Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[pocketfullofshells]

Notice how POS tries so desperately to change the subject and pretend conservatives said something they didn't?

(yawn)

The usual tactic from people of his ilk who can't reply to what the actual issue is.

I must be mistaken...conservatives belive that you should get health care and not have to pay for it now...?

 

[dogtowner]

you know what happens if that part gets stripped out?

your insurance will go up

enjoy

It's already going up. So the only sensible thing is to ditch obsmacare and do something that will actually help with he problem. The problem is that health care is too costly.

 

[Rick]

If the Supremes agree, then THAT'S the death knell.

But now the Supremes will have to decide whether a fine that the law itself refers to as a "Penalty", is actually a tax and NOT a penalty.

Poor liberals. Blew another attempt at fibbing - the law itself tells the truth about what the Democrats are trying to impose on us.

No BS is possible about this. For the first time in history, the federal government is trying to force people to buy a commercial product. This is stretching the ICC clause beyond the breaking point. The only issue left is will the USSC uphold the constitution.

 

[Feihu]

no one said it was going to go down the day it was passed...half of the cost saving parts are not even in effect yet..


there is a better way...its called public option or single payer...but both would not have got passed...at least now kids have coverage, people with preexisting condtions are covered...you cant get dropped ..for getting sick....
of course to get those covered...someone has to pay....like...people who where not paying for health care but still got it.

1. True again but the costs went up. At least in my case and that of many others even someone else on this forum.


2. What do you (plural) think of the single payer plan and why. In my case, it wouldn't effect me so my opinion is not a valid one. However if this plan can guarantee that it would cut costs in other areas like the highway robbery that goes on in county hospitals then I might have an opinion but no one (politicians) has even broached this subject. They seem to deny that there is any gouging of federal funds or they just don't care to admit it, as is the case with many things. Where is Wikileaks when you really need them.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

1. True again but the costs went up. At least in my case and that of many others even someone else on this forum.


2. What do you (plural) think of the single payer plan and why. In my case, it wouldn't effect me so my opinion is not a valid one. However if this plan can guarantee that it would cut costs in other areas like the highway robbery that goes on in county hospitals then I might have an opinion but no one (politicians) has even broached this subject. They seem to deny that there is any gouging of federal funds or they just don't care to admit it, as is the case with many things. Where is Wikileaks when you really need them.

1....unless you thought inflation was going to be zero all around, where medical cost is where it has been highest for a long time...of course some went up...Like I said, this was not signed to be a magic wand waved and its all good bill..its spaced out and will take time ...( I also since your new want you to know that I did not like how this bill in the form it was passed in..but do support some of the ideas behind it...)

2. single payer would be the option I most support..with the option to buy extra insurance if you wish to cover more expensive, but possibly not needed issues. As I stated before, the American people do not in large support the idea..that if your poor and get sick..to bad only the wealthy should get care...so drop dead....Also, unlike some republican ideas...health care costs for people without insurance need to be paid by someone...that someone is...taxpayers and or added cost to our premiums. Almost anyone in medicine knows that its far more cost efficient to treat just about anything early...and preventative care can save huge amounts...Our current system today says dont get check ups, and wait till you have to be wheeled into a ER...before we help you get treatment...where the cost of early treatment could have been less then the cost of the Ambulance that took you...this could help lower cost quite a bit..though the right will cry about longer waits for things sometimes...because the right for the rich to get get fast help, is stronger then the right of the poor to get any....also ignores supply and demand...if demand is higher..increase the supply?

there is the fairness issue of our system...before the bill passed...a child born with a illness that could effect there whole life...could be denied ever getting coverage or at best be forced to pay huge sums to get any..A employee who lost there job due to the poor management of the company or some reason beyond there control....also just lost there health care .....The company in the first place had to pay huge sums of money to get good workers...by offering to pay large parts of the cost of health care ( keeping the real cost out of the view of workers...and off the so called free market...as your going to get your insurance...threw who ever your work picks..and what ever plans they offer you...my "free market" as 2 health care options from the same place...pick from 2 deductibles...thats not a free market....

I worked 2 jobs...both would have loved to have me work all the time...but where limted to keep me at less then a average of 32 hours or less...due to the fact if I did more...they would have to pay my health care...I know people who worked 3...still no health care..for same reason....

When our system has us pay more per capita then any other nation...to cover far less of our people...I find it hard to believe some call this the greatest system on earth...as a extra note...my girlfriend got lucky, her job position was eliminated...and she has a very serious health issue ...lucky for her..when her job was eliminated...they decided to extend be a extra 3 months her health care...during that time she got a new treatment that has for the last few years greatly improved her life..though its still a issue she deals with daily and cost still mount...with her new job she got ....her health care would not have covered it....I don't belive peoples health and lives should depend one where they are employed at the time.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No BS is possible about this. For the first time in history, the federal government is trying to force people to buy a commercial product. This is stretching the ICC clause beyond the breaking point. The only issue left is will the USSC uphold the constitution.

unless you are immortal God, you are useing the health care system.

the man who makes 60,000 a year but chooses not to pay for health care...and has a has a heart attack or something...just look at a few peoples cost here
http://www.ptca.org/forumtopics/topic20010824.html
say the you needed 5 stents...thats 140,000 ...now of course the guy paid 30,000 and they wrote of the rest...that means the tax payers and or others who have insurance paid the 110,000 extra.....

But he did not "choose" to buy the product....but of course laws state that the hospital would have been forced to save him.... He did not choose the buy the product....he choose to have you buy it for him..

But in any case...he Used the product...

 

[Rick]

unless you are immortal God, you are useing the health care system.

Has nothing to do with anything.

the man who makes 60,000 a year but chooses not to pay for health care...and has a has a heart attack or something...just look at a few peoples cost here
http://www.ptca.org/forumtopics/topic20010824.html
say the you needed 5 stents...thats 140,000 ...now of course the guy paid 30,000 and they wrote of the rest...that means the tax payers and or others who have insurance paid the 110,000 extra.....

But he did not "choose" to buy the product....but of course laws state that the hospital would have been forced to save him.... He did not choose the buy the product....he choose to have you buy it for him..

But in any case...he Used the product...

That medical service providers gave this guy a partly free ride shows the prudence of one of my suggested REAL reforms: an illegalization of cost shifting, but in any case has nothing to do with congress trying to exceed the limits of their authority under the constitution.

 

[Feihu]

What I see here is the following:

The OP points to two very valid issues IMO so briefly, I agree that the "fairness issue" needs to be addressed. It is in part responsible for the poor state of health of the the nation. And it is true in my experience anyway, that we pay more for less. Accessible preventive medicine, like regular periodic health checks and physicals would go a long way in improving the over-all health of the nation. There are a lot of reasons why we don't avail ourselves to these measures mostly economic but there are some flaws on the medical end as well.

Rick also makes a point that is valid in that here, we have the government showing itself, to a degree, as an agent of corporatism. Corporatism in itself is not a bad thing but when we have run-away corporatism then we have a problem. This demand that everyone buy insurance from the corporate sector or face punishment in the form of a fine. People will not buy this idea and most find it repugnant if not down right insulting. But something must be done to treat the problem that the OP points out, when a person of sufficient means takes advantage of the system and the rest of the population wind up footing part or all of the bill. I don't fully agree that we should not help out a person in need but on the other hand, like anyone else, I do not want to pay health care for a person who is fully capable of paying for it him or herself. A [single person making 60 thousand a year (that is the OP's figure, mine would be lower) who refuses to buy health insurance is simply, overly selfish and abusing his fellow citizens.

As to other nations approach to universal health care I can say that I have lived under three different systems. Ours, which is far from "universal health care", the Japanese system and later on the Spanish system. The latter two were similar but not the same. However in recent years those two systems have limited the amout of government health care because it has become a stain on their economies. The care was good but in today's world those two systems are really beginning to fall apart and the insurance industry has stepped in to pick up the slack...for a price naturally.

 

[dahermit]

Keep in mind that a "Federal District Judge", is not the Supreme court...which has the final say in what is or is not "unconstitutional". The losing entity in this case may or may not appeal the decision higher and the Supreme court may or may not find the opposite. In short, this decision if far from final.