US Supreme Court upholds individual mandate, ObamaCare survives

[Fan Railer]

I think the ideal system would be similar to Brazil's. We should have a normal national health care covering everyone in the United States and then we will have premium health care for people that are willing to pay higher taxes, and for people that doesn't just want normal health care. That would work out pretty well and it would solve the worries of the conservatives while appeasing the liberals at the same time.

 

Define normal healthcare. Is it privately owned and run? Because if it is, then I would say that THAT would be the premium healthcare. What you're calling premium healthcare would be the government provided healthcare system that would be funded completely by tax dollars.

 

To be honest, the only real issue with the ins and outs of this legislation is the individual mandate.

[Shortline Bus]

Well a mandate is not the answer.

 

 

That i agree. Obamacare should not forece every American to pay a tax. Hell much smaller countries population-wise such as Britian and Canada, many of their residents are ticked at the high taxes to pay for their national health care costs.

 

While health care is hugely important it's not a top need to tax for say the miltary(some may argue on that), police/public safety, basic infrastructure (i.e highway/mass transit upgrade)and education for students under age 18.

 

With that said, prior to the ongoing recession (pre 2009) the # 1 cause of American families declaring bankrucpty is health care. God forbid a loved one getting cancer, etc.. As someone who has lost relatives and close friends to cancer, that why i am not so upset at Obama trying to fix the problem. Just a forced tax i agree with VG8 is not the answer. Especially if i have to pay a tax on health care when i already pay alot for a private HMO. Just my takes.

 

I admit i don't have the answers either on solving this crisis. Ideally every legal American citizen should have basic health care as does the right for parents to send their kids to school through age 18 or grade 12 whatever comes 1st. The state and federal governments were losing Billions a year in health care before Obama care.

[Roadcruiser1]

Define normal healthcare. Is it privately owned and run? Because if it is, then I would say that THAT would be the premium healthcare. What you're calling premium healthcare would be the government provided healthcare system that would be funded completely by tax dollars.

 

To be honest, the only real issue with the ins and outs of this legislation is the individual mandate.

 

 

A combination of both private and public interests. That is what most other nations do.

[7LineFan]

Just a forced tax i agree with VG8 is not the answer. Especially if i have to pay a tax on health care when i already pay alot for a private HMO.

 

That's supposedly not how it's going to work, from what I understand from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion piece, The tax will only be paid if one does not have health insurance. People can choose either to buy a plan, or to pay the tax, the amount of which would be based on income but never more than an "average" plan.

 

I'm not giving any opinion on this, just restating what I read.

[Phantom909]

This is the issue I have with conservative policies. Our spiral down this economic nightmare began with the deregulatory policies of the Reagan administration, as well as the lowering of taxes on the extremely wealthy, also started by the same administration. Before then, everything was working fine and dandy, with the occasional mini-recession followed by stable growth. Then some conservative nuts in the government decided to deregulate banks of all entities, and allow them to squander capital like it was sand on the beach. And look where that has lead us?

 

 

uh the banks were deregulated in 1999 by president clinton, under the urging of his secretary of HUD, andrew cuomo. clinton repealed the glass-steagall act of 1933 which regulated banks. that act forbid, investment banks from engaging in risky sub prime mortgages. most economists point to that repeal as the biggest cause of the financial collapse.

 

now for my take on the scotus decision. i said in the other thread about the top 10 presidents how FDR lied to the american people about social security being insurence, but when argued to the supreme court, it suddenly became a tax. what a coincidence, justice roberts said that its a tax, after obama, pelosi, reid, and every other supporter of the ACA said it wasnt one. now the government can levy taxes on any and all income on an individual, but i dont see anywhere in the 16th ammendment, the power of government to collect taxes on inactivity. that is very problematic to me. im troubled by roberts and the majority calling it a tax in one part of the decision, a penalty in another, and "acts like a tax" in another, which is it?

 

What also troubles me is that this decision, can now forever be used as precedent in future cases, so the next time the government decides it wants you to buy something else they will use this as a springboard. This decision has fundamentally changed the relationship of the individual, and the government, which the framers never intended, its a sad day for america.

 

now for what should be done with it, it must be repealed, and replaced with something that takes in some parts of the ACA, like coverage for pre existing conditions, no lifetime limit on benefits, and kids covered to 26, but there were other proposals that were made before which pelosi and reid refused to listen to when this bill was being crafted.

 

1. allowing people to pick what kind of coverage they want. All health insurance providers must be licensed in each state, and must offer approved plans that each state mandates. My insurance that I pay for covers me for pap smears, why since im a guy, should i have to pay for it? That drives up the cost. Let especially young adults just get catastrophic coverage, and let them add on in later years as they feel they need.

 

2. As a New York State resident, I must buy a New York State approved policy, if they allowed us to buy what coverage we want, from any provider, it would increase competition which would bring down prices.

 

3. TORT Reform. basically a cap on lawsuits, unless you can prove the doctor screwed you up on purpose. Doctors are humans, they make mistakes, but because they left a sponge in you during an operation, you dont deserve a $10,000,000 settlement. Besides the high cost of medical school for physicians, but the next highest expense they have is malpractice insurance. I know a guy who`s dad is a neuro surgeon, he moved his practice from New York City to Birmingham , aL 13 years ago beecause he pays $500,000 a year less in malpractice insurance in Alabama than New York

 

There are 3 starters to work with

 

Now for those ho say Romney instituted RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Yes he did, but the individual mandate in Massachusetts is not Barred by the Constitution, it is allowed under the 10th Ammendment, so Romneys point about the mandate being unconstitutional to the federal government is correct.

 

Now for the illegal immigrant impact on health costs. The solution is very simple, if an illegal goes to a hospital, we treat him, and when he is well enough to leave, we put him on a plane back to his country and bill that country for the cost. And if that country refuses to pay it, since we basically give every country on Earth financial aid, we deduct that cost from what we give them. Problem solved

 

Joe

[Roadcruiser1]

I think the best way to solve this problem is to again have a combination of both public and private operators for national health care. That way we won't have to pay that much for universal health care.

[Fan Railer]

uh the banks were deregulated in 1999 by president clinton, under the urging of his secretary of HUD, andrew cuomo. clinton repealed the glass-steagall act of 1933 which regulated banks. that act forbid, investment banks from engaging in risky sub prime mortgages. most economists point to that repeal as the biggest cause of the financial collapse.

 

now for my take on the scotus decision. i said in the other thread about the top 10 presidents how FDR lied to the american people about social security being insurence, but when argued to the supreme court, it suddenly became a tax. what a coincidence, justice roberts said that its a tax, after obama, pelosi, reid, and every other supporter of the ACA said it wasnt one. now the government can levy taxes on any and all income on an individual, but i dont see anywhere in the 16th ammendment, the power of government to collect taxes on inactivity. that is very problematic to me. im troubled by roberts and the majority calling it a tax in one part of the decision, a penalty in another, and "acts like a tax" in another, which is it?

 

What also troubles me is that this decision, can now forever be used as precedent in future cases, so the next time the government decides it wants you to buy something else they will use this as a springboard. This decision has fundamentally changed the relationship of the individual, and the government, which the framers never intended, its a sad day for america.

 

now for what should be done with it, it must be repealed, and replaced with something that takes in some parts of the ACA, like coverage for pre existing conditions, no lifetime limit on benefits, and kids covered to 26, but there were other proposals that were made before which pelosi and reid refused to listen to when this bill was being crafted.

 

1. allowing people to pick what kind of coverage they want. All health insurance providers must be licensed in each state, and must offer approved plans that each state mandates. My insurance that I pay for covers me for pap smears, why since im a guy, should i have to pay for it? That drives up the cost. Let especially young adults just get catastrophic coverage, and let them add on in later years as they feel they need.

 

2. As a New York State resident, I must buy a New York State approved policy, if they allowed us to buy what coverage we want, from any provider, it would increase competition which would bring down prices.

 

3. TORT Reform. basically a cap on lawsuits, unless you can prove the doctor screwed you up on purpose. Doctors are humans, they make mistakes, but because they left a sponge in you during an operation, you dont deserve a $10,000,000 settlement. Besides the high cost of medical school for physicians, but the next highest expense they have is malpractice insurance. I know a guy who`s dad is a neuro surgeon, he moved his practice from New York City to Birmingham , aL 13 years ago beecause he pays $500,000 a year less in malpractice insurance in Alabama than New York

 

There are 3 starters to work with

 

Now for those ho say Romney instituted RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Yes he did, but the individual mandate in Massachusetts is not Barred by the Constitution, it is allowed under the 10th Ammendment, so Romneys point about the mandate being unconstitutional to the federal government is correct.

 

Now for the illegal immigrant impact on health costs. The solution is very simple, if an illegal goes to a hospital, we treat him, and when he is well enough to leave, we put him on a plane back to his country and bill that country for the cost. And if that country refuses to pay it, since we basically give every country on Earth financial aid, we deduct that cost from what we give them. Problem solved

 

Joe

 

One, Clinton specifically deregulated the banks, yes. But who was in control of the house during his administration? Exactly. A democratic president may have been the figurehead of deregulating banks, but he was still heavily influenced by conservative political interests in the legislative branch.

 

Two, I agree with everything you said up until the Tort Reform comment. You'll have to explain to me, and the rest of us more specifically what you believes constitutes an unreasonable settlement. I will agree that there are certain lawsuits that are completely frivolous, and those are the ones that should be stopped, and most of them are. But at the same time, current legislation and caps on punitive and other damages are too broad in their language and coverage. There are certain lawsuits that completely deserve the amount that the jury awards to the plaintiff, but the existence of a cap that they may not know about prior can jeopardize the economic futures.

 

^That is another issue that I have with conservative policy. It is too overarching. You can't take a situation, and then lump every single friggin' person under it and bind them to certain "contractual" obligations and laws. Every situation is a case to case basis, and so why should this broad legislative effort carried out by our countries top conservatives be the judge of whether or not someone deserves to be compensated? A more specific solution is needed here, not just a broad cap on the issue.

[VWM]

People are calling Obama a socialist but some programs that the U.S. has had for years are very "socialist" (i.e. medicaid/care)

[MTARegional Bus]

Some people in the 1930 didn't like social security when it was first introduced ,frances perkins say that "Isn't this socialism? now look at it.it has become the most popular government program, in will be the same way with obamacare. people with hate it at first but will love it years later lol.

[Joe]

Social Security is hardly the most popular government program. Especially for those of us that won't get a damned thing out of it.

 

Now EBT on the other hand, that's very popular. Free money in exchange for not having a job? How could you say no?

[Fan Railer]

People are calling Obama a socialist but some programs that the U.S. has had for years are very "socialist" (i.e. medicaid/care)

 

Whoever is calling Obama a socialist needs to read up on what real socialism is. Don't just take what conservative politicians and conservative media spit out at you and then internalize it as fact. People really need to learn to think for themselves and do their own research.

[lilbluefoxie]

the big question now is, how is this going to affect the November elections?

[Phantom909]

One, Clinton specifically deregulated the banks, yes. But who was in control of the house during his administration? Exactly. A democratic president may have been the figurehead of deregulating banks, but he was still heavily influenced by conservative political interests in the legislative branch.

 

Two, I agree with everything you said up until the Tort Reform comment. You'll have to explain to me, and the rest of us more specifically what you believes constitutes an unreasonable settlement. I will agree that there are certain lawsuits that are completely frivolous, and those are the ones that should be stopped, and most of them are. But at the same time, current legislation and caps on punitive and other damages are too broad in their language and coverage. There are certain lawsuits that completely deserve the amount that the jury awards to the plaintiff, but the existence of a cap that they may not know about prior can jeopardize the economic futures.

 

^That is another issue that I have with conservative policy. It is too overarching. You can't take a situation, and then lump every single friggin' person under it and bind them to certain "contractual" obligations and laws. Every situation is a case to case basis, and so why should this broad legislative effort carried out by our countries top conservatives be the judge of whether or not someone deserves to be compensated? A more specific solution is needed here, not just a broad cap on the issue.

 

 

you first stated reagan did it, i pointed out that it was really clinton, so you change your tune and say it was because of the republican congress. so let me give you a little history lesson.

 

the beginning of the housing collapse started in 1977 when president carter visited charlotte street in the south bronx. that area was full of empty lots and burned out and abandoned buildings. carter vowed to rebuild it. he went back to washington and pushed congress to pass his community re investment act. one of the provisions of the bill was to force banks to stop using red lining which they used to not give out loans to people in a certain red lined area because the residents did not meet the financial requirements to get a home loan. carters treasury department threatened to not approve new branches for banks if they did not give out a specified amount of loans in red lined districts. the banks complied and took some "acceptable" losses.

 

during the reagan and bush 41 terms, neither enforced the community re investment act as vehemently as carter did

 

when clinton took over he wanted to expand home ownership. google

 

National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream – 1995,

 

that was clintons plan, to help him achieve this goal he went back to carters way by using his attorney general janet reno to pressure banks to make these loans. banks were now really losing money on these loans, in 1998 citicorp acquired travelers which was a violation of glass-steagall, the federal reserve gave them a one year waiver. banks wanted to repeal glass-steagall so they can sell off these toxic loans, they lobbied both republicans and democrats, HUD secretary andrew cuomo wanted it also, so in 1999, congress passed in a bi-partisan vote the gramm-leach-bliley act which would repeal and replace glass steagall. the house vote was 343-86, republicans voted for it by a 205-16 nargin, democrats voted for it by a 138-69 margin, the lone independent voted against it. the senate passed it by a 54-44 margin, all 53 republicans and one democrat voted for it while 44 democrats opposed it. when it reached clintons desk, he wanted to strengthen it so it went back to committee, provisions added and another vote was taken, this time it was passed by the house 362-57 and the senate passed it 90-8. clinton signed the law on nov 12, 1999. so as you can see this was bi-partisan, youre welcome.

 

now for my TORT reform suggestion. if you read what i said, i pointed out that unless you can prove the doctor screwed you up on purpose, then a minor mistake should not be like hitting the powerball. too many frivolous lawsuits get to court and the judgements that are paid out are paid by the insurance companies. if a mega million settlement is awarded for something that is a minor incident we all pay it in increased premiums and possible denial of care to others. is that fair?

 

joe

[Phantom909]

Whoever is calling Obama a socialist needs to read up on what real socialism is. Don't just take what conservative politicians and conservative media spit out at you and then internalize it as fact. People really need to learn to think for themselves and do their own research.

 

 

there are different degrees of socialism. but what all socialism, communism, facism, naziism etc all have one thing in common, they all value the state over the individual. capitalism, values the individual over the state, obamacare is an assoult on the individual`s freedom of choice. if you read the quote that norman thomas (6 time presidential candidate for the socialist party of america) that i pointed out in the thread about the 10 best us presidents. thomas said

 

""the American people will never knowingly adopt socialism,but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened"

 

the decision by the supreme court on thursday pushed us closer to the abyss of mr thomas` prophecy. therefore i would consider president obama a european socialist at best. he believes that the government masterminds, which he is the top mastermind, knows whats best for all the individuals in the country. that is what is overreaching since this country was not founded that way.

 

joe

[Roadcruiser1]

There is nothing wrong with Socialism. Socialism doesn't equal Communism. If anything arguments should be directed at Communism not at Socialism.

[Shortline Bus]

There is nothing wrong with Socialism. Socialism doesn't equal Communism. If anything arguments should be directed at Communism not at Socialism.

 

 

Dont say that to Tea Party members and ultra consertatives like Congressman Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, Rush, Hannity and others in that elk either. lol

[Tokkemon]

American culture and ideals are inherently anti-Socialist though. It is all about the individual here, about the liberties and entrepreneurial spirit of what one does for himself, not for the country as a whole. That's why a national health care system won't work like one in Canada or Germany (for instance) will work. Everything is about what *I* make, not what I can do for my fellow man. This is capitalism at its finest.

[Phantom909]

There is nothing wrong with Socialism. Socialism doesn't equal Communism. If anything arguments should be directed at Communism not at Socialism.

 

 

and people disagree with me when i say the education system in this country doesnt teach, it indoctrinates. so you would rather live under masterminds to control you? why do you put such faith in these self proclaimed geniuses because they have a piece of paper from some university that teaches the evils of capitalism, yet uses capitalism to charge students every dime they can? kind of hypocritical dont you think?

 

every type of society, in theory, is perfect when its applied to a perfect populace, unfortunatelly as i have pointed out many times before, humans are IMPERFECT, therefore no society that is run by humans can ever be perfect. thats not theory, thats the real world. when you centralize power among the few, they will abuse that power and do whatever it takes to keep them there. it has been proven throughout history. the framers knew this that is why they limited the powers of the federal government and gave more power to state and local governments. those powers have been eroded over the last 100 years by these so called masterminds taking more and more power from the states, and freedoms from the people.. that is why we have socialist programs like social security, medicaid, medicare, and now obamacare.Here are 2 of my favorite Thomas Jefferson qoutes:

 

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

 

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

 

2 very strong rebukes against any type of tyrannical society written 200 years ago. if you want socialism, ill just say one thing, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it

 

joe

[Phantom909]

Dont say that to Tea Party members and ultra consertatives like Congressman Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, Rush, Hannity and others in that elk either. lol

 

 

i am not a member of the tea party, but they are 1000% correct on one thing, the out of control spending by government. explain to me how if the federal government takes in $2.3 trillion dollars in revenue, yet it spends $3.6 trillion dollars, how is that sustainable?

 

as i have stated before in other threads on january 20, 2001 when bush took power, the total accumulated national debt, from george washington to bill clinton was $5.6 trillion dollars. on January 20, 2009 when obama took power the debt stood at $10.4 trillion. Bush added $4.8 trillion over 8 years or $600 billion a year on average. today as i type this, the debt stands at $15,8 trillion dollars, so obama has added $5.4 trillion over 41 months or an average of $1.5 trillion per year. obama during his 2008 campaign, obama called bush`s spending "unpatriotic" what would you call obama`s spending?

 

Contrary to the Kensian economic philosophy, there is a very pertinent statement.

 

"You cant spend your way out of a recession, and you cant borrow your way out of debt"

 

this government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar today. explain to me how this is good economic practice.

 

Explain to me how its fair that because of the reckless spending of the government, your, mine, and every american alive today, including a baby born 2 minutes ago, share of the debt is $50,418. This explosion of debt over the last 11 years is the fault of my generation, and it pisses me off. This debt will be passed onto future generations is that fair?

 

we have to start paying it down, both with tax increases on everybody plus massive spending cuts or one day we will be bankrupt and there will be rioting in the streets like they have in Europe now.

 

Joe

[GojiMet86]

If the local and state governments were always more powerful than the Federal government, the Southern states would have kept their racist laws. You do realize that, right?

 

And frankly, this is the same Thomas Jefferson who wanted the American economy to be based on farming, not industry. Which type of economy won out?

[Phantom909]

If the local and state governments were always more powerful than the Federal government, the Southern states would have kept their racist laws. You do realize that, right?

 

And frankly, this is the same Thomas Jefferson who wanted the American economy to be based on farming, not industry. Which type of economy won out?

 

 

if you read what i said my point was the framers did not want power centralized, the reason being local governments would know better what the local populace needed. It also would not allow a few people in the federal government could dictate to the whole country. Slavery and segregation were abominations, and it took too long for them to be rectified. but if you had an all powerful federal government, they mightve abolished it, but they also couldve forced slavery and segregation in all states. think about that for a moment.

 

during jeffersons lifespan, we were a farming country, there was no real industry to speak of, but im sure if jefferson were alive today, he would not have that view

 

joe

[Roadcruiser1]

I didn't say that I wanted Socialism now did I? I only said that Socialism isn't all that bad. There are some good ideas in it we could use. Not just that I am against the abuse of power. Look at what happens in North Korea. North Korea is a good example of a government that has complete control of everything and it's people. The people there have no rights, and their rights are being violated by one party which has complete control of everything. I don't want this to happen to the United States. Never do I want to see this, but that doesn't mean we can't just say all of Socialism is bad. Again things like universal health care, and medicare are Socialist yet I don't see it hurting anyone. Do you? I will let you see my point of view.

[Threxx]

Well then...

 

I agree with the ruling. The mandate is but a tax, if you think about it, and there is a way to avoid this tax: buy health care.

 

As for illegal immigrants, no one complains when they are doing the jobs you don't want to do. Don't make me give examples...

[Phantom909]

I didn't say that I wanted Socialism now did I? I only said that Socialism isn't all that bad. There are some good ideas in it we could use. Not just that I am against the abuse of power. Look at what happens in North Korea. North Korea is a good example of a government that has complete control of everything and it's people. The people there have no rights, and their rights are being violated by one party which has complete control of everything. I don't want this to happen to the United States. Never do I want to see this, but that doesn't mean we can't just say all of Socialism is bad. Again things like universal health care, and medicare are Socialist yet I don't see it hurting anyone. Do you? I will let you see my point of view.

 

 

no, you first said that there is nothing wrong with socialism, now you say it isnt that bad, which is it?

 

you dont see that universal healthcare and medicare isnt hurting anyone. here are some figures on that

 

social security is $15.7 trillion dollars in the red in unfunded liabilities. The Social Security head actuary has said that it will be insolvent in 2026. they are already talking about raising the eligibility age to anywhere from 67-70. I will be 69 in 2026, so after a lifetime of working and having money taken from my check for 50 years, the money will be gone? How does that not hurt/

 

medicare is $82.9 trillion in the red in unfunded liabilities.it will be insolvent by 2024 if major changes are not made. again just when im eligible.

 

obamacare`s cbo score was just raised from costing $940 billion to $1.76 trillion

 

Do you see a pattern here? While all these programs are noble in purpose, they are full of fraud and waste perpertrated by the temporary politician masterminds who have pillaged them. Government creates only one thing really well, DEBT, but the problem is that WE end up paying for it.

 

 

Joe

[Fan Railer]

I was being general with my first response about deregulation. If you had read it more carefully, I never attributed deregulation of banks themselves to Reagan. I only said that the cascade of deregulatory policy started around the same time as his administration was in office.