Two Years On: Obamacare

[deskslave]

From premiums.

And who pays the premiums of the people who will be forced at gunpoint to buy insurance they can't afford?

Can't afford insurance, can't afford medical care ... hey, that's THEIR fault. Nothing wrong with the system at all.

 

[exmediahack]

Yet no politician will come out, publicly, and say the following:

If every American lived to be 100, our nation would plunge into a Greek-style bankruptcy.

No one says it but, for the financial end of it, we need:
- Smokers
- Obesity

The government gives lip service to quitting smoking and eating right. Yet, for the current setup to continue, we need a segment of the population that are willing to "opt out" of living past 65. Those are smokers and the obese.

- People who smoke a pack a day. They pay $1000-1200 in state taxes each year on their smokes and will, likely, never collect what they paid in Social Security.

- Same with obesity. The government encourages people to exercise but, when they drop dead at 57 because their heart couldn't handle a 375-pound frame, that is a lifetime of paying into Social Security and no pay out.

Both smoking and morbid obesity lead to the "pre-existing conditions", which is what the single-payer backers are constantly talking about.

What about those of us who *do* take of ourselves? Who don't smoke, exercise and watch our weight?

Please tell me why I should have to pay for those who don't take care of themselves. (Waiting for the usual "you already do"). :)

My biggest issue is that I see health care coverage as a "good" or a "service". It should carry a fixed price -- not a price based on what I make.

If it is $374/month for premiums for my family, I accept this, whether I make $30,000 a year or $200,000 a year. If I buy a steak dinner, the price of the steak dinner should be $25, regardless of my income.

I have a real issue with making my health care cost be a percentage of my income.

 

[RickStain]

And if you choose not to purchase health insurance, you'll pay a tax.

Riddle me the difference.

You must carry car insurance if you want to drive a car.

You must carry health insurance if you want to live in a country that guarantees emergency care to the uninsured.

People want to guarantee coverage to the uninsured.

If you don't see the distinction or the problem with the distinction, then I guess we just don't have anything to talk about and have very, very different philosophies on the role of government in society.

 

[RickStain]

If you think the Constitution shouldn't give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, then, yes, it's poorly written. Perhaps that's what you truly believe. But if you do think Congress should have that power, then you just don't like the way Congress has exercised that power in this case. Bad laws, stupid laws, ineffective laws, laws that force you do to things you might not want to do -- those are not unconstitutional. They're just bad laws. The remedy for them is not amending the Constitution; it's electing people who won't pass bad laws, and who will pass good ones.

We're getting deep, deep into semantics here, but I don't consider "compulsion to actively participate in commerce" to be the same as "regulating commerce."

 

[imjustagirl]

No one says it but, for the financial end of it, we need:
- Smokers
- Obesity

You're welcome. :D

 

[LongTimeListener]

Rick, really, what does happen to the person in the car crash or the 26-year-old who chose not to buy insurance but is now coughing up blood. You gamble, you lose?

 

[RickStain]

The reason people no longer drop dead in emergency waiting rooms is that a Democratic Congress, in 1986, passed a bill -- signed into law by noted socialist and freedom hater Ronald Reagan -- that mandated hospitals treat patients regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. To my knowledge, this bill has never been challenged in court in the subsequent 26 years.

That bill was good law, but it does stand as an unfunded mandate.

The individual mandate serves two key aspects of the ACA -- to motivate people to carry insurance and to recoup some of the money from people treated under that act.

So what you are saying is that in 1986, we had a health-care problem. We fixed it with an imperfect, unfunded mandate that caused unintended consequences that will now have to be fixed with an imperfect, unfunded mandate. Which itself will have ugly, unintended consequences.

While I certainly prefer it to having people die in the ERs because private hospitals are turning them away, it's worth remembering that this is a bad slapped-on fix to a slapped-on fix.

 

[RickStain]

Rick, really, what does happen to the person in the car crash or the 26-year-old who chose not to buy insurance but is now coughing up blood. You gamble, you lose?

Bad things happen. Bad things that I'd like the government to fix.

But that doesn't mean that this specific fix is a good idea. It fixes the problem while causing other ones that I find unacceptable.

 

[Zeke12]

If you think the Constitution shouldn't give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, then, yes, it's poorly written. Perhaps that's what you truly believe. But if you do think Congress should have that power, then you just don't like the way Congress has exercised that power in this case. Bad laws, stupid laws, ineffective laws, laws that force you do to things you might not want to do -- those are not unconstitutional. They're just bad laws. The remedy for them is not amending the Constitution; it's electing people who won't pass bad laws, and who will pass good ones.

We're getting deep, deep into semantics here, but I don't consider "compulsion to actively participate in commerce" to be the same as "regulating commerce."

And you clearly don't know the case law on the subject.

The government, in its role regulating interstate commerce, can take steps necessary to make that regulation effective.

That was Scalia.

 

[Zeke12]

From premiums.

And who pays the premiums of the people who will be forced at gunpoint to buy insurance they can't afford?

If they can't afford it, it's subsidized.

And no one is forced at gunpoint. There's no penalty other than a tax.

 

[bigpern23]

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but why is it such violation of American freedom, such that it is on par with socialism in some way, to be required to have health insurance, yet no one bats an eye at laws requiring insurance on your vehicle?

 

[User 11148]

The government, in its role regulating interstate commerce, can take steps necessary to make that regulation effective.

I think that could be reasonably re-interpreted as, "The government can make anything it does be constitutional so long as whatever is being done is spun under the commerce clause."

 

[User 11148]

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but why is it such violation of American freedom, such that it is on par with socialism in some way, to be required to have health insurance, yet no one bats an eye at laws requiring insurance on your vehicle?

The latter is not required as a condition of being.

 

[Zeke12]

The government, in its role regulating interstate commerce, can take steps necessary to make that regulation effective.

I think that could be reasonably re-interpreted as, "The government can make anything it does be constitutional so long as whatever is being done is spun under the commerce clause."

You can take that up with 60 years of case law, I suppose.

Just don't act like it's new. Wickard v. Filburn was 1942.

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but why is it such violation of American freedom, such that it is on par with socialism in some way, to be required to have health insurance, yet no one bats an eye at laws requiring insurance on your vehicle?

The latter is not required as a condition of being.

Neither is this. The only penalty is imposed via taxes. If you want to live like the Amish, I can assure you, you don't have to have health insurance.

 

[RickStain]

If you think the Constitution shouldn't give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, then, yes, it's poorly written. Perhaps that's what you truly believe. But if you do think Congress should have that power, then you just don't like the way Congress has exercised that power in this case. Bad laws, stupid laws, ineffective laws, laws that force you do to things you might not want to do -- those are not unconstitutional. They're just bad laws. The remedy for them is not amending the Constitution; it's electing people who won't pass bad laws, and who will pass good ones.

We're getting deep, deep into semantics here, but I don't consider "compulsion to actively participate in commerce" to be the same as "regulating commerce."

And you clearly don't know the case law on the subject.

The government, in its role regulating interstate commerce, can take steps necessary to make that regulation effective.

That was Scalia.

I'm familiar with the case law. I think it's a bit murkier than you want to believe, but there is clearly a path by which this can be declared Constitutional.

As you recall, I said "if this isn't unconstitutional, we need a better Constitution." If we aren't protected from our government forcing us to patronize private companies, then that's a flaw in the system. The government shouldn't have the right to compulse economic activity. Compulsion isn't regulation.

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but why is it such violation of American freedom, such that it is on par with socialism in some way, to be required to have health insurance, yet no one bats an eye at laws requiring insurance on your vehicle?

I can only answer this so many times politely. Which is probably fine with everyone, but be forewarned.

Car insurance is a requirement to operate a motor vehicle on roads the government built, maintain and own. It is not a requirement simply for breathing or existing. I can own a car and not buy insurance on it. I can drive my car all day on private property and not put insurance on it. I don't need insurance on it until I put it onto the government roads.

If the government wanted to create a nationwide system of government-owned and operated hospitals, and then required you to have insurance to use them, I wouldn't have a problem with that. That'd be the analogous situation.

If I don't want to buy car insurance, all I have to do is not operate a motor vehicle on government-owned and -operated roads.

If I don't want to buy private health insurance, apparently I have to accept government punishment.

 

[RickStain]

Neither is this. The only penalty is imposed via taxes. If you want to live like the Amish, I can assure you, you don't have to have health insurance.

You are free to do X, as long as you accept the government-imposed penalty, is not freedom. Calling it such a freedom is absurd.

 

[Zeke12]

You don't have to work.

If you have no income, you don't have to file a return. And if you don't have to file a return, you won't be subject to the tax.

Go with God.

 

[Uncle.Ruckus]

I can't wait for the 6-3 or 7-2 ruling to come down so Rick will shut the hell up about it.

 

[Zeke12]

If you think the Constitution shouldn't give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, then, yes, it's poorly written. Perhaps that's what you truly believe. But if you do think Congress should have that power, then you just don't like the way Congress has exercised that power in this case. Bad laws, stupid laws, ineffective laws, laws that force you do to things you might not want to do -- those are not unconstitutional. They're just bad laws. The remedy for them is not amending the Constitution; it's electing people who won't pass bad laws, and who will pass good ones.

We're getting deep, deep into semantics here, but I don't consider "compulsion to actively participate in commerce" to be the same as "regulating commerce."

And you clearly don't know the case law on the subject.

The government, in its role regulating interstate commerce, can take steps necessary to make that regulation effective.

That was Scalia.

I'm familiar with the case law. I think it's a bit murkier than you want to believe, but there is clearly a path by which this can be declared Constitutional.

As you recall, I said "if this isn't unconstitutional, we need a better Constitution." If we aren't protected from our government forcing us to patronize private companies, then that's a flaw in the system. The government shouldn't have the right to compulse economic activity. Compulsion isn't regulation.

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but why is it such violation of American freedom, such that it is on par with socialism in some way, to be required to have health insurance, yet no one bats an eye at laws requiring insurance on your vehicle?

I can only answer this so many times politely. Which is probably fine with everyone, but be forewarned.

Car insurance is a requirement to operate a motor vehicle on roads the government built, maintain and own. It is not a requirement simply for breathing or existing. I can own a car and not buy insurance on it. I can drive my car all day on private property and not put insurance on it. I don't need insurance on it until I put it onto the government roads.

If the government wanted to create a nationwide system of government-owned and operated hospitals, and then required you to have insurance to use them, I wouldn't have a problem with that. That'd be the analogous situation.

If I don't want to buy car insurance, all I have to do is not operate a motor vehicle on government-owned and -operated roads.

If I don't want to buy private health insurance, apparently I have to accept government punishment.

Thing is, though, you don't.

Wickard v. Filburn. The government had a compelling interest in stabilizing the cost of wheat. And the SC ruled that they could prevent Filburn from growing wheat for his own personal use -- thus compelling him to purchase wheat on the open market.

 

[User 11148]

The government, in its role regulating interstate commerce, can take steps necessary to make that regulation effective.

I think that could be reasonably re-interpreted as, "The government can make anything it does be constitutional so long as whatever is being done is spun under the commerce clause."

You can take that up with 60 years of case law, I suppose.

Just don't act like it's new. Wickard v. Filburn was 1942.

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but why is it such violation of American freedom, such that it is on par with socialism in some way, to be required to have health insurance, yet no one bats an eye at laws requiring insurance on your vehicle?

The latter is not required as a condition of being.

Neither is this. The only penalty is imposed via taxes. If you want to live like the Amish, I can assure you, you don't have to have health insurance.

I think you misrepresented what Scalia argued -- his argument starts with the assumption that there is a constitutionally permissible interstate commerce regulation. Only given such, he argues, makes regulation of intra-state, non-economic activity constitutionally permissible. At least that was the way I read it.

And I didn't say you had to have health insurance. But if you want to live like the Amish and not have health insurance, you'll have to pay an additional tax.