Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
SCOTUS says that the Health Care Reform Act, (so-called Obamacare, ex-Romneycare) including the individual mandate is constitutional. It rejected the government's argument that the mandate was an appropriate use of commerce-clause power, but stated that it WAS withing the allowed exercise of the government's taxing power.

Discuss:
 

·
...is no fun!
Joined
·
2,764 Posts
SCOTUS says that the Health Care Reform Act, (so-called Obamacare, ex-Romneycare) including the individual mandate is constitutional. It rejected the government's argument that the mandate was an appropriate use of commerce-clause power, but stated that it WAS withing the allowed exercise of the government's taxing power.

Discuss:
*within

Sorry :)

Few notes from CNN.

[Updated at 10:28 a.m. ET] In its 5-4 decision to uphold the U.S. health care law, the Supreme Court answered several key questions:

Question: Can the court decide the constitutionality of health care now, or does it have to wait a few years?

To answer, the court had to decide whether a penalty the law imposes on people who do not have health insurance amounts to a tax.

A previously obscure law mandated that the legality of a tax cannot be challenged until it is imposed, and the health care law doesn't call for penalties until 2014.

The court's answer: The court upheld the entire law.

Question: Is the requirement that people have health insurance - the so-called individual mandate - constitutional?

The court's answer: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the commerce clause did not apply, but the mandate stands under the taxing clause.

Question: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, can the rest of the law stand, or is the whole thing unconstitutional?

The court's answer: The mandate is constitutional, rendering moot further questions on the rest of the law.

Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration?

The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
The supreme court just gave the Federal government the right to mandate whatever they want as long as they penalize you financially for not doing it. The healthcare reform is good in concept but is poorly executed. You cant force people who cannot afford insurance to buy insurance and then slap them with a penalty for not buying the insurance they cannot afford. This bill should have been about reducing costs to make healthcare more affordable not forcing people to buy things they cannot afford. At least with car insurance, you have the choice to not drive and not pay insurance. They are forcing this one on people for existing.
 

·
...is no fun!
Joined
·
2,764 Posts
The supreme court just gave the Federal government the right to mandate whatever they want as long as they penalize you financially for not doing it. The healthcare reform is good in concept but is poorly executed. You cant force people who cannot afford insurance to buy insurance and then slap them with a penalty for not buying the insurance they cannot afford. This bill should have been about reducing costs to make healthcare more affordable not forcing people to buy things they cannot afford. At least with car insurance, you have the choice to not drive and not pay insurance. They are forcing this one on people for existing.
In Virginia, you even have the option to drive WITHOUT insurance. It costs $500 payable to the state every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
888 Posts
The haters have the freedome to leave if they don't like it. ;D
Or just pay the new tax.

In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-effects/index.html

Starting in 2014, almost everyone will be required to be insured or pay a fine. There are subsidies to help people who can't afford coverage.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...R-p5_g?docId=aa1e4e67461b49c09484055f6faf2d48
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,051 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I agree that Obamacare is a flawed compromise between a rational system and one designed to maximize profit for corporations. The predominant healthcare funding scheme (private insurance subsidized by employers) evolved in a time when healthcare expenditures represented less than 5% of GDP. It now approaches 20%. How much of that is profit, as opposed to real cost? How much profit can the American health consumer sustain?

When I was a kid, my doctor could carry almost all the technology he needed in his bag. The last time I had a full cardiac check up, I was in a scanning machine that certainly cost millions of dollars. Even the hi-tech treadmill I stress-test on is probably a six-figure cost. All that technology costs money. How much technology is enough? How much are we willing to pay for? And how should we pay for it?

The cost of healthcare and retiree healthcare crippled American steel industry and has hobbled the American car industry. It's an on-going challenge for every business. A decade ago an individual mandate (forced health insurance) was a popular idea among conservatives. The Heritage Foundation was championing it in the late 80s. It was seen as a market-preserving (hence, profit-preserving) alternative to a single payer ("socialized medicine") system. Romney championed it and it became Romneycare in Massachusetts.

I would be inclined to go with a single-payer, national health syatem. But Americans don't seem to trust the government enough to adopt that. I guess we are comfortable letting a corporation ration our access to healthcare in accordance with their profit incentive instead.

We have not yet reached the point where our national healthcare delivery and financing system is rational or efficient. So there's thinking, and acting yet to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
888 Posts
Does this mean I can finally sign up to serve on death panels?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/deathpanels.htm

What Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 Really Says
The clause in Section 1233 of the bill actually requires the Medicare program to reimburse doctors if a Medicare beneficiary asks them for consultation on advanced care, end-of-life planning considerations like how to make a living will, assign people to make health care decisions for them (durable power of attorney), and hospice care (which is actually already covered under Medicare).

The "every five years" part of the death panel rumor stems from the fact that Section 1233 of the bill requires Medicare to pay for the advanced care planning services only once every five years. Once again, the consultation would be provided and paid for by Medicare only if requested by the beneficiary.

Describing the "death panels" claims as being "rife with gross-and even cruel-distortions," the American Association of Retired People (AARP) has supported the Advanced Care Planning Consultation requirement, stating that it "would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves [on end-of-life care], but also better ensure that their wishes are followed."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,885 Posts
The supreme court just gave the Federal government the right to mandate whatever they want as long as they penalize you financially for not doing it.
The federal government already does this. Do you have kids? No? Guess what, you pay higher taxes than someone who does. See also: home ownership. You don't have to have kids or buy health insurance or a house, but your other option is to pay higher taxes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,566 Posts
Glad it was upheld also. Is it perfect...we all know the answer is no. Let's tweak what's wrong with it, not scrap it. I don't hear anybody coming up with a better idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
I found it interesting that an idea that originated in a right-wing think-tank suddenly became the central objection to a law passed by Democrats as an unconstitutional intrusion by the government on individuals.
IIRC, way back around 1798 or the early 1800s, a law was passed establishing health care for sailors and REQUIRING all sailors to purchase coverage. This never seemed to get brought up during the SCOTUS hearing and based on the general tone of the questioning then, I have to admit that I was shocked to hear that Chief Justice Roberts was on the dominant side ruling IN FAVOR of OBAMACARE. Let us remember that a few years ago, ROMNEYCARE was being touted as a model for the rest of the US. Of course, that was before the Democrats adopted it!
I keep hearing the Republicans vowing to repeal it, but I haven't heard any concrete changes they would enact in its place. The new reforms don't really fix the system, but they at least represent a start.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top