Obamacare Survives with a twist

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by Seraph

My thoughts exactly. Obamacare seems like step one towards a civilized healthcare system, and step two will be removing the insurance companies and letting the government run it. There are some kinds of services that simply don't benefit from being left to the free market, being geared towards making profit. I'd argue healthcare is one. Another I'd argue is prisons; private prisons are disturbing in how they work, geared towards increasing recidivism because return inmates = more money.

I really can't empathize those arguing against healthcare for everybody. We pay taxes so everyone, poor and rich, can have roads, streetlights, police—why not something as necessary as medicine? It's not an impossible idea. In fact, the majority of the happiest countries (as shown in this list) have universal healthcare. Not counting that one there.

The problem really is your "step 2." I fear that because Obama did not go for a single payer system - which is far easier to explain and justify than what is now in place - he may lose the election. Mandatory insurance re. "the new tax" will now be the focus of the elections, and it's not going to be pretty. People like me aren't enthusiastic about Obama because - well, admittedly I always thought he was a phony - he fell well short of his goals despite his promises. In other words, he did what I thought he would do - waffle - hence my decision to not vote for him. Nevertheless, Romney is out of the question for somebody like me. I know more and more Independents declaring a no vote for either major party candidate, and I'll make a prediction, to Don's delight. It'll be record breaking this year. . . .

[clintl]

Blaming Obama for it not being perfect is off the mark, imo. This was what Obama could realistically get from Congress. It was accept it or not get anything at all passed.

I think he made the right decision to accept it. It does move reform in the proper direction, even with its warts.

[ColoradoGuy]

Originally Posted by clintl

Blaming Obama for it not being perfect is off the mark, imo. This was what Obama could realistically get from Congress. It was accept it or not get anything at all passed.

I think he made the right decision to accept it. It does move reform in the proper direction, even with its warts.

Yep. Sometimes the enemy of good is better.

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by clintl

Blaming Obama for it not being perfect is off the mark, imo. This was what Obama could realistically get from Congress. It was accept it or not get anything at all passed.

I think he made the right decision to accept it. It does move reform in the proper direction, even with its warts.

We live in a time where "results" are everything. A watered-down version of healthcare reform does nothing but weaken what could have resulted in a radical impact on the average American to his/her betterment. Had Obama had the courage, it could have meant a slam/dunk for him in November, because despite the opposition and all the associated propaganda, he would have shown Americans something that they really yearn for: real guts and such honest concern that he was willing to risk and push and take the heat. If Obama loses this year, which is very possible,this health care initiative is all for naught. And maybe it should be, but it bothers me because Obama was so near his mark. He just didn't have the fortitude. That to me isn't leadership. But you know, I didn't expect of him. I was hoping he'd surprise me, even make a fool of me. . . .

[Sheryl Nantus]

Originally Posted by blacbird

Not really. You have the taxation option. Which amounts to nothing more than a recognition that everybody needs health care, and most who don't have insurance wind up costing everyone else for care provided by emergency services and hospitals. The cost and inefficiency of that "system" is not in dispute.



Which is a separate matter that also needs to be addressed. How would you prefer to have that addressed? Let the "market" take care of it -- in the splendid manner it is doing already?

caw

I was actually being critical of overpriced meds. But what the hell do I know, being a traitor to my country and daring to marry a Yankee... and being misquoted in this thread twice already for making statements along with having to "prove" myself.

I'll go back to the writing threads. Much friendlier crowd there.

[Jean Marie]

Originally Posted by raburrell

My mother's friend lost her husband to a massive heart attack last month. He was basically gone before the ambulance even got there, but:

Ambulance ride & resuscitation efforts: $1500
Continued efforts at the ER: $6500
So, total cost for him to die on their kitchen floor: Eight grand.

The ambulance corps I'm w/ is made up mostly of volunteers, and you're right, it's not at all cheap. We buy our own rigs, equipment, etc., through fundraisers and the like. We're contracted through the town to have medics on 24/7 w/ out of one of the local hospitals and we train like hell. We've also got 6 paid staff, and we've got assigned shifts, so that there's always a full crew on duty w/ an available back up crew. Again, each crew is made up of mostly volunteers, but it does cost to ride in the rig. Getting sick/dying is a costly business. Been doing it for 15 years, so I do know.

Sorry for your Mom's loss.

Originally Posted by kayleamay

Mittens just emailed me on the topic:

I'm snickering too much to comment further.

I call, Foul!! I didn't get one! So not fair

[Monkey]

I've read the whole thread, now, but a post back on page 2 is still foremost in my mind. It troubles and upsets me on a lot of levels.

Not overreacting at all since this stupid health whatever won't cover everyone anyway. There will still be millions of people w/o coverage. Yeah, and I'm against illegals having health coverage. They shouldn't be here in the first place!! They've caused border hospitals to go broke and close. They use ER's as doctor offices. They use 911 services as taxi cabs, so yeah, it bugs the shit out of me since I work for a 911 service and they can't speak the fucking language!!! but want the taxi service just the same along w/ the free care we provide. NOT!

Poor people, not just illegals, use ER's as doctor's offices. That's because the ER will see them even if they can't pay, and the doctor's office will not.

And unless your ambulance is dropping people off at the nearest night club, and offering "free care" to people who are perfectly healthy, it's not being used as a taxi. It's being used as a way to get to the hospital, or perhaps as a way to get care they would otherwise be denied. Again, this is an issue with poor people, not just illegals.

From the above post, you lead me to believe that you feel illegals should be left in the street to die. That if they're in a car wreck - fuck 'em. They weren't supposed to be here anyway. If they're eight years old and dying of a bad bout of asthma...fuck 'em. No one told their parents to move here.

And the things you accuse them of, that make them such a burden to the system and makes it somehow "wrong" for them to go to the ER or ride in an ambulance, applies just as much to any person in poverty as it does to illegals.

I just... really? Is that really how you, as a medical provider, feel?

And this part:

it bugs the shit out of me since I work for a 911 service and they can't speak the fucking language!!!

I don't understand at all. There's a good percentage of LEGAL American citizens who do not speak English or don't speak it well enough to handle medical questions. I understand that may make your job difficult, but the phrasing here, and the rage... it almost seems as if you would prefer to deny care to anyone who doesn't speak your language, because you assume they're an illegal immigrant.

Surely that's not what you meant to imply? It was really just upset that providing them life-saving care was harder, and not an implication of fault on their part, right?

Please? Because right now, my stomach is roiling...

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by Jean Marie

I call, Foul!! I didn't get one! So not fair

When he starts doling out some of his ill-gotten gains in the name of remuneration/conscience, perhaps you should feel cheated if neglected. Otherwise, listening to him no matter what the media is a liability, as it requires a virtual shovel to clear the screen of such bullshit. Be grateful that you are not a recipient. . . .

[Monkey]

As an aside, I live in a small town with no hospital. The nearest hospital is a good thirty-minute drive away, and an ambulance ride costs upwards of a thousand dollars.

Also, I'm currently looking into getting a 19-year-old Indian boy into the country legally, and having ZERO fucking luck. And I'm already here, and an American citizen. If he was trying on his own, I guess he'd have even less of a shot...if less than zero is a possibility.

[Vince524]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Also, I'm currently looking into getting a 19-year-old Indian boy into the country legally, and having ZERO fucking luck. And I'm already here, and an American citizen. If he was trying on his own, I guess he'd have even less of a shot...if less than zero is a possibility.

Wait, what??

Could you explain that please?

[AncientEagle]

I don't have time right now to read the last six screens on this topic, so I'm sure this has been said and I just missed it: I assume all those who are raging against this unjust and unconstitutional imposition on us otherwise free citizens has stated a pledge not to accept any advantages offered by the Affordable Care Act once it's fully in effect. It seems to me that this is a great plus right off the bat, i.e., much of the cost of the program will be saved by its not having to include those who hate and despise it, once they pledge not to use it.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Vince524

Wait, what??

Could you explain that please?

Hahaha...

Okay, so the world-wide parkour community is surprisingly close-knit. I "met" this kiddo online, through mutual friends, because we're both practitioners.

He's a good kid, and we talk a lot. In India, family support is huge, and he pretty much doesn't have any, so he's latched onto my husband and I. His dream is to come to America, and being the softy I am, I'm willing to take him in and take care of him (yes, I've taken in adults before and let them live with me for a period of years.) He calls me his "parkour mom" or sometimes just "mom."

Anyway, I'm willing to take a chance on him and give him a shot at a better life here. But looking into getting him a Visa, I'm seeing thousands of dollars and quite a few years worth of effort, with possibly never any return at all.

In fact, a close family member went to Germany to teach English and married a German girl - an anesthesiologist. They tried for years but were never able to get her American citizenship. And they were married, with children together. So I feel my chances of getting a kid I'm not even biologically related to into the country are slim at best...when I look at the actual hoops we'll have to jump through, it starts looking like "slim" isn't the right word for it.

[clintl]

I'd like to see the day when it doesn't matter where you were born. You're able to live and work anywhere in the world that you to.

Not likely to ever happen, though.

[nighttimer]

Originally Posted by Jean Marie

I prefer that people come into the US legally. End of story.

I agree with you and in a perfect world the U.S. wouldn't do such a crap job of keeping track of who is entering the country. The failure to secure the borders is a bipartisan failure and simply electing more Republicans is not going to bring about a solution.

Building walls, mobilizing the National Guard, and mass deportations won't work. Until the politicians are made to cut the crap and make the tough calls, nothing will.

Originally Posted by Jean Marie

I agree w/ you about Mittens; he's going to have difficulty retracting his beliefs regarding his own healthcare system. I don't reject the entire idea, I don't want it forced on me...ok, taxed. And, if it doesn't include everyone as it's supposed to, then what's the point? There will still be plenty of disenfranchised people out there, so how fair is that.

If there were a pain-free way to do something about the 50 million without healthcare coverage instead of having them hanging out in emergency rooms to receive treatment running in the thousands instead of preventive medicine costing in the hundreds, I'd love to hear the plan.

Nobody is all the way happy with Obamacare (as even the president has now embraced the term), but the suggestion by the GOP that all voters need to do is put them in charge would not mean the complete repeal of reform according to David Frum.

The Republican Plan B is to repeal Obamacare on Day 1 of a Romney presidency.

Good luck with that.

First, today's Supreme Court decision will make it a lot harder to elect Mitt Romney. President Obama has just been handed a fearsome election weapon. 2012 is no longer exclusively a referendum on the president's economic management. 2012 is now also a referendum on Mitt Romney's healthcare plans.

The president can now plausibly say that a vote for the Republicans is a vote to raise prescription drug costs on senior citizens and to empower insurance companies to deny coverage to children for pre-existing conditions. Those charges will hurt—and maybe hurt enough to sway the election.

Second, even if Republicans do win the White House and Senate in 2012, how much appetite will they then have for that 1-page repeal bill? Suddenly it will be their town halls filled with outraged senior citizens whose benefits are threatened; their incumbencies that will be threatened. Already we are hearing that some Republicans wish to retain the more popular elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Which means the proposed 1-page bill will begin to grow.

Third, Mitt Romney has promised to grant states waivers from the obligations of the ACA. Not all states will ask for such waivers. Many will eagerly institute the ACA, which (let us not forget) includes large immediate grants of federal aid.
Fourth, Republicans will find the task of writing their "replace" law even more agonizing than the Democrats found original passage. The party has no internal consensus on what a replacement would look like. Worse, any replacement of the law's popular elements will require financing. But where is that money to come from? New taxes are unacceptable. The proceeds of "closing loopholes" are already spoken for—that's how President Romney has promised to finance his promise to cut the top rate of tax 28%. And he's also promised to increase defense spending.

Fifth, the clock is ticking. President Obama passed the ACA in the second year of his administration. A President Romney will have to pass repeal in the first year of his, because the law goes into effect in 2014. By then, states will have to have their exchanges up and working. And states that have put themselves through that work will not be very eager to see Washington undo it. If replacement does not happen in the first 100 days, it won't happen at all—that is, it won't happen as a single measure, but rather will take the form of dozens of small incremental changes adopted episodically over the next 20 years.

[Yorkist]

To add to what Monkey stated upthread:

Originally Posted by Jean Marie

FWIW, my freaky neighbor employs illegals for construction and I was accosted by one of them in the downstairs of my home while going through renovations...yeah, slight derail...I didn't know they were all illegals and never would have hired them if I had. I will not take food off the table of other hard working Americans, or workers who are here, legally, just to satisfy some jackass who's trying to get around worker's comp and insurance.

Right now, the U.S. economy is suffering from a poor labor/market match. There are increasingly few Americans willing or able to work jobs that require hard labor, skilled labor, or trades. As a result of low supply and high demand, prices (wages) are going up, and in some cases undocumented workers are filling that demand.

Georgia and Alabama have approved laws that have tough enforcement provisions that farmers say are scaring migrant workers away from the states.

Since the laws were approved last year, farmers in both states have reported labor shortages because migrant workers aren't showing up and they say they can't find other workers to fill the jobs. Farmers and state officials have said that some produce was left to rot in the field last year because there weren't enough workers to help with the harvest.

You also posted that you're sick of taxes on food and gas going up. Food and gas prices are increasing, but are the taxes on them? I mean, are your local or state grocery taxes going up?

Because all this anti-immigration legislation is actually driving up the cost of food, due to labor shortages which are causing product shortages.

I used to believe the narrative that blamed the minimum wage and/or greedy businesspeople, but then I actually talked to some undocumented workers, all of whom were paid much higher than the minimum wage. And I've spoken to a few tradesmen - electricians, plumbers, etc. - who say that they can't find apprentices. They're retiring, and there's no one to replace them, even though a plumber is currently worth his weight in gold.

Also, gas prices are going up due to increased global demand, not taxes, so far as I'm aware.

Sorry to further the derail.

[benbradley]

Originally Posted by nighttimer

I agree with you and in a perfect world the U.S. wouldn't do such a crap job of keeping track of who is entering the country. The failure to secure the borders is a bipartisan failure and simply electing more Republicans is not going to bring about a solution.

Building walls, mobilizing the National Guard, and mass deportations won't work. Until the politicians are made to cut the crap and make the tough calls, nothing will.

I recall some show, Mythbusters or maybe Penn and Teller's "Bulllshit!" on how building a wall on the border wouldn't keep people from crossing, and demonstrated by building a 12-foot-high wall and asking some Hispanics (yes, this is how I remember it) to see if they could cross over the wall. It didn't take them long, maybe a minute or two.

It clearly IS possible to build a wall that is effective at stopping people from crossing it, as demonstrated by the wall that once separated East and West Berlin. But then having armed guards who shoot anyone who tries to cross just isn't going to happen on any US border. Only a very few fringe-group people would be in favor of this.

On the other hand, those infamous drones that the FAA is approving could easily patrol the borders and alert authorities when someone is crossing (computer vision technology is good enough to detect people vs. animals so you don't need anyone staring at all the camera feeds). This could even save the lives of people who end up in the middle of the desert with no water, who wouldn't be noticed otherwise.

If there were a pain-free way to do something about the 50 million without healthcare coverage instead of having them hanging out in emergency rooms to receive treatment running in the thousands instead of preventive medicine costing in the hundreds, I'd love to hear the plan.

If we're going to give healthcare to everyone who happens to make it onto US soil, why stop there? Why discriminate against those who don't live in Mexico or who don't make the long trip north? If healthcare is a human right (as I've heard claimed many times in recent years), then there are billions of others around the world who also have no health care and need it.

[nighttimer]

Originally Posted by benbradley

If we're going to give healthcare to everyone who happens to make it onto US soil, why stop there? Why discriminate against those who don't live in Mexico or who don't make the long trip north? If healthcare is a human right (as I've heard claimed many times in recent years), then there are billions of others around the world who also have no health care and need it.

The U.S. is not the world's police officer and it is not the world's family doctor either.

Got any more dead horses you want to beat?

[Kevans]

Grin, there is a great big opening there.

Top three suggestions I have seen on the conservative sites are, a $1,500.00 tax for failing to have a militia serviceable weapon and a week’s combat load, the same amount for not being able to survive in an emergency for a week because you do not have enough stored food and water, and a $10,000.00 a year tax for being a registered Democrat.



Basically the health care thing is a side issue to the enormous increase in the ability to create a punitive tax for not doing something.



Regards,

Kevin

Originally Posted by Diana Hignutt

The door is open and the precedent set...

...what will we be taxed for not doing next?....

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Kevans

Grin, there is a great big opening there.

Top three suggestions I have seen on the conservative sites are, a $1,500.00 tax for failing to have a militia serviceable weapon and a week’s combat load, the same amount for not being able to survive in an emergency for a week because you do not have enough stored food and water, and a $10,000.00 a year tax for being a registered Democrat.



Basically the health care thing is a side issue to the enormous increase in the ability to create a punitive tax for not doing something.



Regards,

Kevin

Just to be clear, I'm not pro-gun. I'd rather see the Second Amendment treated differently than it is. But that first suggestion doesn't need this new ruling. It's in the enumerated powers of Congress.

Article I Section 8

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If one takes the view that the militia is everyone in the country Congress has the power to force people to keep weapons in their homes. Of course, they can use the same power to disciplline everyone under military law, but you can't have everything if you're a freedom loving militia advocate.

And, oh yeah the President, he's Commander in Chief of those Militias.
Article II Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So, Obama just has to accept the neocon idea of the on going war on terror, the gun rights advocates idea that we're all part of the militia and call up everyone in the US and order them around. All conservatives would be happy with that, right?

Ah, freedom.

[Kevans]

The issue is that the Court decision allows the government to create taxes that affect an individual for what they >>do not do<<.

This opens the door to the ability to punish a group for disagreeing with the legislator. Further it looks like the conservative party may come in to power and have the right to "TAX" anyone who disagrees with them.



This ruling gives the government a club to smash whomsoever they will, and no side of the issue will stay in power for ever.



They can, under this decision, create a tax that activates if you fail to do something. If that something is outside of you abilities, you must pay, the tax man has no mercy.



Have fun,

Kevin

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Kevans

The issue is that the Court decision allows the government to create taxes that affect an individual for what they >>do not do<<.

This opens the door to the ability to punish a group for disagreeing with the legislator. Further it looks like the conservative party may come in to power and have the right to "TAX" anyone who disagrees with them.



This ruling gives the government a club to smash whomsoever they will, and no side of the issue will stay in power for ever.



They can, under this decision, create a tax that activates if you fail to do something. If that something is outside of you abilities, you must pay, the tax man has no mercy.



Have fun,

Kevin

It's not new. Here's a more extreme example from the Civil War.
http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/usdraft.html

The draft law allowed people to buy their way out of serving in the Union Army by paying $300.00.

So clearly the Congress has the power to say, "Your money or your life?"
Congress could create a peacetime draft, haul in everyone the party in power didn't like and subject them to military law. Or it could threaten to do that unless people paid over a lot of money.

This new ruling has far less potential abuse of power than things like thr draft that have been in the Constitution from the beginning.

[Kriven]

If you try to walk, he'll tax your feet...

[tmesis]

Originally Posted by mirandashell

I love the NHS. It's full to the brim, it's creaky and choked with red tape and the waiting time can be totally ridiculuous. But I love it.

+1

When I was 23, I experienced sudden kidney failure. I was hospitalised for a month and had plasma exchange or dialysis every day--sometimes both. I had multiple biopsies & scans & operations & was eventually diagnosed with an idiopathic auto-immune condition which had caused the kidney failure, anaemia, and arthritis. My kidneys improved so that I didn't need dialysis after 1 month, but I've been taking auto-immune suppressants and various prescribed supplements every day for the 7 years that have followed, all at the cost of just over £10 a month (free if unemployed).

I just looked at the cost of dialysis alone in the US, and I'm stunned. If I lived there I would be in debt to the value of hundreds of thousands of pounds. What 23 year-old has that kind of money? The worst thing I had to worry about (other than, y'know, possibly dying) was sloppy food.

[robeiae]

Interesting takes on the decision:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheor...ional-law.html

The alternative gestalt is no longer an outlier, a theory endorsed by a few eccentric professors and one odd justice of the Supreme Court. And because Justice Roberts believes that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the commerce clause (but is valid if interpreted as a tax), he has left open the possibility that there is a fifth justice who endorses the alternative gestalt.

We are only minutes into a long process of digesting the Health Care Decision. But in my opinion, one thing is clear. Things are now "up for grabs" in a way that no one anticipated when the saga of the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act began.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...bamacare_.html

The business about "new and potentially vast" authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

I believe I am being swayed...

[Bartholomew]

Do I have fed-mandated dental, yet? My toothache wants to know.