Looks Like OBAMACARE is going down in flames!!!!!

D

deleted15807

Guest
MEDICARE for all!.............IF the bill goes down.

Excellent EJ Dionne article:

Liberals should learn from this display that there is no point in catering to today’s hard-line conservatives. The individual mandate was a conservative idea that President Obama adopted to preserve the private market in health insurance rather than move toward a government-financed, single-payer system. What he got back from conservatives was not gratitude but charges of socialism — for adopting their own proposal.

The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.

Judicial activists in the Supreme Court

 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If I remember correctly, one of the main reasons we rebelled and claimed our independence from the UK was because they were trying to impose too much control through taxes/government (to help pay off the Brits war debts).
I thought it was because cheap Indian tea was undercutting local tea merchants, who rebelled because their profits were threatened. As usual, the rich shafting the poor demanding the right to keep doing it.

but I don't think his plan is the one that is needed. It's not one that, when actually put into effect, will end up working out well for a country like the US.
I think Obamacare would cause uproar and rebellion if imposed on the UK. (though Cameron is trying to sell off the NHS)

The US isn't Sweden, the UK or even Canada, and we can't just take some other country's and culture's way of doing things and expect it to work fantastically over here like it may over there.
Well you havnt so far tried. The whole point is that cost goes on general taxation and people never get billed directly for health care. Thus people are never deprived of health care because they dont have money, or never in their lives had money. Apparently Americans believe it is acceptable for the poor to get sick and die.

The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.
I agree that if this bill gets thrown out it will increase pressure for a more comprehensive one.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree that if this bill gets thrown out it will increase pressure for a more comprehensive one.

I hear a lot of people here saying that, and I'm going to have to disagree. It might increase pressure in the sense that a minority will be more energized, the minority that was sounding off for universal/single payer/public option healthcare during the Congressional crafting of the individual mandate.

But I think the larger American reaction is going to be, "Thank goodness this monstrosity is dead. It shows the foolishness of trying to tackle or dismantle the present system. It works fine for most of us and should be left alone."

I agree with Klingsor that no president or Congress in their right mind would touch the healthcare question, maybe for the next 20 years.

The time for the US to jump on the universal healthcare wagon was during Harry Truman's presidency. No way Eisenhower was going to touch it. Several other countries took the plunge right after WWII, when some of them were literally starving. But they did it anyway and it paid off handsomely. It freed families from financial worry and made the workforce more flexible about job change. There was also a small window during the Nixon administration for something that looks appealing by today's standards, but was unacceptable for hard-core progressives like Ted Kennedy. Kennedy should have taken the offer, because today's debate would be how to refine -- not how to build it from scratch.

How many Brits feel they can't change jobs because they'd lose their health coverage? Or worried that every time they changed jobs they'd have to go through a 6- or 12-month waiting period before healthcare would kick in again? Literally millions of Americans are in this bind. The last time I changed jobs in March of 1993 (when I joined a Fortune 10 company -- hardly a minor player) I began paying into the health plan immediately but it excluded payment for any pre-existing condition for the first 6 months. How common is the term "pre-existing condition" in Australia or the UK? It's on every American's lips, and would be an even bigger bogeyman if PelosiReidCare tanks.

It's for the very reason that the US would be almost screwed beyond hope that I hold out hope the Supreme Court will not strike down PRCare. I believe they will find a way to craft a very narrow ruling that will not increase federal power but will allow this first stab at healthcare reform to move forward... as nothing more than a downpayment on better system to be crafted incrementally over the next dozen years. You first have to get the public accustomed to and accepting of the concept of mutuality in health coverage. Then you have the foundation on which to build a meaningful, fair system.
 

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
yay the republican plan is getting shot down now its time to go with the no compromise option he campaigned on an implement a single payer system. But then again it isn't unconstitutional and probably will be upheld if the supreme court decides to rule impartially.
 

MovingForward

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Posts
842
Media
0
Likes
115
Points
173
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I just wonder who is playing who? Repubs do not want Government telling people to get healtcare, but at the same time trying to force women to have an ultrasound in cases of abortion.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree with Klingsor that no president or Congress in their right mind would touch the healthcare question, maybe for the next 20 years.

I'm flattered to be agreed with in the midst of such an intelligent, judicious post. That said, I'm trying not to agree with myself: I *hope* I'm wrong.

If the ACA goes down, it's very likely that politicians will avoid any further healthcare reform like the plague. But I suppose it's just possible that public awareness of healthcare issues, heightened by discussion of this bill over the past couple of years, will pressure Washington to find some viable alternative. At this point, maybe we've learned that waiting another sixteen years is not an option.

I don't have a crystal ball. Still, I feel much more confident about future healthcare progress if the bill stands than if it falls.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
I just wonder who is playing who? Repubs do not want Government telling people to get healtcare, but at the same time trying to force women to have an ultrasound in cases of abortion.

Republicans divide everything up and rank everything by sex, race and class. Is that too harsh? I don't think so. The make it very very obvious who they want to control and who should be without controls (the rich, the job creators, men).
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I dunno IF it actually will cause after the dumbass Citizens United decision Chief ROBERTS is more anxious than ever that the court NOT look politically biased and one that actually knows how to do their jobs.
IF it is though, as many Repugnican pundits and scholars say, it will be done so to the great detriment of the GOP. So in that regard I kinda hope it is, but still not sure it will .


HH


P.S As the saying goes...."You don't know what you have until it's gone" .
Aspects of Healthcare reform poll in the 70-80% range. Americans will be furious with the GOP if they no longer have things like Kids staying on parents coverage until 26 , Patients NOT being allowed coverage for Pre-exising Conditions and Women would once again be considered a Pre-Existing condition for nothing more than BEING a woman.

I really wish more people like you would take the time to educate theirselves.
 
Last edited:

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
But props to President OBAMA for trying to reach common ground. Too bad That won't ever happen...

It is impossible to reach Common Ground when you're dealing with Mental Deficiency complicated by deep-seeded Racism.


HH
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
How common is the term "pre-existing condition" in Australia or the UK?
It is just as common in the private insurance industry where it is pretty general and might, for example, also apply to subsidence or flooding when insuring a house. It is pretty much an inescapable principle in insurance systems.

But I think the larger American reaction is going to be, "Thank goodness this monstrosity is dead. It shows the foolishness of trying to tackle or dismantle the present system. It works fine for most of us and should be left alone."
It's for the very reason that the US would be almost screwed beyond hope that I hold out hope the Supreme Court will not strike down PRCare.
When I first heard it I thought a law requiring people to take out a contract with a for-profit company was completely insane. It is compulsory indentured slavery. It breaks the link between ability to pay and choice of how you spend your money. It does not address the problem of how to get health care if you have no money. It is a compromise to fit private insurance into a system where it is unsuited.

You are arguing against your own belief. If the US is screwed beyond hope then it WILL come up with a better system. I would suggest the only reason OBamacare happened was because the system has already become intolerable and the situation would be no less intolerable if the bill is struck down in its entirity. Clinton also tried to do this and got mauled. Didnt stop Obama. From what has been posted it sounds like the supreme court does not strike down legislation 'all or nothing'. It will give a verdict that compulsory insurance is illegal, but the rest of the bill stays in place. The effect will then be more reliance upon the state system. Sounds like this might already be the framework for a UK style system, already passed by congress which they will now have to fund by other means.
 

azbjbilly

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Posts
193
Media
3
Likes
6
Points
53
Location
phoenix
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If this law is struck down (and I, too, sincerely hope that it is), then it will be the American patriots who actually *understand* Constitutional law and limits on Federal authority, who struck it down.

Oh please that sounds like more Ron Paul bullshit. If you're trying to make a point, it's lost in your rhetoric.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Part of the reason for the Obamacare was to try to bring costs undercontrol. The costs of Medicare, and Medicaid have reached unsustainable levels. We cannot afford it at the rate it is going. The new system would cut reimbursement costs, start to control what care people can get, and institute tighter controls on record keeping. I remember recently reading that 20% of the population uses 80% of health care dollars. It might help if insurance rates were cut for people who live healthier lifestyles, and penalities were instituted for those who don't. Some of the fastest increasing areas of health care costs are related to diet, lack of exercise, and vices. Diabetes is becoming one of the major health problems in the USA. Type 2 diabetes is skyrocketing, and a lot of it is linked to obesity, and diet.
One of the problems with Obamacare is it requires people to buy insurance or face penalties. Some working people simply won't be able to afford it. They are barely keeping their heads above water now.
I do like the clauses that require insurers to let you keep your children on the plan until age 26. Unemployment among recent college graduates is at a high. Also, prohibiting insurance companies from denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions is a good thing.
As is typical with both parties running congress, they tend to go too far, and it backfires. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to force you to buy insurance. That one item may be what sinks the law.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I think I'd go so far to say that the Healthcare system is in a bubble, similar to the Real Estate bubble that caused the banking collapses. Real estate values were artificially inflated, causing prices to double in a very short period of time, significantly outstripping inflation. Similarly, healthcare has increased in price ninefold in the time it has taken for the prices of the rest of the economy to double. It basically comes down to the prices for healthcare really being way too outrageously expensive.

I think that having an insurance based system is actually very harmful and has led to this because it removes the ability of supply and demand to naturally manage pricing in the market. In a normal sector of the economy, if someone sells Product X for $100, their competition can try to sell it for $90. Both sides will try to find a happy median where a lower price will mean higher revenue due to a corresponding increase in sales. But how does that work for healthcare?

Answer: it doesn't. If one hospital decides to charge less for a procedure, it will not significantly affect the number they perform. When people are paying for their medical bills with insurance, they are not shelling anything out of pocket except for a co-pay. It's the same price for them regardless. Likewise, people either need a medical procedure done or they don't. Cheaper x-rays will not result in more people breaking their legs to take advantage or anything like that. Therefore, there's no reason for a hospital to not charge the full amount that the insurance companies will pay. As a result, the prices only really move in one direction: up.

This is what the public option was attempting to prevent. While they may not be able to significantly affect the current prices of healthcare, by creating an insurance option which progresses in cost and payment according to the natural inflation rate, they could prevent the system from spiraling further out of control. One of the most common criticisms of the healthcare legislation is that the insurance companies would just raise premiums on their customers proportionate to any financial detriment they encountered. Without some way to at least partially fix prices, there's no reason why they can't, and the legislation will have no teeth.