a very heavy health care consumer at any time. If you show up at the ER the hospital has to provide medical services, and if you have no health insurance the costs will ultimately be borne by everybody else. Not having health insurance when you have the opportunity and ability to obtain it is freeloading, pure & simple.
I like the discussion here. Nice & civil.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
If I’m the godfather of this thing, then it gives me the right to kill it
How does that make sense? I have a godson, and I am not allowed to kill him. :?
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
I would say health care is already interstate commerce whether the government does something or not. Insurance plans have to cover out-of-state events; what happens if you go on vacation?
Can anyone explain to me why Social Security & Medicare are constitutional if the individual mandate of PPACA isn't?
The slippery slope issue is just ridiculous. Anybody can be a very heavy health care consumer at any time. If you show up at the ER the hospital has to provide medical services, and if you have no health insurance the costs will ultimately be borne by everybody else. Not having health insurance when you have the opportunity and ability to obtain it is freeloading, pure & simple.
I like the discussion here. Nice & civil.
f u
Health care is one thing, we are talking about mandated commerce. I don't have to tell you that health insurance isn't the same as health care. It has nothing to do with covering out of state incidents. Nothing. It has to do with the forcing of a transaction. It could be bread as the product that is being forced. the government has the ability to REGULATE interstate commerce, not FORCE people into commerce they regulate. Wouldn't you say there is a huge difference between those two things? And if there is a difference, or even if there isn't, explain why the slippery slope argument is ridiculous...at any time i could become a giant consumer of fossil fuels. much more than my neighbor. Should the government be able to force me to by hybrid cars and trucks? or levy fines if I do not? Even more than that, couldn't they force ALL people to buy hybrid cars? These are things that are at stake. Allowing the government to mandate a purchase of a private product opens doors. If you think they won't begin to do more with that precedent, than I don't think you have paid much attention to how government and legislative bodies have worked so far. why is that ridiculous? I understand that a person can become a heavy consumer at any time...but couldn't a theoretically be able to not ever consume it or pay out of pocket for what they do consume?
I don't think the justices have a problem with regulation of a transaction that was entered into voluntarily. If the government wants to make it a law that people must purchase insurance to be seen in a clinic or preventative/treatment kind of setting i guess they would be allowed although i would disagree with that as well but it wouldn't be on a constitutional grounds. that is different than what I am saying...
Keep in mind I think Universal Healthcare is the most cost effective option, not this bill. Not at the price for what it does...And as you say there are many things that will ultimately be good no matter if they toss the individual mandate out or not...but I have a hard time believing that insurance companies won't begin to fight the new regulations and laws through lobbyist proxies if the mandate that everyone participate is gone.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
After he got laughed at yesterday over the whole Tax no wait Penalty no wait Tax Penalty no wait a Penalty colleceted as if it was a tax debacle, today he had to rely on Justice Kagan and Sotomoyor to explain the strongest parts of the Federal arguement. Just seemed odd and he seemed out of his league.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
After he got laughed at yesterday over the whole Tax no wait Penalty no wait Tax Penalty no wait a Penalty colleceted as if it was a tax debacle, today he had to rely on Justice Kagan and Sotomoyor to explain the strongest parts of the Federal arguement. Just seemed odd and he seemed out of his league.
How does that happen? :roll: Seems like all of the Justices have already made their minds up anyway. The arguments are all one big charade.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
After he got laughed at yesterday over the whole Tax no wait Penalty no wait Tax Penalty no wait a Penalty colleceted as if it was a tax debacle, today he had to rely on Justice Kagan and Sotomoyor to explain the strongest parts of the Federal arguement. Just seemed odd and he seemed out of his league.
How does that happen? :roll: Seems like all of the Justices have already made their minds up anyway. The arguments are all one big charade.
Probably is a charade but if Justice Beyer goes with the majority and its a 6-3 loss as opposed to a straight 5-4 it will matter in painting the court as just partisan or actually listening to the arguements being presented. Justice Kennedy gave no indication of leaning towards upholding the mandate law as it is currently written which is what has the liberal media running with stories that it will be struck down to try to rally some people to the court tomorrow to support it (little reported the majority of the protest outside is against PPACA).
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
I would say health care is already interstate commerce whether the government does something or not. Insurance plans have to cover out-of-state events; what happens if you go on vacation?
Can anyone explain to me why Social Security & Medicare are constitutional if the individual mandate of PPACA isn't?
The slippery slope issue is just ridiculous. Anybody can be a very heavy health care consumer at any time. If you show up at the ER the hospital has to provide medical services, and if you have no health insurance the costs will ultimately be borne by everybody else. Not having health insurance when you have the opportunity and ability to obtain it is freeloading, pure & simple.
I like the discussion here. Nice & civil.
f u
Health care is one thing, we are talking about mandated commerce. I don't have to tell you that health insurance isn't the same as health care. It has nothing to do with covering out of state incidents. Nothing. It has to do with the forcing of a transaction. It could be bread as the product that is being forced. the government has the ability to REGULATE interstate commerce, not FORCE people into commerce they regulate. Wouldn't you say there is a huge difference between those two things? And if there is a difference, or even if there isn't, explain why the slippery slope argument is ridiculous...at any time i could become a giant consumer of fossil fuels. much more than my neighbor. Should the government be able to force me to by hybrid cars and trucks? or levy fines if I do not? Even more than that, couldn't they force ALL people to buy hybrid cars? These are things that are at stake. Allowing the government to mandate a purchase of a private product opens doors. If you think they won't begin to do more with that precedent, than I don't think you have paid much attention to how government and legislative bodies have worked so far. why is that ridiculous? I understand that a person can become a heavy consumer at any time...but couldn't a theoretically be able to not ever consume it or pay out of pocket for what they do consume?
I don't think the justices have a problem with regulation of a transaction that was entered into voluntarily. If the government wants to make it a law that people must purchase insurance to be seen in a clinic or preventative/treatment kind of setting i guess they would be allowed although i would disagree with that as well but it wouldn't be on a constitutional grounds. that is different than what I am saying...
Keep in mind I think Universal Healthcare is the most cost effective option, not this bill. Not at the price for what it does...And as you say there are many things that will ultimately be good no matter if they toss the individual mandate out or not...but I have a hard time believing that insurance companies won't begin to fight the new regulations and laws through lobbyist proxies if the mandate that everyone participate is gone.
I think you're missing the fact that health care already is forced on us, and the government here is attempting to regulate something that we as a society has already allowed the government to force on us. In other words, I am talking about covering the uninsured, which we already do. We have already decided as a society to be forced to pay for those uninsured, for instance in the cases of catastrophic injury, car accidents, long term care, etc. for the uninsured, rather than letting them die in the streets. The government is attempting to regulate this by forcing the costs away from us, the already insured, to those who refuse to insure themselves, thus burdening the rest of us. By us picking up the costs of the 'free loaders', you can look at it as our liberty is being infringed on. We have decided that it is moral to not turn anyone away from medical services, but allowing those who have the ability to have insurance to get by without puts an undue burden on the rest of us, costing the country billions. This mandate is a way to transfer the costs of an already existing mandate (our tax dollars pay for the uninsured) to those who should be responsible for their own well being but aren't.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
After he got laughed at yesterday over the whole Tax no wait Penalty no wait Tax Penalty no wait a Penalty colleceted as if it was a tax debacle, today he had to rely on Justice Kagan and Sotomoyor to explain the strongest parts of the Federal arguement. Just seemed odd and he seemed out of his league.
How does that happen? :roll: Seems like all of the Justices have already made their minds up anyway. The arguments are all one big charade.
Probably is a charade but if Justice Beyer goes with the majority and its a 6-3 loss as opposed to a straight 5-4 it will matter in painting the court as just partisan or actually listening to the arguements being presented. Justice Kennedy gave no indication of leaning towards upholding the mandate law as it is currently written which is what has the liberal media running with stories that it will be struck down to try to rally some people to the court tomorrow to support it (little reported the majority of the protest outside is against PPACA).
Ridiculous baseless conjecture. :roll:
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Can any explain to me how the individual mandate of a citizen to purchase a product is constitutional without misinterpreting the commerce clause yet again?
Doesn't this open the door to forcing people to have life insurance? how about a national law that you must carry a certain amount of car insurance? If no, why can they mandate this purchase through invoking the commerce clause and not others?
Health care is interstate commerce. It comprises 1/6 of the economy. We live in Pennsylvania and took our son to Delaware for an operation. Sounds like interstate commerce to me. I am not misinterpreting the clause. The constitution says that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
The reason for the individual mandate is to keep insurance premiums at a reasonable level. It is to prevent what we actuaries call "adverse selection." Adverse selection is when only, say, sick people or bad drivers buy health insurance or car insurance. The original idea for the individual mandate was a right wing think tank, and it was demanded by insurance companies in negotiating PPACA.
All that said, the law should be able to function reasonably well without the individual mandate, if that's how the Court rules. The penalty is fairly toothless anyway; a maximum penalty of about $700 per year. As long as they don't throw the whole thing away... :twisted:
The intent of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate agriculture and manufacturing crossing state lines for the purposes of sale. As products have become different in nature, it has been used to regulate many industries. Some of the things the court has held in the past under the commerce clause I consider to be a bastardization of intent. This is an expansion of the commerce clause to include the forcing of a transaction for the purposes of regulating it.
Congress shall regulate interstate commerce, not create commerce to regulate. A person could possible go through their life without medical care of any kind other than maybe preventative visits which could be paid out of pocket. So they are forcing that person to buy something they may well never use and not really allow them to simply pay out of pocket if the need shall arise. So in all reality they are creating a national exchange where insurance policies are bought and sold, they are forcing people to engage in that commerce, and then they are regulating it. You cannot start with the interpretation and build a law that creates the situation so that it can be regulated. We all may think it is a bad idea not to have health insurance, but it shouldn't be forced on people who may never use the product or who can pay for their healthcare out of pocket.
While fines for people may not be a lot to you, it could be a lot to them...same as it could be a lot to be required to have a certain level of coverage.
Am I wrong in thinking that insurance companies plans right now do not cross state lines? that their products are limited to and have to be registered in those states? and if that is the case, health insurance is not interstate commerce although they may pay for care that is administered in other states due to a variety of factors. it is conceivable to think that opening up the borders may well be good for the insurance industry or it may prove to raise costs...either way...by mandating the purchase of insurance on a national exchange, they are in fact CREATING interstate commerce to be regulated. This is an expansion of the most misinterpreted clause in the entire constitution. It is forcing commerce.
How about my next question, what is to stop other products deemed essential by the US government from being forced on the people?
Since industry and regulating of interstate commerce applies to the forcing of a product on people or face a penalty...what is to stop them from levying a fine on people who choose not to buy a hybrid? This is a dangerous door to open, but then again, people don't buy the slippery slope argument in discussions fed gov't police powers, so I'm not sure why I think they would possibly be interested here...It is a dangerous precedent.
Also, I love how people get mad at the conservative members of the SC for a perceived political agenda...but forget to mention that the "liberal" judges could be seen as doing the exact same thing.
Once again, how can Social Security & Medicare be Constitutional, and PPACA not be? Anybody? In these programs, people are forced to pay for old age benefits that they may never see, and are forced into the program with no possibility to opt out. Seems the slippery slope already started in 1935.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Are you forced to buy insurance or are you just taxed differently if you don't? Big difference. And is is written in the law that everyone is to pay the tax but there is a deduction if you buy insurance? Again, big difference, legally speaking, of course.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Are you forced to buy insurance or are you just taxed differently if you don't? Big difference. And is is written in the law that everyone is to pay the tax but there is a deduction if you buy insurance? Again, big difference, legally speaking, of course.
You would be forced to buy it or face a penalty. The penalty is being called a tax and that is up for debate.
You would not pay the "tax" if you signed up for the government insurance plan. You would be paying for it through your taxes.
As far as I can tell, this health care act is comprised of two things. First, it expands Medicare to people making less then $14K per year. Second, it forces everyone else to get locked into the existing healthcare insurance scheme or pay the piper.
If I was awoken from a coma and someone told me the government was trying to enforce a law that forced the majority of Americans to buy health insurance, my response would be, "Why is the GOP trying to do that?".
If the Republicans were pushing the second part, there would be a complete freak-out by the American public. Why is there no focus on finding ways to lower the cost of healthcare so insurance cost is lowered and more Americans can afford it instead of rolling the dice? Instead, it seems they are trying to increase the stranglehold of the insurance monopoly.
The government should not be forcing taxpayers to buy health insurance
but they could issue a health tax, a health subsidy and incentives for donations.
Start setting up more free/low cost clinics, drug addiction centers, mental health
facilities for our growing in need population.
People are going crazy. People are sick, people are walking around untreated.
The next private bail out probably our hospitals if the government doesn't get serious
clear the emergency rooms of non emergencies and hospital beds filled with uninsured.
Not to mention streets filled with the sick who can't seek treatment
future epidemic waiting to happen. The poor die the rich stay well.
As far as I can tell, this health care act is comprised of two things. First, it expands Medicare to people making less then $14K per year. Second, it forces everyone else to get locked into the existing healthcare insurance scheme or pay the piper.
If I was awoken from a coma and someone told me the government was trying to enforce a law that forced the majority of Americans to buy health insurance, my response would be, "Why is the GOP trying to do that?".
If the Republicans were pushing the second part, there would be a complete freak-out by the American public. Why is there no focus on finding ways to lower the cost of healthcare so insurance cost is lowered and more Americans can afford it instead of rolling the dice? Instead, it seems they are trying to increase the stranglehold of the insurance monopoly.
Medicaid.
One would think this thing is a big boondoggle for the health insurance industry - millions of new customers. It's so weird that Republicans hate it so much, since it's all their idea.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
As far as I can tell, this health care act is comprised of two things. First, it expands Medicare to people making less then $14K per year. Second, it forces everyone else to get locked into the existing healthcare insurance scheme or pay the piper.
If I was awoken from a coma and someone told me the government was trying to enforce a law that forced the majority of Americans to buy health insurance, my response would be, "Why is the GOP trying to do that?".
If the Republicans were pushing the second part, there would be a complete freak-out by the American public. Why is there no focus on finding ways to lower the cost of healthcare so insurance cost is lowered and more Americans can afford it instead of rolling the dice? Instead, it seems they are trying to increase the stranglehold of the insurance monopoly.
Here's why - the solution is (properly run) Managed Care. But, somehow if you make a profit on something, you are automatically evil in our society (which is the ultimate irony since that's the only thing - profit motive - that has moved our society forward effectively). Funny thing is, the Democratic Governor of NY has already recogonized this and is enforcing mandatory Medicaid Managed Care. There's no hulabaloo (love that word) because -
a) He just did it and did not make it a big deal (i.e. go looking for press or credit)
b) Everyone concedes it's the proper way to CONTAIN cost while still providing the NECESSARY services to patients
The national problem is we focus on the 1 denial that was not correct (and ignoring that Nat'l health care would do that 10 fold - only diference being nobody makes an EXPLICIT decision in Nat'l health care so there's no ONE to blame - but I digress) instead of the extremely good programs (properly run) Managed Care companies put into place that decrease cost and increase quality outcomes (lowering preventable admissions, increasing quality of life, using PQI measures set out by AHRQ, increasing HEDIS scores, so on and so forth that "regular" fee for service or governmental programs completely fail at).
Nothing's perfect. But, if we are truly looking at the expense issue while providing HIGHER quality care, that's the way to do it. And, it's the way Cuomo is doing it for NY.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
As far as I can tell, this health care act is comprised of two things. First, it expands Medicare to people making less then $14K per year. Second, it forces everyone else to get locked into the existing healthcare insurance scheme or pay the piper.
If I was awoken from a coma and someone told me the government was trying to enforce a law that forced the majority of Americans to buy health insurance, my response would be, "Why is the GOP trying to do that?".
If the Republicans were pushing the second part, there would be a complete freak-out by the American public. Why is there no focus on finding ways to lower the cost of healthcare so insurance cost is lowered and more Americans can afford it instead of rolling the dice? Instead, it seems they are trying to increase the stranglehold of the insurance monopoly.
Medicaid.
One would think this thing is a big boondoggle for the health insurance industry - millions of new customers. It's so weird that Republicans hate it so much, since it's all their idea.
No, it's NOT - because of the over abundance of unnecessary regulation. Sure, it means millions of new customers. But, despite what most people thing - good companies are about making care better for their patients. So, getting more patients for the sake of getting more patients is not the end all be all. There needs to be an explicit support for doing the type of programs necessary to help people that don't help themselves (we don't need any of this for folks that take care of themselves. There's more money wasted on diabetic patients that insist on eating Dunkin Donuts every day and not testing themselves properly than on the shock claims that come from true tragedies. But, there's nothing in the law that allows for the definitive management necessary to reign in these types of PREVENTABLE health exacerbations).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I think you're missing the fact that health care already is forced on us,
nope, healthcare can and does use tax money. Health insurance isn't the same thing. not missing anything
and the government here is attempting to regulate something that we as a society has already allowed the government to force on us. In other words, I am talking about covering the uninsured, which we already do.
I do not accept that as a valid argument. Because we pay for health care, it isn't the same as requiring me to buy a private product.
We have already decided as a society to be forced to pay for those uninsured, for instance in the cases of catastrophic injury, car accidents, long term care, etc. for the uninsured, rather than letting them die in the streets. The government is attempting to regulate this by forcing the costs away from us, the already insured, to those who refuse to insure themselves, thus burdening the rest of us. By us picking up the costs of the 'free loaders', you can look at it as our liberty is being infringed on. We have decided that it is moral to not turn anyone away from medical services, but allowing those who have the ability to have insurance to get by without puts an undue burden on the rest of us, costing the country billions. This mandate is a way to transfer the costs of an already existing mandate (our tax dollars pay for the uninsured) to those who should be responsible for their own well being but aren't.
your argument kind of bounces around. what you are talking about is the philosophy behind government paid for health CARE and reasons to have it. You cannot equate health care as commerce with health insurance as commerce. they aren't the same thing. You will never hear me argue against a universal healthcare system as a cost effective measure.
Fixing a perceived infringement on liberty with another infringement on liberty that has much larger implications is not a great idea.
I feel like mugatu right now... why are people ok with the federal government, who has NO implied or enumerated police power, forcing a PRIVATE PRODUCT on citizens even though they have no constitutional authority to do so? If I am missing the fact that healthcare is forced on us, (which I do not feel I am as this isn't about healthcare it is about health insurance)are you literally not wanting to see the difference between paying for healthcare through a tax and being forced to pay for health insurance with my own money after I have already paid my taxes? You talk about those that can afford insurance but choose not to buy it being a drain...what about those that can afford there care and do not want to waste money to buy insurance? I know it isn't ok to defend people of means here, but come on, why should they be forced to give money to a private entity? you want to tax them go nuts, I don't agree, but at least the argument doesn't become one about constitutionality and it does become an argument over the amount the government taxes. Why should anyone be forced to give money to a private entity?
This is not an argument about the validity of government healthcare. It is an argument about forced commerce. There is no authority for the federal government anywhere that I can see that allows the feds to require private citizens to purchase a private product. the commerce clause does not cover forcing commerce for the sake of regulation. it doesn't now, didn't when it was written and never should in the future.
Raise taxes, call it a tax.
Can no one see the difference I am talking about? 20 years may seem like a long time to some, but that is what I give it until we are forced to buy private products in other areas of life. You think the lobbyists are aggressive now, wait until they see that the federal government now has the authority upheld by the court to require purchase of a private product for the overall good of the nation...good luck when that happens...
Does anyone arguing in favor of the health insurance mandate believe there is a difference between health insurance and healthcare? If not, why not? If so, how then can you think the commerce clause can be used to force people into an act of commerce?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I will admit that PPACA is a fairly unattractive piece of legislation. It resulted from the refusal of the Democrats to initiate any new "taxes" and the refusal of any Republicans at all to make any contributions to the issue. It seemed common sense to me to just put the whole country into Medicare and increase the Medicare tax.
That said, health care and health insurance are both interstate commerce, and the Congress is constitutionally eligible to regulate interstate commerce.
You still have Paul Ryan talking about killing Obamacare and protecting Medicare. :roll: Pandering ass hole.
"Keep your dirty government hands off my Medicare!"
I don't think you have to purchase a private product - you can get insurance from the exchanges if I understand it correctly.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
I will admit that PPACA is a fairly unattractive piece of legislation. It resulted from the refusal of the Democrats to initiate any new "taxes" and the refusal of any Republicans at all to make any contributions to the issue. It seemed common sense to me to just put the whole country into Medicare and increase the Medicare tax.
That said, health care and health insurance are both interstate commerce, and the Congress is constitutionally eligible to regulate interstate commerce.
You still have Paul Ryan talking about killing Obamacare and protecting Medicare. :roll: Pandering ass hole.
"Keep your dirty government hands off my Medicare!"
I don't think you have to purchase a private product - you can get insurance from the exchanges if I understand it correctly.
the exchanges are private entities selling insurance on an open market. as far as I understand it there is no public option. If i am wrong here, and you are required to buy a public option (seems an awful lot like a tax if that is the case) but can also purchase private insurance in lieu of that public option you may have a point. I still wouldn't like it, but that is much different than this law now.
and i will concede health insurance is interstate commerce because you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the fact that health insurance cannot be bought across state lines, nor the fact that health insurers paying an out of state hospital for CARE received is different from how health INSURANCE is purchased.
So fine, it is interstate commerce, does that mean the gov't can force me to buy it with my own money or face a penalty if I do not? not tax money mind you, the money in my wallet being forced out of it without a new tax being created. Do you agree that it is a new interpretation of the commerce clause? do you agree that the mandate of purchase of a private product is a new power? one that is unnecessary given that congress already had the power through taxation to create something very similar?
Why give them a new, far more expansive power to make up for the fact that senators and congressmen were UNWILLING to call this a tax for fear of political suicide? Jesus, people see the end and think that it justifies the means. the end in this case isn't even all that desirable...that being more money for the insurance companies, more people insured and many paying for insurance they may not want, need, nor ever intended to buy all the while extending a broad new power to congress that has ramifications for every industry in the future. it is involuntary purchase of a private product, and the commerce clause does NOT cover this.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
— Socrates
:thumbup:
— Socrates
I can't deal with that - I'll wait to read the stories afterwards.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
I would say health care is already interstate commerce whether the government does something or not. Insurance plans have to cover out-of-state events; what happens if you go on vacation?
Can anyone explain to me why Social Security & Medicare are constitutional if the individual mandate of PPACA isn't?
The slippery slope issue is just ridiculous. Anybody can be a very heavy health care consumer at any time. If you show up at the ER the hospital has to provide medical services, and if you have no health insurance the costs will ultimately be borne by everybody else. Not having health insurance when you have the opportunity and ability to obtain it is freeloading, pure & simple.
I like the discussion here.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
That's too bad... It's pretty interesting. But, it does take up a couple of hours time.
He wasn't ready today.
How does that make sense? I have a godson, and I am not allowed to kill him. :?
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
f u
Health care is one thing, we are talking about mandated commerce. I don't have to tell you that health insurance isn't the same as health care. It has nothing to do with covering out of state incidents. Nothing. It has to do with the forcing of a transaction. It could be bread as the product that is being forced. the government has the ability to REGULATE interstate commerce, not FORCE people into commerce they regulate. Wouldn't you say there is a huge difference between those two things? And if there is a difference, or even if there isn't, explain why the slippery slope argument is ridiculous...at any time i could become a giant consumer of fossil fuels. much more than my neighbor. Should the government be able to force me to by hybrid cars and trucks? or levy fines if I do not? Even more than that, couldn't they force ALL people to buy hybrid cars? These are things that are at stake. Allowing the government to mandate a purchase of a private product opens doors. If you think they won't begin to do more with that precedent, than I don't think you have paid much attention to how government and legislative bodies have worked so far.
I don't think the justices have a problem with regulation of a transaction that was entered into voluntarily. If the government wants to make it a law that people must purchase insurance to be seen in a clinic or preventative/treatment kind of setting i guess they would be allowed although i would disagree with that as well but it wouldn't be on a constitutional grounds. that is different than what I am saying...
Keep in mind I think Universal Healthcare is the most cost effective option, not this bill. Not at the price for what it does...And as you say there are many things that will ultimately be good no matter if they toss the individual mandate out or not...but I have a hard time believing that insurance companies won't begin to fight the new regulations and laws through lobbyist proxies if the mandate that everyone participate is gone.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
After he got laughed at yesterday over the whole Tax no wait Penalty no wait Tax Penalty no wait a Penalty colleceted as if it was a tax debacle, today he had to rely on Justice Kagan and Sotomoyor to explain the strongest parts of the Federal arguement. Just seemed odd and he seemed out of his league.
— Socrates
Nice.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
How does that happen? :roll: Seems like all of the Justices have already made their minds up anyway. The arguments are all one big charade.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Probably is a charade but if Justice Beyer goes with the majority and its a 6-3 loss as opposed to a straight 5-4 it will matter in painting the court as just partisan or actually listening to the arguements being presented. Justice Kennedy gave no indication of leaning towards upholding the mandate law as it is currently written which is what has the liberal media running with stories that it will be struck down to try to rally some people to the court tomorrow to support it (little reported the majority of the protest outside is against PPACA).
— Socrates
I think you're missing the fact that health care already is forced on us, and the government here is attempting to regulate something that we as a society has already allowed the government to force on us. In other words, I am talking about covering the uninsured, which we already do. We have already decided as a society to be forced to pay for those uninsured, for instance in the cases of catastrophic injury, car accidents, long term care, etc. for the uninsured, rather than letting them die in the streets. The government is attempting to regulate this by forcing the costs away from us, the already insured, to those who refuse to insure themselves, thus burdening the rest of us. By us picking up the costs of the 'free loaders', you can look at it as our liberty is being infringed on. We have decided that it is moral to not turn anyone away from medical services, but allowing those who have the ability to have insurance to get by without puts an undue burden on the rest of us, costing the country billions. This mandate is a way to transfer the costs of an already existing mandate (our tax dollars pay for the uninsured) to those who should be responsible for their own well being but aren't.
nowadays hits you when you're young
Ridiculous baseless conjecture. :roll:
nowadays hits you when you're young
:thumbup:
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
"With our thoughts we make the world"
You would be forced to buy it or face a penalty. The penalty is being called a tax and that is up for debate.
You would not pay the "tax" if you signed up for the government insurance plan. You would be paying for it through your taxes.
If I was awoken from a coma and someone told me the government was trying to enforce a law that forced the majority of Americans to buy health insurance, my response would be, "Why is the GOP trying to do that?".
If the Republicans were pushing the second part, there would be a complete freak-out by the American public. Why is there no focus on finding ways to lower the cost of healthcare so insurance cost is lowered and more Americans can afford it instead of rolling the dice? Instead, it seems they are trying to increase the stranglehold of the insurance monopoly.
but they could issue a health tax, a health subsidy and incentives for donations.
Start setting up more free/low cost clinics, drug addiction centers, mental health
facilities for our growing in need population.
People are going crazy. People are sick, people are walking around untreated.
The next private bail out probably our hospitals if the government doesn't get serious
clear the emergency rooms of non emergencies and hospital beds filled with uninsured.
Not to mention streets filled with the sick who can't seek treatment
future epidemic waiting to happen. The poor die the rich stay well.
Medicaid.
One would think this thing is a big boondoggle for the health insurance industry - millions of new customers. It's so weird that Republicans hate it so much, since it's all their idea.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Here's why - the solution is (properly run) Managed Care. But, somehow if you make a profit on something, you are automatically evil in our society (which is the ultimate irony since that's the only thing - profit motive - that has moved our society forward effectively). Funny thing is, the Democratic Governor of NY has already recogonized this and is enforcing mandatory Medicaid Managed Care. There's no hulabaloo (love that word) because -
a) He just did it and did not make it a big deal (i.e. go looking for press or credit)
b) Everyone concedes it's the proper way to CONTAIN cost while still providing the NECESSARY services to patients
The national problem is we focus on the 1 denial that was not correct (and ignoring that Nat'l health care would do that 10 fold - only diference being nobody makes an EXPLICIT decision in Nat'l health care so there's no ONE to blame - but I digress) instead of the extremely good programs (properly run) Managed Care companies put into place that decrease cost and increase quality outcomes (lowering preventable admissions, increasing quality of life, using PQI measures set out by AHRQ, increasing HEDIS scores, so on and so forth that "regular" fee for service or governmental programs completely fail at).
Nothing's perfect. But, if we are truly looking at the expense issue while providing HIGHER quality care, that's the way to do it. And, it's the way Cuomo is doing it for NY.
No, it's NOT - because of the over abundance of unnecessary regulation. Sure, it means millions of new customers. But, despite what most people thing - good companies are about making care better for their patients. So, getting more patients for the sake of getting more patients is not the end all be all. There needs to be an explicit support for doing the type of programs necessary to help people that don't help themselves (we don't need any of this for folks that take care of themselves. There's more money wasted on diabetic patients that insist on eating Dunkin Donuts every day and not testing themselves properly than on the shock claims that come from true tragedies. But, there's nothing in the law that allows for the definitive management necessary to reign in these types of PREVENTABLE health exacerbations).
Fixing a perceived infringement on liberty with another infringement on liberty that has much larger implications is not a great idea.
I feel like mugatu right now... why are people ok with the federal government, who has NO implied or enumerated police power, forcing a PRIVATE PRODUCT on citizens even though they have no constitutional authority to do so? If I am missing the fact that healthcare is forced on us, (which I do not feel I am as this isn't about healthcare it is about health insurance)are you literally not wanting to see the difference between paying for healthcare through a tax and being forced to pay for health insurance with my own money after I have already paid my taxes? You talk about those that can afford insurance but choose not to buy it being a drain...what about those that can afford there care and do not want to waste money to buy insurance? I know it isn't ok to defend people of means here, but come on, why should they be forced to give money to a private entity? you want to tax them go nuts, I don't agree, but at least the argument doesn't become one about constitutionality and it does become an argument over the amount the government taxes. Why should anyone be forced to give money to a private entity?
This is not an argument about the validity of government healthcare. It is an argument about forced commerce. There is no authority for the federal government anywhere that I can see that allows the feds to require private citizens to purchase a private product. the commerce clause does not cover forcing commerce for the sake of regulation. it doesn't now, didn't when it was written and never should in the future.
Raise taxes, call it a tax.
Can no one see the difference I am talking about? 20 years may seem like a long time to some, but that is what I give it until we are forced to buy private products in other areas of life. You think the lobbyists are aggressive now, wait until they see that the federal government now has the authority upheld by the court to require purchase of a private product for the overall good of the nation...good luck when that happens...
Does anyone arguing in favor of the health insurance mandate believe there is a difference between health insurance and healthcare? If not, why not? If so, how then can you think the commerce clause can be used to force people into an act of commerce?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That said, health care and health insurance are both interstate commerce, and the Congress is constitutionally eligible to regulate interstate commerce.
You still have Paul Ryan talking about killing Obamacare and protecting Medicare. :roll: Pandering ass hole.
"Keep your dirty government hands off my Medicare!"
I don't think you have to purchase a private product - you can get insurance from the exchanges if I understand it correctly.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and i will concede health insurance is interstate commerce because you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the fact that health insurance cannot be bought across state lines, nor the fact that health insurers paying an out of state hospital for CARE received is different from how health INSURANCE is purchased.
So fine, it is interstate commerce, does that mean the gov't can force me to buy it with my own money or face a penalty if I do not? not tax money mind you, the money in my wallet being forced out of it without a new tax being created. Do you agree that it is a new interpretation of the commerce clause? do you agree that the mandate of purchase of a private product is a new power? one that is unnecessary given that congress already had the power through taxation to create something very similar?
Why give them a new, far more expansive power to make up for the fact that senators and congressmen were UNWILLING to call this a tax for fear of political suicide? Jesus, people see the end and think that it justifies the means. the end in this case isn't even all that desirable...that being more money for the insurance companies, more people insured and many paying for insurance they may not want, need, nor ever intended to buy all the while extending a broad new power to congress that has ramifications for every industry in the future. it is involuntary purchase of a private product, and the commerce clause does NOT cover this.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan