Liberal legislation from the bench again. Just read the Constitution. General Welfare clause my A*s. Whats to prevent the Fed from telling us we need to buy any other product it thinks is good for us or profitable for one of their contributors to their campaigns. This is total hog wash and obviously not constitutional.
Come on Sarah, if you didn’t read the opinion and know nothing about the judge, how can you say it’s “Liberal legislation from the bench”?
Yours is the typical response from soomeone who doesn’t like the result.
OK, time to check facts: The judge who wrote the opinion, Laurence Silberman, was appointed by Ronald Reagan and he’s a close personal friend of Clarence Thomas.
If the law was so obviously unconstitutional, why have two U.S. Circuit Courts said that it is Constitutional? Two have said it is and two have said it’s not. Seems to me like a really close question.
More about Judge Silberman…he worked for Nixon for several years before being appointed by Ford as Ambassador to Yugoslavia. Reagan then appointed him to the DC Circuit. He was on Bush Sr’s short list to be nominated to the Supreme Court. This guy is as conservative as you get.
Mandating that we have to buy a product or service is hardly promoting the General Welfare Clause. These Progressive Liberals think they have to regulat and control every aspect of our lives. We have had enough of their control and regulation. It has basically bankrupted our country and Obamacare will put the final nail in the coffin. Has anyone seen their health premiums going down since this law was passed. It is not uncommon to see 15% increases on Individual and Group policies. How is this reducing the cost for us?
What makes you think the judges that sit on any bench understand or even follow the constitution in their court?
The current interpretaion of the commerce clause is a farce. It is based on an “educated class” trying to control the masses through central planning which is in direct opposition to the constitution. This country was founded on individual liberties given to us by our creator not man. It was not founded on a central government telling us what our liberties are and what we are required to buy to be considered a citizen in good standing with the ruling class.
This is a tough issue as both sides have valid points. However it seems like the majority of Americans do not want the bill. The bill (or just the individual mandate) should be scrapped on that merit alone.
My opinion… scrap the mandate and get back to the drawing board. The government rushed this through with barely any support. Health care needs to be looked at, we get it… but lets do it right.
Freedom is our best (and probably only) great export. America has thrived on freedom and the absence of gov’t interference. This bill (regardless of its “good intentions”) will take away some of our freedom. This too is merit for scrapping the bill.
Yes, it will take away your “freedom” to freeload off the rest of us who have insurance. Because that’s really what opponents are saying…they want the freedom to go without insurance if they so choose. But making that choice costs the rest of us who have insurance because when those without insurance go to the emergency those uninsured costs re passed along to those of us that have insurance.
Let’s not forget that the mandate was a Republican idea, and if you watched the Republican debates you saw Newt Gingrich admit that the mandate was a Republican idea. Only after Obama said “yeah, we can do that” did Republicans change their tune.
The bill was not “rushed” through. It was debated for over a year.
As Stephen Colbert put it as he mocked those who opposed the mandate:
“[The government] can only tax you, draft you, sieze and sell your property, arrest you, incarcerate you and execute you,”
But God forbid it make you purchase an insurance policy! Now they’ve crossed the line!
I think TOPOV hit the nail on the head. All the mandate does is force those people who have supposedly “chosen” to not carry health insurance to be personally responsible. I thought conservatives have always been touting about holding people personally responsible? Now that it’s in writing, now they think it’s an infringement of their freedom? If anything is, that’s the real hogwash.
Whether people similar to Sarah like it or not, we, the majority are already paying for those that have supposedly “chosen” to be irresponsible when they get ill and have to go to the ER because they don’t have insurance.
And I’m sorry, Carrier, but health care is only a privilege in 3rd world countries, not the USA. And that’s only because they haven’t advanced enough socially or technologically to handle their citizens’ basic needs, requiring foreign support to assist them. But, then again, this isn’t the government hiring doctors, rationing your health care, this is still the same system, just expanding the premium pool, which is good for the policyholders and the insurance companies.
The minute you “force” someone to be responsible, they are then no longer acting responsibly. They are only doing what is deemed responsible because they are obligated to.
So the simple solution would be to require the individual seeking treatment be responsible for the cost of services prior to treatment. This would completely alleviate the freeloading without forcing any arbitrary mandates on the majority of the population. If they have chosen to forgo insurance and can’t pay cash then they’ll need to set up a payment plan, offer up collateral, etc. with the hospital. If they have a history of payment issues then services could/should be denied. It’s a bit cold-hearted and doesn’t quite fit in with the touchy feely times we live in but people need to get back to understanding that personal choices actually have consequences. If this was the case costs would drop like a rock because patients/customers would actually pay attention to the cost and benefits of their healthcare dollars.
wow- where is the humanity. but of course you have stupidity in spades- don’t you get it, the penalty would be the consequence for not carrying medical insurance…..
Give me a break. I can see it now. A woman is walking down the street and is mugged, robbed and then shot and left for dead. She’s bleeding and needs immediate emegency room care or she will die. The ambulance comes and before they load her onto the guerney, they ask her. “Hey lady, before we take you to the E.R., could you please provide us with proof of insurance?”
Your solution is typical of the radical Republicans as evidenced by the question posed to Ron Paul at the second debate: LET THEM DIE!!!!
TOPOV – I think you are getting a little radical here. Of course there needs to be exceptions, especially in the event of a crime, terrorist attack, domestic abuse, etc.
The only thing radical is telling people that if they can’t pay for healthcare, they should just simply die. We’re better than that. We’re more decent than that.
November 8, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Carrier says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, people will die.
And here is a little fact for you TOPOV… at some point everyone will die. I know it is hard to imagine given our entitlement society.
But really… how long is everyone entitled to live? Until we all can live within our means (including our government), some will need to go without life preserving care. It has nothing to do with decency – it’s just nature.
November 10, 2011 at 5:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
On one side you say rebublicans put something in force for us not to die, and complain that makes people irresponsible and not get insurance (the emergency care regardless of ability to pay) and on the other you say they want people to die.
OPV: You’re trying to create contradictions to make up for the fact that you don’t have a solid debate ground. Spotting a contradiction, or inconsistency (as I just did to you) does not make a solid argument when you yourself have inconsistencies. Just some thoughts.
“The bill was not “rushed” through. It was debated for over a year.” What the blazes? Hillary had this government run healthcare plan all figured out when Bill was in office. Do you really think that they could have come up with this all in one year? Owebama had this all figured out before he got in office? Hillary had it all worked out, but it never got implemented and it finally got rushed – pushed – slammed – what ever adjective you want to use – down our throats once Owebama got into office.
Are you even listening to yourself? Not rushed through?! Are you serious? What ever happened to “transparency”? Wasn’t the whole debate supposed to be on CSPAN? Or right, it finally made it to CPSPAN after the Democrats got called to the carpet on it… transparency – what a joke!
Do you not remember Pelosi saying “WE HAVE TO PASS IT TO FIND OUT WHATS IN IT.” And does anyone here know exactly what IS in it?
This bill was shoved down our throats and YOU know it OPOV. There’s no other point of view – the only point of view you have is (and I am quoting you here) yours is the typical response from someone who doesn’t like the result. Hence, your own point of view.
No we do not like the end result – and you’re not going to either once we all have socialized healthcare – look what has happened in Europe.. The same exact thing is going to happen here if this goes through.
Not shoved down are throats – what planet are you on?
Premiums are on the rise and they are going to be astronomically higher when all the chips fall into place. I worked in the healthcare industry so I speak from experience. I saw the writing on the wall a long time ago. Companies are willing not to insure their employees because the FINE they are going to have to pay is less the insurance premium they would be paying to have their employees covered. But not to worry, I am confident that this money won’t be going to the government. It will be used to keep the premiums down for the people who can afford this “affordable healthcare”. Like you and I.
Do you not remember Pelosi saying “WE HAVE TO PASS IT TO FIND OUT WHATS IN IT.” And does anyone here know exactly what IS in it?
This is one of the most misleading things bandied about by Republicans. If you watch the speech she gave, that’s not exactly what she said. She said “”But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
To understand what she meant by that you have to listen to her speech. In context, what she was saying was “when we pass the bill, you’ll see the benefits.” You have to listen to the whole speech, not the 3 second soundbite plucked from the middle of it.
Yes, the bill was debated for a year. Don’t you remember the debates over whether there should be a public option? And the compromises that eventually led to the mandate because even Republicans supported the mandate?
No, it was not shoved down our throats. It was voted on by a majority of Congress after a year of debate.
Do you really think the law was soe secret document that Obama forced members of Congress to agree to sight unseen? You can pick up your tin foil hat on your way out.
Do you really think the law was soe secret document that Obama forced members of Congress to agree to sight unseen?
As a matter of fact, I do!
Geese, I cannot wait till 2012 and I pray God as my witness the Owebama is out of office and hopefully we can pull ourselves out of this catastrophe he has made this country from our healthcare on down. And I do mean down. Oh, except for the deficit which he actually tripled so I guess something at least went up.
Well then you simply were not paying attention. Here’s a little of the history of the bill’s passage taken from Wikipedia. Note that if this was some secret law that Obama created and forced everyone to sign, then how do you explain all the amendments to the bil the Republicans tried to tack on?
The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 29, 2009 and referred to several Committees for consideration.
On November 6, 2009, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce was discharged. The House Committee on Rules introduced House Resolution 903 (H.Res. 903) along with a Committee Report, No. 111-330. The Committee Report detailed the amendments considered as adopted if and when the bill passed the full House in Parts A & B, it provided the Stupak–Pitts Amendment for consideration in Part C as well as the Boehner Amendment, a substitute for the bill, in Part D. The House Resolution outlined the process to be followed for Parts A thru D in relation to H.R. 3962 and set the rules for debating the proposed bill.
The following day, House Resolution 903 was voted on and passed.[19] This, in effect, added the amendments outlined in Rules Committee Report No. 111-330, Parts A & B, to H.R. 3962. Part C, the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, was brought up, considered and passed.[20][21] Part D, the Boehner Substitute Amendment, was then brought up, considered but failed passage.[22][23]
The newly amended bill eventually passed the House of Representatives at 11:19 PM EST on Saturday, November 7, 2009 by a vote of 220-215. The bill passed with support of the majority of Democrats, together with one Republican who voted only after the necessary 218 votes had already been cast. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill. All members of the House voted, and none voted “present”.[24]
Both before and after passage in the House, significant controversy surrounded the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, added to the bill to prohibit coverage of abortions – with limited exceptions – in the public option or in any of the exchange’s private plans sold to customers receiving federal subsidies. In mid-November, it was reported that 40 House Democrats said they will not support a final bill containing the Amendment’s provisions.[25] Stupak has said that 15–20 Democrats will oppose adoption of the Senate bill because of objections to its abortion provisions as well as its tax on high-value health insurance plans.[26][27] In March 2010, Stupak voted for the Senate language health care bill excluding the Stupak Amendment language.
No
November 8, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wikipedia? This IS your source? Wikipedia?
November 8, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, Other, we know that the President made nearly 40 speeches trying to sell this monstrocity to the American People and it didn’t sell so he decided to ram it down our throats with backroom deals and pass it in the dead of night without anyone reading it. The Blue Dogs were forced to vote on it and paid the ultimate price with their political careers in Nov 10. This bill ended up being our worst nightmare and needs to be overturned by either the Congress and new President or the Supreme Court whichever comes first.
So then Youngin…Conservatives are for Healthcare? A conservative judge may have ruled in favor (and pointing that out means nothing) but this is a liberal movement. Sarah was completely accurate in her statement of “liberals”. It was a liberal decision. Or do you believe that George W would have put forth this bill?
*smacks forehead*
You have facts, but your connect the dots skills are horrible. My father speaks of it like this: These days my kids who intern are math wizards, they do the engineering equations for our products (he’s an engineer, worked as upper management in space labs medical and now for fluke, so this is real world experience youngin, what do you have?) but they can’t think past a calculator and what they believe is relevant facts, which are completely useless. Then I whip out my whiteboard, and I solve the problem conceptually first, followed by mathmetically.
Concepts first Youngin. Statstics second to apply to the first.
Also: I noticed you labeled conservaties as old white men. You must have missed that Blacks and Hispanics represent the largest section of the population that identify themselves as conservative. They just vote democrat. Go to rasmussen and look at some polling. So then I must assume if you did know that (which I’m betting you didn’t) you must be as a child, stating I know more than my father? How often is that accurate? More republicans are old. Excellent point Youngin. I agree. And more of them know more than you. I agree there too.
Actually, what I said was
“insurance journal is mostly read by old white people”,
the implication being that old white people tend to be conservative, not the other way around.
The rest of your post was difficult to follow, so I’m not sure how to respond to it.
It’s a little frustrating to constantly be called a liberal on this board. I’m not sure what I have in common with liberals, other than the fact that I recognize not all issues can be distilled to a sound byte, not all issues are cut and dry, and the willingness to compromise is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of strength.
I am astounded you missed that I caught your conservative implication. I directed a multitude of issues:
Number one: Blacks and Hispanics agree with conservative ideals. Though they vote democrat, they have conservative beliefs. Don’
t use the words “conservative old white man” when in fact, there are less conservative white men than both black and hispanics. It’s just ridiculous. The fact that you don’t know the difference is ridiculous as well. I was saying you missed your demographics and don’t know what you’re talking about.
Number two: I stated your statistics miss and lack concept. You accused Sarah of not arguing with facts. She bluntly said this was a liberal movement. You said a conservative judge made (part of) the ruling and therefore it totally wasn’t. Just look up the statistics of what percentage of liberals vs conservatives agree with the healthcare movement. It was not just that judge. She called it a liberal movement (poorly worded) and it is conceptually. Therefore your retort usage was ludicrous. Were you honestly trying to argue that a conservative majority would pass a liberal bill? Or maybe this was not a liberal movement? So then her concept was accurate, and your statistic was irrelevant by default and didn’t need to be stated at all other than being youthful, rebellious, and stark.
Regarding my father’s story: Kids walk in, say here’s the math, and then an older person says, think of how you want it to work before you do the math. Then apply the math son. Think about it after you get older you’ll get it.
Look at JB’s post as an excellent example of this theory.
November 11, 2011 at 7:17 am
youngin' says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, you are consistently misquoting me and saying I said things which I never said. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster. Either way, I can’t argue with someone who doesn’t have basic reading comprehension skills. I am done.
November 11, 2011 at 12:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nope. Didn’t confuse you with anyone else. Before insulting my “comprehension” skills perhaps you should read your own post, and re-read mine. Pot, meet kettle. Now then: You clearly are lying below (as you agree with most of OPV’s posts, who is in fact a liberal) You missed the demographics. A higher percentage of blacks and hispanics are conservatives, yet you quoted that more “white old conservatives” posted here. You have no way of knowing they are white. You even stated another inaccuracy again below regarding demographics that are grossly inaccurate. By the way: When I took my SAT test I was forced to retake it on the grounds that they believed I cheated, and my IQ is 156. Do not insult my intelligence or comprehension skills.
Perhaps you should re-read the definition of “bigotry”, then re-read all of my comments. I was simply referring to the fact that the vast majority of conservatives are white, and older white people tend to be more conservative than younger white people. This population also overlaps heavily with the workforce of the insurance industry, so it would be reasonable to infer that a majority of IJ readers are conservative. At no point have I actually said one group is superior or inferior to another; had I done so, it would be accurate to say I was being intolerant and bigoted.
I am quite conservative in principle, but don’t find a lot of authentic conservatives out there, therefore I do not wish to be associated with them. I think the free market works well in most cases but do not blindly worship the concept in a religious way as many conservatives do. I also do not blindly believe regulation is the answer to every problem as many liberals do. In fact I do not believe every perceived problem has a solution or that it is appropriate to attempt to solve every inequity.
Anyone who thinks that the financial crisis of the past four years was not caused by the government meddling with private markets needs to have their head examined. But anyone who thinks that the unregulated free markets did not turn the snowball into an avalanche is either choosing to ignore the evidence in favor of “principles” or is simply uninformed.
The Obama health care reform law is a mess and moves the country in the entirely wrong direction. Health care should be delivered in a largely private market fashion. But most conservatives fail to admit that the current system is not a free market system, either, and seem to have no plans to move it in that direction.
I’m more of a Ron Paul conservative – I actually want real change. Actually, I NEED real change due to my age. Until the conservative movement starts embracing some truly conservative proposals for change, I won’t identify with them.
November 11, 2011 at 12:59 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Youngin’
Regarding my comment about your retort to Sarah:
See below, this guy mentioned Sarah in this post, she made only one post about the health care movement being a liberal one, the response from OPV was that it was a conservative judge. Then you said Sarah was “immune to facts”. Her concept was accurate, it was a conservative movement. And therefore my concept I laid out to you regarding your inability to place a concept or a statistic was valid. Re read all my comments now and you will see the logic is flawless.
MadDog says:
Like or Dislike:
5
12Youngin’: If Sarah is going to sling arrows (“my A”s; hogwash”), why shouldn’t she be brought to task with the facts?
Reply
November 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm youngin’ says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10
20Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Sarah is immune to facts. They bounce right off her.
TOPOV, no one cares if it is a republican, democratic, nazi, or communist “idea” – we still don’t want it… same with the other government mandates (drafts, taxes, taking of property). This is just more of the same thing – that no one wants.
The worst thing about this bill is that is opens the door for more government control. This is not a tax… this is a mandate that requires we buy a product. What will we be required to buy next?
WELFARE BREEDS WELFARE. Take away hand outs and the people must provide for themselves. Yes there are some that truly need help… but there are plenty of programs out there for that.
Also, if you do drugs, eat Mcdonalds every day, and are a victim of your own lifestyle, I shouldn’t have to pay to keep you alive.
HEALTHCARE IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT. You work and contribute… great you can have health care. Don’t work or contribute, great… you still get health care, but someone else is paying for it. This is just a move by the government to make more money.
You say “we don’t want it” but I say, yes we do. “We” are tired of supporting freeloaders without insurance. We are tired of people hiding behind the false facade of “freedom” and “personal responsibility” by choosing to go without healthcare and then pasing those costs along to the rest of us when they seek medical attention.
Show some personal responsibility by getting health insurance and demand that others do the same because your “freedom” to go without insurance is impinging on my “freedom” to not have to subsidize your poor choices.
It’s a move by the government to make more money? How is forcing people to buy private insurance going to make money for the goverment?
Funny how you say now that you don’t care who came up with the idea, because Republicans thought it was a great idea when they thought of it.
Healthcare is a right, not a priviledge. Just because people have made poor choices does not mean that they should die, but I agree that responsible people shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s mistakes. Its a ver fine line.
Health INSURANCE might be a different case on if it is a right or privlidge.
“It’s a move by the government to make more money? How is forcing people to buy private insurance going to make money for the goverment?”
TOPOV – Have you read any part of the bill? If you don’t buy insurance, the government imposes a fine. So the people who can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it will instead be paying money to the government. Also, the fine is less than the cost of health care – so which will they choose? In the end, the government makes more money and the problem isn’t fixed.
I am also tired of supporting free loaders without insurance. How about we just stop supporting them? No pay, no service. Makes sense to me. Again, a privilege, not a right. If you disagree move to another country.
Again… I don’t care who came up with the idea… it still sux.
Sorry, I’m just not cynical enough to think that the purpose of the law is really just a ploy to make more money, when they could have done that simply by raising taxes. I honestly believe that the purpose was to force people to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies so that more Americans would be insured. I honestly think that anyone who thinks it’s just a ploy to raise money needs to adjust the antennae on their tin foil hats.
That’s the great thing about America… you can believe anything you want! Your opinion is not wrong, just different from mine (in another country, we may be shooting at each other over this).
Again I just have a different opinion. I don’t think that the government can do a better job than me, of taking care of my well being. They have proven (to me) that they are incapable of spending within their means and they waste so much (and on the wrong things).
This country has flourished most under administrations that stay the heck out of our (the people) way.
November 8, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Todd says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I think I would buy what you are trying to sell here, OPOV, however, Kathleen Sebellius is now requiring all of your personal medical records to be given to the government. In addition, the taxes companies have to pay for providing health insurance to their employees will inevitably cause everyone to be put into a government program. Most companies cannot afford the costs associated with this wonderful health care bill — and this is why so many personal friends of Nancy, et al, have been granted a waiver. You are clearly an intelligent person – however, you are blinded by your liberal bias. Truly.
November 9, 2011 at 10:09 am
SusieQinthe Midwest says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
… I don’t agree with that. How do you know what circumstance the person is in. I myself do have health insurance, but I know others who don’t for good reason. (Taking care of their kids after they themselves and their spouse lost his job) Does that mean that if she suddenly has a needs for an appendectomy she should be punished to death by sepsis…. That is not humane!
This bill is so wrong on so many levels, it is impossible to put them all in a post. All the taxes and fines and provisions not relating to health care should give someone pause to question it. 2,700 pages of Progressive control over our lives. If it were so good, how come no one in the Federal Government will have it? Why have 3,000 companies and unions been granted waivers from it? The bill clearly needs to be turned into confetti and start over from scratch. A decent bill with private market solutions could be written in less than 50 pages to replace this monstrocity.
How can we ever expect any kind of compromise from Congress when the best and brightest of America’s finest industry, insurance can’t find any common ground. Every article dealing with health care brings the most and angriest posts. I’ve yet ever to see a post that said “good point, I can see what you’re saying”. I was sick one day once. Did I miss it?
Good point, Anejo, I can see what you’re saying. This is why I no longer come here to debate but instead just throw tomatoes from the sidelines. We actually have people here who think the uninsured should be denied medical treatment if they get sick. Can’t really reason with a person like that.
Yougin, the uninsured are not denied medical assistance. Have you not heard of Medicaid? People show up in ERs all over the country with out health insurance all the time 24/7 – 365 days a year. And! If a patient is really destitute, they can be absolved for their entire bill. They need only fill out paper work to prove that they are in poverty. So, you can stop throwing your tomatoes from the sidelines because you don’t even know why you’re throwing them or why.
Just remember that the conservative Heritage Foundation was the first proponent of the individual mandate. Republicans LOVED this mandate until it was embraced by a Democrat. Romney instituted it in MA as a good conservative. It’s about everyone taking ownership of their own health care costs. If everyone buys insurance then they won’t need free medical care from our hospitals. If everyone has to PAY for insurance they start being careful of how frequently they run to the doctor. When it costs money you think twice. Free and available emergency room care was instituted under Reagan when he did the first amnesty for illegals. Read some history and follow the dots.
Did anyone notice that the good people of Ohio, which is a rust belt union state voted 65% to 35% against the mandates of Obamacare? This is the first state I have seen to actually let the people have a voice on whether to reject Obamacare or embrace it and they spoke loudly. All the other states have challenged in the courts. Perhaps we should have a national referendum in the next election and let the folks decide instead of Progressive lawmakers shoving something down our throat. If the whole nation were allowed to vote on this, I think it would be another shellacking just like they are going to get in the elected offices.
Let me see if I can put the logical side if my brain to work here, and struggle to understand how the rightwingextremist-evilrepublican-greedycorporateselfish-hatersofgoodstuff-neverusefacts-rantingemotionalist-kidkicking-guntoting-nitwits could possibly oppose the so-called “Affordable Health Care Act”. Obviously, some have decided we have a healthcare “crisis” [I would call it an affordability problem, more easily and readily dealt with in more focused ways, but hey, call something a crisis and people will invariably and inevitably cry out for elaborate and grandiose schemes] So, let’s examine the nature of a couple of the commonly discussed aspects of this “crisis”:
Perceived problem: Those without health insurance are costing those with it untold, vast sums of money.
Logical analysis: we are told from many sources (left, right, middle) that the uninsured number in the vicinity of 30 million. This makes the uninsured somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the total population. But wait, how many of this 10% actually go to the ER or seek some other form of expensive treatment,I ask? Logic tells me it can’t possibly be all of them…10%? Probably too high – I know many people, and I don’t think anywhere near 1 in 10 go to the ER, or even need much in the way of expensive medical treatment in any given year. Maybe 1 in 20? Okay,let’s start with 1 in 20. That’s 5% of the 10%, which means that approx. 0.05% of the population are actually costing anyone anything, and even that is based on the assumption that absolutely none of them have paid any part of their bill [I would ask why? Even fairly low-income people seem to find the wherewithal to fund cell phones, cable TV and many other things once considered luxuries – even if they don’t foot the whole bill, couldn’t they at least pay some meager co-pay or something?] One half of one percent are causing this “crisis”? Huh? Requiring the 90% insured and 9.5% who don’t cost anyone anything, to submit to federal control in order to assist the 0.05%? What? This is one of the primary reasons we need this sweeping act of Congress? Seems kind of like hiring a 10 wheel dump truck to haul one ten pound bag of leaves from one side of your yard to the other.
Perceived problem: Without this act of Congress untold numbers of people will surely die!
Logical analysis: Why would they? We have been told over and over that under the current system they don’t die – they get free treatment. And we are paying for it. Already. Everyone knows and admits it. And adding the currently uninsured onto the insured rolls does nothing without charging them a premium, so you’re right back where you started – the current 90% of the population are premium paying insureds continuing to have part of their premium funding the “now-insured”(?) but unable-to-pay-the-premium(!)”insureds”.
In conclusion, although SOME of the high cost of healthcare is rightfully attributed to the uninsured, it looks some other factors have the majority of the blame. In the availability/affordability equation it’s the affordability which is causing the concern. Identify and analyze whatever these factors may be, and implement any cost-containment measures in a non-obtrusive, non-invasive and constitutionally justified manner.
Or, Congress could enact something else…
Yes. They should end the tax break for employer-provided health insurance, and either do away with the break entirely or give it to individuals to purchase their own insurance through the private market.
Good one JB. Many of the liberal bloggers on this site may have a tough time justifying their position that this bill was needed afterall. This administration has been operating from one crisis to the next. They invent a crisis so they can try to ram their perceived solution through. They are also arrogant and think they know what is best for the country and they are clearly idiotic and the shellacking they received in Nov 10 will be mild compared to the one they are about to get.
I am amazed at the posts every time Healthcare comes up on this site. It is not hard to pick the Progressives from the Conservatives. TOPOV leads the league in “dislikes”. I wonder why!
Youngin’
Are you intentionally intolerant and bigoted? Stereotyping others is good? Certainly does seem to be a very common ploy among the more liberal “thinkers”. Odd, I thought one of the cornerstones of the liberal viewpoint was tolerance and acceptance. Guess I was wrong.
Perhaps I’m out of touch, but I don’t care about inane labels. I care about logical thought and honesty, from whomever.
Never been accused of being a liberal “thinker” before. Gonna have to ponder that one. I don’t think the liberals would appreciate me being lumped in with them, either. But conservatives provide so much more material for me to work with.
youngin’,
Many of my dear friends are pretty liberal, and you are correct in your observation that they probably wouldn’t want you lumped in with them. My liberal friends and I completely agree with each other that stereotyping and bigotry has no place among civilized people.
Sorry you thought I was lumping you in with “thinkers”. I wasn’t. I was simply conveying my own observations that, only generally speaking, the more left-leaning politically tend more often to use stereotypical labeling as a tactic to avoid debating the merits of an issue. But ANYONE who uses this tactic is wrong.
BTW, accused? Freudian slip? Most would associate “accused” with being potentially guilty of something – I certainly don’t ever ACCUSE my friends of being liberal. My accusations lie with the use of inane labeling, dishonesty and deception FROM WHOMEVER, the point I was making that you apparently missed.
Anyway, I’m only responding to your particular post, but my comments were, and are, intended for any/all who might to choose to use fallacious arguments to further their agenda. The old saying “the end justifies the means” is completely wrong – a solid argument needs no deception.
Perhaps you should re-read the definition of “bigotry”, then re-read all of my comments. I was simply referring to the fact that the vast majority of conservatives are white, and older white people tend to be more conservative than younger white people. This population also overlaps heavily with the workforce of the insurance industry, so it would be reasonable to infer that a majority of IJ readers are conservative. At no point have I actually said one group is superior or inferior to another; had I done so, it would be accurate to say I was being intolerant and bigoted.
I am quite conservative in principle, but don’t find a lot of authentic conservatives out there, therefore I do not wish to be associated with them. I think the free market works well in most cases but do not blindly worship the concept in a religious way as many conservatives do. I also do not blindly believe regulation is the answer to every problem as many liberals do. In fact I do not believe every perceived problem has a solution or that it is appropriate to attempt to solve every inequity.
Anyone who thinks that the financial crisis of the past four years was not caused by the government meddling with private markets needs to have their head examined. But anyone who thinks that the unregulated free markets did not turn the snowball into an avalanche is either choosing to ignore the evidence in favor of “principles” or is simply uninformed.
The Obama health care reform law is a mess and moves the country in the entirely wrong direction. Health care should be delivered in a largely private market fashion. But most conservatives fail to admit that the current system is not a free market system, either, and seem to have no plans to move it in that direction.
I’m more of a Ron Paul conservative – I actually want real change. Actually, I NEED real change due to my age. Until the conservative movement starts embracing some truly conservative proposals for change, I won’t identify with them.
Youngin, If you are identifying with Ron Paul, he is not a conservative, but a raging Libertarian. Some of his positions are really far out and completely irrational. Conservatives like me roll my eyes at what his proposals are. Some of his ideas on the economy are OK and I like the fact that he believes in the Constitution to govern the country, but he gains little traction with Conservatives because of his far out views and willingness to let Iran have nukes so they can level Israel. That, my friend will trigger WW111.
youngin’
Well said, and I accept your explanation as a good one. And the general position you’ve laid out makes a lot of sense to me. As you’ve rightfully pointed out, too many just blindly follow a particular party line. Sorry if I mis-labeled you personally, but I do find a lot of what I stated is true of many.
Now, the Supremes are going to hear this case which is what they should have done some time ago. If they uphold this bill, they will be finished as the third branch of government since they didn’t uphold the Constitution. Obama will be free to run roughshod over them and Congress and impose his dictatorship.
Liberal legislation from the bench again. Just read the Constitution. General Welfare clause my A*s. Whats to prevent the Fed from telling us we need to buy any other product it thinks is good for us or profitable for one of their contributors to their campaigns. This is total hog wash and obviously not constitutional.
Come on Sarah, if you didn’t read the opinion and know nothing about the judge, how can you say it’s “Liberal legislation from the bench”?
Yours is the typical response from soomeone who doesn’t like the result.
OK, time to check facts: The judge who wrote the opinion, Laurence Silberman, was appointed by Ronald Reagan and he’s a close personal friend of Clarence Thomas.
If the law was so obviously unconstitutional, why have two U.S. Circuit Courts said that it is Constitutional? Two have said it is and two have said it’s not. Seems to me like a really close question.
More about Judge Silberman…he worked for Nixon for several years before being appointed by Ford as Ambassador to Yugoslavia. Reagan then appointed him to the DC Circuit. He was on Bush Sr’s short list to be nominated to the Supreme Court. This guy is as conservative as you get.
TOPOV, why are you bothering with facts? You should be responding in kind with your own Emotional Outburst of Factless Ridicule.
Mandating that we have to buy a product or service is hardly promoting the General Welfare Clause. These Progressive Liberals think they have to regulat and control every aspect of our lives. We have had enough of their control and regulation. It has basically bankrupted our country and Obamacare will put the final nail in the coffin. Has anyone seen their health premiums going down since this law was passed. It is not uncommon to see 15% increases on Individual and Group policies. How is this reducing the cost for us?
TOPOV
What makes you think the judges that sit on any bench understand or even follow the constitution in their court?
The current interpretaion of the commerce clause is a farce. It is based on an “educated class” trying to control the masses through central planning which is in direct opposition to the constitution. This country was founded on individual liberties given to us by our creator not man. It was not founded on a central government telling us what our liberties are and what we are required to buy to be considered a citizen in good standing with the ruling class.
This is a tough issue as both sides have valid points. However it seems like the majority of Americans do not want the bill. The bill (or just the individual mandate) should be scrapped on that merit alone.
My opinion… scrap the mandate and get back to the drawing board. The government rushed this through with barely any support. Health care needs to be looked at, we get it… but lets do it right.
Freedom is our best (and probably only) great export. America has thrived on freedom and the absence of gov’t interference. This bill (regardless of its “good intentions”) will take away some of our freedom. This too is merit for scrapping the bill.
Yes, it will take away your “freedom” to freeload off the rest of us who have insurance. Because that’s really what opponents are saying…they want the freedom to go without insurance if they so choose. But making that choice costs the rest of us who have insurance because when those without insurance go to the emergency those uninsured costs re passed along to those of us that have insurance.
Let’s not forget that the mandate was a Republican idea, and if you watched the Republican debates you saw Newt Gingrich admit that the mandate was a Republican idea. Only after Obama said “yeah, we can do that” did Republicans change their tune.
The bill was not “rushed” through. It was debated for over a year.
As Stephen Colbert put it as he mocked those who opposed the mandate:
“[The government] can only tax you, draft you, sieze and sell your property, arrest you, incarcerate you and execute you,”
But God forbid it make you purchase an insurance policy! Now they’ve crossed the line!
I think TOPOV hit the nail on the head. All the mandate does is force those people who have supposedly “chosen” to not carry health insurance to be personally responsible. I thought conservatives have always been touting about holding people personally responsible? Now that it’s in writing, now they think it’s an infringement of their freedom? If anything is, that’s the real hogwash.
Whether people similar to Sarah like it or not, we, the majority are already paying for those that have supposedly “chosen” to be irresponsible when they get ill and have to go to the ER because they don’t have insurance.
And I’m sorry, Carrier, but health care is only a privilege in 3rd world countries, not the USA. And that’s only because they haven’t advanced enough socially or technologically to handle their citizens’ basic needs, requiring foreign support to assist them. But, then again, this isn’t the government hiring doctors, rationing your health care, this is still the same system, just expanding the premium pool, which is good for the policyholders and the insurance companies.
Amen
The minute you “force” someone to be responsible, they are then no longer acting responsibly. They are only doing what is deemed responsible because they are obligated to.
Responsiblty is both an act and a mentaility.
So the simple solution would be to require the individual seeking treatment be responsible for the cost of services prior to treatment. This would completely alleviate the freeloading without forcing any arbitrary mandates on the majority of the population. If they have chosen to forgo insurance and can’t pay cash then they’ll need to set up a payment plan, offer up collateral, etc. with the hospital. If they have a history of payment issues then services could/should be denied. It’s a bit cold-hearted and doesn’t quite fit in with the touchy feely times we live in but people need to get back to understanding that personal choices actually have consequences. If this was the case costs would drop like a rock because patients/customers would actually pay attention to the cost and benefits of their healthcare dollars.
wow- where is the humanity. but of course you have stupidity in spades- don’t you get it, the penalty would be the consequence for not carrying medical insurance…..
Give me a break. I can see it now. A woman is walking down the street and is mugged, robbed and then shot and left for dead. She’s bleeding and needs immediate emegency room care or she will die. The ambulance comes and before they load her onto the guerney, they ask her. “Hey lady, before we take you to the E.R., could you please provide us with proof of insurance?”
Your solution is typical of the radical Republicans as evidenced by the question posed to Ron Paul at the second debate: LET THEM DIE!!!!
TOPOV – I think you are getting a little radical here. Of course there needs to be exceptions, especially in the event of a crime, terrorist attack, domestic abuse, etc.
Use your heads.
The only thing radical is telling people that if they can’t pay for healthcare, they should just simply die. We’re better than that. We’re more decent than that.
Yes, people will die.
And here is a little fact for you TOPOV… at some point everyone will die. I know it is hard to imagine given our entitlement society.
But really… how long is everyone entitled to live? Until we all can live within our means (including our government), some will need to go without life preserving care. It has nothing to do with decency – it’s just nature.
On one side you say rebublicans put something in force for us not to die, and complain that makes people irresponsible and not get insurance (the emergency care regardless of ability to pay) and on the other you say they want people to die.
OPV: You’re trying to create contradictions to make up for the fact that you don’t have a solid debate ground. Spotting a contradiction, or inconsistency (as I just did to you) does not make a solid argument when you yourself have inconsistencies. Just some thoughts.
“The bill was not “rushed” through. It was debated for over a year.” What the blazes? Hillary had this government run healthcare plan all figured out when Bill was in office. Do you really think that they could have come up with this all in one year? Owebama had this all figured out before he got in office? Hillary had it all worked out, but it never got implemented and it finally got rushed – pushed – slammed – what ever adjective you want to use – down our throats once Owebama got into office.
Are you even listening to yourself? Not rushed through?! Are you serious? What ever happened to “transparency”? Wasn’t the whole debate supposed to be on CSPAN? Or right, it finally made it to CPSPAN after the Democrats got called to the carpet on it… transparency – what a joke!
Do you not remember Pelosi saying “WE HAVE TO PASS IT TO FIND OUT WHATS IN IT.” And does anyone here know exactly what IS in it?
This bill was shoved down our throats and YOU know it OPOV. There’s no other point of view – the only point of view you have is (and I am quoting you here) yours is the typical response from someone who doesn’t like the result. Hence, your own point of view.
No we do not like the end result – and you’re not going to either once we all have socialized healthcare – look what has happened in Europe.. The same exact thing is going to happen here if this goes through.
Not shoved down are throats – what planet are you on?
Premiums are on the rise and they are going to be astronomically higher when all the chips fall into place. I worked in the healthcare industry so I speak from experience. I saw the writing on the wall a long time ago. Companies are willing not to insure their employees because the FINE they are going to have to pay is less the insurance premium they would be paying to have their employees covered. But not to worry, I am confident that this money won’t be going to the government. It will be used to keep the premiums down for the people who can afford this “affordable healthcare”. Like you and I.
Do you not remember Pelosi saying “WE HAVE TO PASS IT TO FIND OUT WHATS IN IT.” And does anyone here know exactly what IS in it?
This is one of the most misleading things bandied about by Republicans. If you watch the speech she gave, that’s not exactly what she said. She said “”But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
To understand what she meant by that you have to listen to her speech. In context, what she was saying was “when we pass the bill, you’ll see the benefits.” You have to listen to the whole speech, not the 3 second soundbite plucked from the middle of it.
Yes, the bill was debated for a year. Don’t you remember the debates over whether there should be a public option? And the compromises that eventually led to the mandate because even Republicans supported the mandate?
No, it was not shoved down our throats. It was voted on by a majority of Congress after a year of debate.
Do you really think the law was soe secret document that Obama forced members of Congress to agree to sight unseen? You can pick up your tin foil hat on your way out.
Do you really think the law was soe secret document that Obama forced members of Congress to agree to sight unseen?
As a matter of fact, I do!
Geese, I cannot wait till 2012 and I pray God as my witness the Owebama is out of office and hopefully we can pull ourselves out of this catastrophe he has made this country from our healthcare on down. And I do mean down. Oh, except for the deficit which he actually tripled so I guess something at least went up.
Well then you simply were not paying attention. Here’s a little of the history of the bill’s passage taken from Wikipedia. Note that if this was some secret law that Obama created and forced everyone to sign, then how do you explain all the amendments to the bil the Republicans tried to tack on?
The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 29, 2009 and referred to several Committees for consideration.
On November 6, 2009, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce was discharged. The House Committee on Rules introduced House Resolution 903 (H.Res. 903) along with a Committee Report, No. 111-330. The Committee Report detailed the amendments considered as adopted if and when the bill passed the full House in Parts A & B, it provided the Stupak–Pitts Amendment for consideration in Part C as well as the Boehner Amendment, a substitute for the bill, in Part D. The House Resolution outlined the process to be followed for Parts A thru D in relation to H.R. 3962 and set the rules for debating the proposed bill.
The following day, House Resolution 903 was voted on and passed.[19] This, in effect, added the amendments outlined in Rules Committee Report No. 111-330, Parts A & B, to H.R. 3962. Part C, the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, was brought up, considered and passed.[20][21] Part D, the Boehner Substitute Amendment, was then brought up, considered but failed passage.[22][23]
The newly amended bill eventually passed the House of Representatives at 11:19 PM EST on Saturday, November 7, 2009 by a vote of 220-215. The bill passed with support of the majority of Democrats, together with one Republican who voted only after the necessary 218 votes had already been cast. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill. All members of the House voted, and none voted “present”.[24]
Both before and after passage in the House, significant controversy surrounded the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, added to the bill to prohibit coverage of abortions – with limited exceptions – in the public option or in any of the exchange’s private plans sold to customers receiving federal subsidies. In mid-November, it was reported that 40 House Democrats said they will not support a final bill containing the Amendment’s provisions.[25] Stupak has said that 15–20 Democrats will oppose adoption of the Senate bill because of objections to its abortion provisions as well as its tax on high-value health insurance plans.[26][27] In March 2010, Stupak voted for the Senate language health care bill excluding the Stupak Amendment language.
No
Wikipedia? This IS your source? Wikipedia?
Yes, Other, we know that the President made nearly 40 speeches trying to sell this monstrocity to the American People and it didn’t sell so he decided to ram it down our throats with backroom deals and pass it in the dead of night without anyone reading it. The Blue Dogs were forced to vote on it and paid the ultimate price with their political careers in Nov 10. This bill ended up being our worst nightmare and needs to be overturned by either the Congress and new President or the Supreme Court whichever comes first.
Youngin’: If Sarah is going to sling arrows (“my A”s; hogwash”), why shouldn’t she be brought to task with the facts?
Sarah is immune to facts. They bounce right off her.
So then Youngin…Conservatives are for Healthcare? A conservative judge may have ruled in favor (and pointing that out means nothing) but this is a liberal movement. Sarah was completely accurate in her statement of “liberals”. It was a liberal decision. Or do you believe that George W would have put forth this bill?
*smacks forehead*
You have facts, but your connect the dots skills are horrible. My father speaks of it like this: These days my kids who intern are math wizards, they do the engineering equations for our products (he’s an engineer, worked as upper management in space labs medical and now for fluke, so this is real world experience youngin, what do you have?) but they can’t think past a calculator and what they believe is relevant facts, which are completely useless. Then I whip out my whiteboard, and I solve the problem conceptually first, followed by mathmetically.
Concepts first Youngin. Statstics second to apply to the first.
Also: I noticed you labeled conservaties as old white men. You must have missed that Blacks and Hispanics represent the largest section of the population that identify themselves as conservative. They just vote democrat. Go to rasmussen and look at some polling. So then I must assume if you did know that (which I’m betting you didn’t) you must be as a child, stating I know more than my father? How often is that accurate? More republicans are old. Excellent point Youngin. I agree. And more of them know more than you. I agree there too.
:)
Actually, what I said was
“insurance journal is mostly read by old white people”,
the implication being that old white people tend to be conservative, not the other way around.
The rest of your post was difficult to follow, so I’m not sure how to respond to it.
It’s a little frustrating to constantly be called a liberal on this board. I’m not sure what I have in common with liberals, other than the fact that I recognize not all issues can be distilled to a sound byte, not all issues are cut and dry, and the willingness to compromise is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of strength.
Youngin’
I am astounded you missed that I caught your conservative implication. I directed a multitude of issues:
Number one: Blacks and Hispanics agree with conservative ideals. Though they vote democrat, they have conservative beliefs. Don’
t use the words “conservative old white man” when in fact, there are less conservative white men than both black and hispanics. It’s just ridiculous. The fact that you don’t know the difference is ridiculous as well. I was saying you missed your demographics and don’t know what you’re talking about.
Number two: I stated your statistics miss and lack concept. You accused Sarah of not arguing with facts. She bluntly said this was a liberal movement. You said a conservative judge made (part of) the ruling and therefore it totally wasn’t. Just look up the statistics of what percentage of liberals vs conservatives agree with the healthcare movement. It was not just that judge. She called it a liberal movement (poorly worded) and it is conceptually. Therefore your retort usage was ludicrous. Were you honestly trying to argue that a conservative majority would pass a liberal bill? Or maybe this was not a liberal movement? So then her concept was accurate, and your statistic was irrelevant by default and didn’t need to be stated at all other than being youthful, rebellious, and stark.
Regarding my father’s story: Kids walk in, say here’s the math, and then an older person says, think of how you want it to work before you do the math. Then apply the math son. Think about it after you get older you’ll get it.
Look at JB’s post as an excellent example of this theory.
Bob, you are consistently misquoting me and saying I said things which I never said. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster. Either way, I can’t argue with someone who doesn’t have basic reading comprehension skills. I am done.
Nope. Didn’t confuse you with anyone else. Before insulting my “comprehension” skills perhaps you should read your own post, and re-read mine. Pot, meet kettle. Now then: You clearly are lying below (as you agree with most of OPV’s posts, who is in fact a liberal) You missed the demographics. A higher percentage of blacks and hispanics are conservatives, yet you quoted that more “white old conservatives” posted here. You have no way of knowing they are white. You even stated another inaccuracy again below regarding demographics that are grossly inaccurate. By the way: When I took my SAT test I was forced to retake it on the grounds that they believed I cheated, and my IQ is 156. Do not insult my intelligence or comprehension skills.
Perhaps you should re-read the definition of “bigotry”, then re-read all of my comments. I was simply referring to the fact that the vast majority of conservatives are white, and older white people tend to be more conservative than younger white people. This population also overlaps heavily with the workforce of the insurance industry, so it would be reasonable to infer that a majority of IJ readers are conservative. At no point have I actually said one group is superior or inferior to another; had I done so, it would be accurate to say I was being intolerant and bigoted.
I am quite conservative in principle, but don’t find a lot of authentic conservatives out there, therefore I do not wish to be associated with them. I think the free market works well in most cases but do not blindly worship the concept in a religious way as many conservatives do. I also do not blindly believe regulation is the answer to every problem as many liberals do. In fact I do not believe every perceived problem has a solution or that it is appropriate to attempt to solve every inequity.
Anyone who thinks that the financial crisis of the past four years was not caused by the government meddling with private markets needs to have their head examined. But anyone who thinks that the unregulated free markets did not turn the snowball into an avalanche is either choosing to ignore the evidence in favor of “principles” or is simply uninformed.
The Obama health care reform law is a mess and moves the country in the entirely wrong direction. Health care should be delivered in a largely private market fashion. But most conservatives fail to admit that the current system is not a free market system, either, and seem to have no plans to move it in that direction.
I’m more of a Ron Paul conservative – I actually want real change. Actually, I NEED real change due to my age. Until the conservative movement starts embracing some truly conservative proposals for change, I won’t identify with them.
Youngin’
Regarding my comment about your retort to Sarah:
See below, this guy mentioned Sarah in this post, she made only one post about the health care movement being a liberal one, the response from OPV was that it was a conservative judge. Then you said Sarah was “immune to facts”. Her concept was accurate, it was a conservative movement. And therefore my concept I laid out to you regarding your inability to place a concept or a statistic was valid. Re read all my comments now and you will see the logic is flawless.
MadDog says:
Like or Dislike:
5
12Youngin’: If Sarah is going to sling arrows (“my A”s; hogwash”), why shouldn’t she be brought to task with the facts?
Reply
November 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm youngin’ says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10
20Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Sarah is immune to facts. They bounce right off her.
I think Youngin’ was being facetious :)
TOPOV, no one cares if it is a republican, democratic, nazi, or communist “idea” – we still don’t want it… same with the other government mandates (drafts, taxes, taking of property). This is just more of the same thing – that no one wants.
The worst thing about this bill is that is opens the door for more government control. This is not a tax… this is a mandate that requires we buy a product. What will we be required to buy next?
WELFARE BREEDS WELFARE. Take away hand outs and the people must provide for themselves. Yes there are some that truly need help… but there are plenty of programs out there for that.
Also, if you do drugs, eat Mcdonalds every day, and are a victim of your own lifestyle, I shouldn’t have to pay to keep you alive.
HEALTHCARE IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT. You work and contribute… great you can have health care. Don’t work or contribute, great… you still get health care, but someone else is paying for it. This is just a move by the government to make more money.
You say “we don’t want it” but I say, yes we do. “We” are tired of supporting freeloaders without insurance. We are tired of people hiding behind the false facade of “freedom” and “personal responsibility” by choosing to go without healthcare and then pasing those costs along to the rest of us when they seek medical attention.
Show some personal responsibility by getting health insurance and demand that others do the same because your “freedom” to go without insurance is impinging on my “freedom” to not have to subsidize your poor choices.
It’s a move by the government to make more money? How is forcing people to buy private insurance going to make money for the goverment?
Funny how you say now that you don’t care who came up with the idea, because Republicans thought it was a great idea when they thought of it.
Healthcare is a right, not a priviledge. Just because people have made poor choices does not mean that they should die, but I agree that responsible people shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s mistakes. Its a ver fine line.
Health INSURANCE might be a different case on if it is a right or privlidge.
“It’s a move by the government to make more money? How is forcing people to buy private insurance going to make money for the goverment?”
TOPOV – Have you read any part of the bill? If you don’t buy insurance, the government imposes a fine. So the people who can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it will instead be paying money to the government. Also, the fine is less than the cost of health care – so which will they choose? In the end, the government makes more money and the problem isn’t fixed.
I am also tired of supporting free loaders without insurance. How about we just stop supporting them? No pay, no service. Makes sense to me. Again, a privilege, not a right. If you disagree move to another country.
Again… I don’t care who came up with the idea… it still sux.
yes, I read it, the purpose of the fine isn’t to make money, it’s to incentivize people to go out and buy insurance.
As for “no pay, no service” please see my response to U/W above.
So you really believe this isn’t a ploy for the government to make more money?
I guess this ultimately comes down to whether or not you trust that the government can do a better job of managing your money than you can.
So far, I’m not convinced.
Sorry, I’m just not cynical enough to think that the purpose of the law is really just a ploy to make more money, when they could have done that simply by raising taxes. I honestly believe that the purpose was to force people to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies so that more Americans would be insured. I honestly think that anyone who thinks it’s just a ploy to raise money needs to adjust the antennae on their tin foil hats.
That’s the great thing about America… you can believe anything you want! Your opinion is not wrong, just different from mine (in another country, we may be shooting at each other over this).
Again I just have a different opinion. I don’t think that the government can do a better job than me, of taking care of my well being. They have proven (to me) that they are incapable of spending within their means and they waste so much (and on the wrong things).
This country has flourished most under administrations that stay the heck out of our (the people) way.
I think I would buy what you are trying to sell here, OPOV, however, Kathleen Sebellius is now requiring all of your personal medical records to be given to the government. In addition, the taxes companies have to pay for providing health insurance to their employees will inevitably cause everyone to be put into a government program. Most companies cannot afford the costs associated with this wonderful health care bill — and this is why so many personal friends of Nancy, et al, have been granted a waiver. You are clearly an intelligent person – however, you are blinded by your liberal bias. Truly.
… I don’t agree with that. How do you know what circumstance the person is in. I myself do have health insurance, but I know others who don’t for good reason. (Taking care of their kids after they themselves and their spouse lost his job) Does that mean that if she suddenly has a needs for an appendectomy she should be punished to death by sepsis…. That is not humane!
This bill is so wrong on so many levels, it is impossible to put them all in a post. All the taxes and fines and provisions not relating to health care should give someone pause to question it. 2,700 pages of Progressive control over our lives. If it were so good, how come no one in the Federal Government will have it? Why have 3,000 companies and unions been granted waivers from it? The bill clearly needs to be turned into confetti and start over from scratch. A decent bill with private market solutions could be written in less than 50 pages to replace this monstrocity.
Amen! You hit the nail on the head… If it’s good for the goose it should be good for the gander!
How can we ever expect any kind of compromise from Congress when the best and brightest of America’s finest industry, insurance can’t find any common ground. Every article dealing with health care brings the most and angriest posts. I’ve yet ever to see a post that said “good point, I can see what you’re saying”. I was sick one day once. Did I miss it?
Anejo, you live in a dream land. Until those who blindly follow this administration wake up… you will see more of the same.
Obama and his groupies in Congress are bad for America. They are causing this reaction.
Just a note – Obama would have never been elected if the media did its job. They better redeem themselves in 2012.
I agree with you, was being facetious.
Good point, Anejo, I can see what you’re saying. This is why I no longer come here to debate but instead just throw tomatoes from the sidelines. We actually have people here who think the uninsured should be denied medical treatment if they get sick. Can’t really reason with a person like that.
Yougin, the uninsured are not denied medical assistance. Have you not heard of Medicaid? People show up in ERs all over the country with out health insurance all the time 24/7 – 365 days a year. And! If a patient is really destitute, they can be absolved for their entire bill. They need only fill out paper work to prove that they are in poverty. So, you can stop throwing your tomatoes from the sidelines because you don’t even know why you’re throwing them or why.
Reading comprehension FAIL
Just remember that the conservative Heritage Foundation was the first proponent of the individual mandate. Republicans LOVED this mandate until it was embraced by a Democrat. Romney instituted it in MA as a good conservative. It’s about everyone taking ownership of their own health care costs. If everyone buys insurance then they won’t need free medical care from our hospitals. If everyone has to PAY for insurance they start being careful of how frequently they run to the doctor. When it costs money you think twice. Free and available emergency room care was instituted under Reagan when he did the first amnesty for illegals. Read some history and follow the dots.
Did anyone notice that the good people of Ohio, which is a rust belt union state voted 65% to 35% against the mandates of Obamacare? This is the first state I have seen to actually let the people have a voice on whether to reject Obamacare or embrace it and they spoke loudly. All the other states have challenged in the courts. Perhaps we should have a national referendum in the next election and let the folks decide instead of Progressive lawmakers shoving something down our throat. If the whole nation were allowed to vote on this, I think it would be another shellacking just like they are going to get in the elected offices.
Agent,
That is a great idea… but it makes sense so it won’t happen. :)
Let me see if I can put the logical side if my brain to work here, and struggle to understand how the rightwingextremist-evilrepublican-greedycorporateselfish-hatersofgoodstuff-neverusefacts-rantingemotionalist-kidkicking-guntoting-nitwits could possibly oppose the so-called “Affordable Health Care Act”. Obviously, some have decided we have a healthcare “crisis” [I would call it an affordability problem, more easily and readily dealt with in more focused ways, but hey, call something a crisis and people will invariably and inevitably cry out for elaborate and grandiose schemes] So, let’s examine the nature of a couple of the commonly discussed aspects of this “crisis”:
Perceived problem: Those without health insurance are costing those with it untold, vast sums of money.
Logical analysis: we are told from many sources (left, right, middle) that the uninsured number in the vicinity of 30 million. This makes the uninsured somewhere in the vicinity of 10% of the total population. But wait, how many of this 10% actually go to the ER or seek some other form of expensive treatment,I ask? Logic tells me it can’t possibly be all of them…10%? Probably too high – I know many people, and I don’t think anywhere near 1 in 10 go to the ER, or even need much in the way of expensive medical treatment in any given year. Maybe 1 in 20? Okay,let’s start with 1 in 20. That’s 5% of the 10%, which means that approx. 0.05% of the population are actually costing anyone anything, and even that is based on the assumption that absolutely none of them have paid any part of their bill [I would ask why? Even fairly low-income people seem to find the wherewithal to fund cell phones, cable TV and many other things once considered luxuries – even if they don’t foot the whole bill, couldn’t they at least pay some meager co-pay or something?] One half of one percent are causing this “crisis”? Huh? Requiring the 90% insured and 9.5% who don’t cost anyone anything, to submit to federal control in order to assist the 0.05%? What? This is one of the primary reasons we need this sweeping act of Congress? Seems kind of like hiring a 10 wheel dump truck to haul one ten pound bag of leaves from one side of your yard to the other.
Perceived problem: Without this act of Congress untold numbers of people will surely die!
Logical analysis: Why would they? We have been told over and over that under the current system they don’t die – they get free treatment. And we are paying for it. Already. Everyone knows and admits it. And adding the currently uninsured onto the insured rolls does nothing without charging them a premium, so you’re right back where you started – the current 90% of the population are premium paying insureds continuing to have part of their premium funding the “now-insured”(?) but unable-to-pay-the-premium(!)”insureds”.
In conclusion, although SOME of the high cost of healthcare is rightfully attributed to the uninsured, it looks some other factors have the majority of the blame. In the availability/affordability equation it’s the affordability which is causing the concern. Identify and analyze whatever these factors may be, and implement any cost-containment measures in a non-obtrusive, non-invasive and constitutionally justified manner.
Or, Congress could enact something else…
So in other words… the current administration/Congress are stupid or evil or both.
Great post JB.
Yes. They should end the tax break for employer-provided health insurance, and either do away with the break entirely or give it to individuals to purchase their own insurance through the private market.
Good one JB. Many of the liberal bloggers on this site may have a tough time justifying their position that this bill was needed afterall. This administration has been operating from one crisis to the next. They invent a crisis so they can try to ram their perceived solution through. They are also arrogant and think they know what is best for the country and they are clearly idiotic and the shellacking they received in Nov 10 will be mild compared to the one they are about to get.
I am amazed at the posts every time Healthcare comes up on this site. It is not hard to pick the Progressives from the Conservatives. TOPOV leads the league in “dislikes”. I wonder why!
Because insurance journal is mostly read by old white people?
Youngin’
Are you intentionally intolerant and bigoted? Stereotyping others is good? Certainly does seem to be a very common ploy among the more liberal “thinkers”. Odd, I thought one of the cornerstones of the liberal viewpoint was tolerance and acceptance. Guess I was wrong.
Perhaps I’m out of touch, but I don’t care about inane labels. I care about logical thought and honesty, from whomever.
JB, care to run for president? Acutally I take that back. You are too objective and honest to be a politician.
Never been accused of being a liberal “thinker” before. Gonna have to ponder that one. I don’t think the liberals would appreciate me being lumped in with them, either. But conservatives provide so much more material for me to work with.
youngin’,
Many of my dear friends are pretty liberal, and you are correct in your observation that they probably wouldn’t want you lumped in with them. My liberal friends and I completely agree with each other that stereotyping and bigotry has no place among civilized people.
Sorry you thought I was lumping you in with “thinkers”. I wasn’t. I was simply conveying my own observations that, only generally speaking, the more left-leaning politically tend more often to use stereotypical labeling as a tactic to avoid debating the merits of an issue. But ANYONE who uses this tactic is wrong.
BTW, accused? Freudian slip? Most would associate “accused” with being potentially guilty of something – I certainly don’t ever ACCUSE my friends of being liberal. My accusations lie with the use of inane labeling, dishonesty and deception FROM WHOMEVER, the point I was making that you apparently missed.
Anyway, I’m only responding to your particular post, but my comments were, and are, intended for any/all who might to choose to use fallacious arguments to further their agenda. The old saying “the end justifies the means” is completely wrong – a solid argument needs no deception.
Perhaps you should re-read the definition of “bigotry”, then re-read all of my comments. I was simply referring to the fact that the vast majority of conservatives are white, and older white people tend to be more conservative than younger white people. This population also overlaps heavily with the workforce of the insurance industry, so it would be reasonable to infer that a majority of IJ readers are conservative. At no point have I actually said one group is superior or inferior to another; had I done so, it would be accurate to say I was being intolerant and bigoted.
I am quite conservative in principle, but don’t find a lot of authentic conservatives out there, therefore I do not wish to be associated with them. I think the free market works well in most cases but do not blindly worship the concept in a religious way as many conservatives do. I also do not blindly believe regulation is the answer to every problem as many liberals do. In fact I do not believe every perceived problem has a solution or that it is appropriate to attempt to solve every inequity.
Anyone who thinks that the financial crisis of the past four years was not caused by the government meddling with private markets needs to have their head examined. But anyone who thinks that the unregulated free markets did not turn the snowball into an avalanche is either choosing to ignore the evidence in favor of “principles” or is simply uninformed.
The Obama health care reform law is a mess and moves the country in the entirely wrong direction. Health care should be delivered in a largely private market fashion. But most conservatives fail to admit that the current system is not a free market system, either, and seem to have no plans to move it in that direction.
I’m more of a Ron Paul conservative – I actually want real change. Actually, I NEED real change due to my age. Until the conservative movement starts embracing some truly conservative proposals for change, I won’t identify with them.
Youngin, If you are identifying with Ron Paul, he is not a conservative, but a raging Libertarian. Some of his positions are really far out and completely irrational. Conservatives like me roll my eyes at what his proposals are. Some of his ideas on the economy are OK and I like the fact that he believes in the Constitution to govern the country, but he gains little traction with Conservatives because of his far out views and willingness to let Iran have nukes so they can level Israel. That, my friend will trigger WW111.
youngin’
Well said, and I accept your explanation as a good one. And the general position you’ve laid out makes a lot of sense to me. As you’ve rightfully pointed out, too many just blindly follow a particular party line. Sorry if I mis-labeled you personally, but I do find a lot of what I stated is true of many.
Now, the Supremes are going to hear this case which is what they should have done some time ago. If they uphold this bill, they will be finished as the third branch of government since they didn’t uphold the Constitution. Obama will be free to run roughshod over them and Congress and impose his dictatorship.