Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

SCOTUS

Tags:
  • Politics
  • Health
Last response: in Hobbies & Leisure
June 28, 2012 3:13:56 AM

Do you think the Obama Health Care program will be deleted by SCOTUS completely?

More about : scotus

June 28, 2012 3:08:55 PM

Ironic that the SCOTUS upholds the ACA and on the same day Congress is voting on contempt charges against AG, Eric Holder.
June 28, 2012 5:00:50 PM

I'm not shocked.. but I'm entirely disappointed in the ruling.

The manner in which the healthcare law was presented is complete BS. The wording used in order to circumvent the issue.

On top of that how many Democrats reacted with their tweets and things they said. Wow. Classy.
June 28, 2012 11:37:56 PM

Basically the word tax was redefined to include fees on things you did not buy and things that you did buy. Everyone its time to buy a new dictionary.
June 29, 2012 3:19:10 AM

riser said:
I'm not shocked.. but I'm entirely disappointed in the ruling.

The manner in which the healthcare law was presented is complete BS. The wording used in order to circumvent the issue.

On top of that how many Democrats reacted with their tweets and things they said. Wow. Classy.
In plain words why the hell cannot the Democrats and the Republicans agree! It is a great day for the U.S. celebrate at least we have some kind of Health Plan now for the ones who cannot afford it and the ones are have incurable illness.
June 29, 2012 4:08:12 AM

musical marv said:
In plain words why the hell cannot the Democrats and the Republicans agree! It is a great day for the U.S. celebrate at least we have some kind of Health Plan now for the ones who cannot afford it and the ones are have incurable illness.

Yet sad at the same time that the Constitution is being dissolved as well as our civil rights.
June 29, 2012 12:15:03 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
Yet sad at the same time that the Constitution is being dissolved as well as our civil rights.


I think that dissolving our constitution might be a little bit of a stretch. We are the last industrialized nation not to offer Universal Healthcare, I dont think having the sickest citizens makes us the most free country.

I think when Mr. Ailes was a young man in 1792 he covered this breaking story:

Quote:
Regardless of one’s opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality, most commentators-and no less an authority than the Congressional Budget Office)-agree (or concede, as the case may be) that Congress has never required Americans to purchase a good or service from a private entity as a condition of citizenship. But, importantly, they are wrong. The ongoing debate over the mandate’s constitutionality has uncovered an unlikely precedent to the PPACA’s individual mandate to possess health coverage. I recently wrote about this overlooked original individual mandate in an article, “The First Individual Mandate: What the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 Tells Us about Fifth Amendment Challenges to Healthcare Reform.”

The Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, required every able-bodied white male citizen to enroll in his state’s militia and mandated that he “provide himself” with various goods for the common weal:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States . . . shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .provid[ing] himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service

This was the law of the land until the establishment of the National Guard in 1903. For many American families, compliance meant purchasing-and eventually re-purchasing-multiple muskets from a private party.
June 29, 2012 1:17:37 PM

I certainly won't claim to be the most educated on this topic.. in fact I probably know very little - that said..

I'm not sure what the big issue with this is. Mandating health insurance could alleviate some of the cost drivers for Medicare if people actually have a strong enough incentive to buy insurance and remain covered for their whole life. Being insured thoughout their life will encourage preventative care and, in the long run, reduce costs to the system as a whole when people hit age 65 and are healthier overall.

I am interested to see if premiums rise as sharply as Oldmangamer is suggesting. I know some private health insurers have been including some of the stipulations in the PPACA today and would have continued to do so even if the bill was repealed. With that in mind, premiums have not risen dramatically even with these factors included in pricing.
June 29, 2012 1:20:17 PM

I would like to point out though that the programs you listed dont offer 100% coverage. Its not like I can sign up right now for any of the programs you listed. If I wasnt still insured through my Mother (Who conveniently has a nice hospital job) I would have to buy in through my company (Who thankfully also has a great plan) I would be screwed.

Medicare requirements

Medicaid Requirements

CHIP Requirements Which is what I think you were talking about, applies only to people in Pennsylvania.

Look at some of those requirements, its not hard to imagine a scenario where people are denied coverage. Its not as simple as you are painting it. There are huge coverage holes for these programs.
June 29, 2012 2:24:34 PM

When I lived in Canada, I knew several women with young children who took their kids to hospital, as they say, and because of sniffles,earaches,colds etc.
To think this will change, and perceived as free, or having to pay where they didnt have it before will compel a higher frivolous usage
June 29, 2012 6:36:47 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:

People currently with private insurance will see their premiums begin to rise sharply in 2014. It will eventually be so expensive that businesses will begin dropping health coverage as part of compensation. Health insurance companies will begin to go out of business, costing many jobs, eventually creating a monopoly or at the minimum create a "Big 3" of insurance companies like the auto industry. Choice will go away and your only option will be to join the Medicaid roles or Medicare roles if you're elderly. Only the 1% will have their cadillac health plans and the peons will all rot in government hospitals like the Brits.


Yet another negative comment with no facts to support it. I recently read a great saying that applies to this "the less facts the stronger the opinion" and judging by your demeanor I am guessing this holds true. Have you even read about the insane tax deductions small businesses can get for having healthcare coverage for their employees? What about the fact that businesses were ALREADY dropping coverage because of increased costs? This healthcare problem is not old by any means, everyone saw it coming a decade or more ago and yet no one would tackle it but Clinton, and even he didn't try near hard enough. We NEEDED healthcare reform whether you want to admit to that or not.
June 29, 2012 6:42:30 PM

wanamingo said:
I think that dissolving our constitution might be a little bit of a stretch. We are the last industrialized nation not to offer Universal Healthcare, I dont think having the sickest citizens makes us the most free country.

I think when Mr. Ailes was a young man in 1792 he covered this breaking story:

Quote:
Regardless of one’s opinion on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality, most commentators-and no less an authority than the Congressional Budget Office)-agree (or concede, as the case may be) that Congress has never required Americans to purchase a good or service from a private entity as a condition of citizenship. But, importantly, they are wrong. The ongoing debate over the mandate’s constitutionality has uncovered an unlikely precedent to the PPACA’s individual mandate to possess health coverage. I recently wrote about this overlooked original individual mandate in an article, “The First Individual Mandate: What the Uniform Militia Act of 1792 Tells Us about Fifth Amendment Challenges to Healthcare Reform.”

The Militia Acts of 1792, passed by the Second Congress and signed into law by President Washington, required every able-bodied white male citizen to enroll in his state’s militia and mandated that he “provide himself” with various goods for the common weal:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States . . . shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .provid[ing] himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service

This was the law of the land until the establishment of the National Guard in 1903. For many American families, compliance meant purchasing-and eventually re-purchasing-multiple muskets from a private party.

That was in a time of war and they did not have to pay a "tax" if they did not, they just did not have a weapon in war. People also have to make sacrifices when there is a war going on like in WWII.
June 29, 2012 7:08:58 PM

mjmjpfaff said:
That was in a time of war and they did not have to pay a "tax" if they did not, they just did not have a weapon in war. People also have to make sacrifices when there is a war going on like in WWII.


I understand that, it was a perfectly logical response to the situation at the time.

Offering this plan is also a perfectly logical response to a problem at the time. I would also like to add that 32 of the 33 industrialized nations have universal healthcare, and in 2014 that number will be 33.

So we all agree there are people and situations as of today where people can not get affordable healthcare?

Wouldnt logic also dictate that insurance companies would want you to buy health insurance now instead of the tax... right? So it would force insurance companies to do things for cheaper and offer more services to entice more people to buy their plans. Because if you pay the tax instead the gov gets that money and not the insurance companies.
June 29, 2012 7:17:12 PM

Having this will put more scrutiny by the public on public sector health care, as it ties the government into health care, a joining of which many Americans will make, as they pay their share.
If public employees are perceived as gaining more than the private sector, it will cost those public sector beneficiaries, mark this also as a partial effect.
If companies are dropping health care, its a cost move, forcing them will only create inflation, as they/the market, settles it all out.
This is the effect it will also have.
More is better is a common call from government, and for the vast majority of the "more" the government has taken, the problems exist or are worse.
This is in part due to creating more need by/through government, and thus the never ending solutions, larger governement and lack of funding.
During this economy, this is a very costly thing to do, just due to its size, is not wise, and holds little to no regard to the many markets it effects.

We will adapt, but certainly, it wont cost less, and even more so, be free
June 29, 2012 7:43:43 PM

johnsonma said:
Yet another negative comment with no facts to support it. I recently read a great saying that applies to this "the less facts the stronger the opinion" and judging by your demeanor I am guessing this holds true. Have you even read about the insane tax deductions small businesses can get for having healthcare coverage for their employees? What about the fact that businesses were ALREADY dropping coverage because of increased costs? This healthcare problem is not old by any means, everyone saw it coming a decade or more ago and yet no one would tackle it but Clinton, and even he didn't try near hard enough. We NEEDED healthcare reform whether you want to admit to that or not.

Well with all the new taxes from the Affordable Care Act- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamac... it is clear why premiums rose. Some people NEEDED healthcare reform while others wanted to keep their own coverage. Why didn't the government just give an affordable option to those who could not afford private insurance? Instead now we HAVE to buy from them even though some want better than the mediocre coverage they are providing.
June 29, 2012 8:06:35 PM

wanamingo said:
I understand that, it was a perfectly logical response to the situation at the time.

Offering this plan is also a perfectly logical response to a problem at the time. I would also like to add that 32 of the 33 industrialized nations have universal healthcare, and in 2014 that number will be 33.

So we all agree there are people and situations as of today where people can not get affordable healthcare?

Wouldnt logic also dictate that insurance companies would want you to buy health insurance now instead of the tax... right? So it would force insurance companies to do things for cheaper and offer more services to entice more people to buy their plans. Because if you pay the tax instead the gov gets that money and not the insurance companies.

It will be hard for private insurance companies to compete with the government. Let's face it the government will tax the hell out of them (new taxes on them are already in use ---> see link in my post above) and its not like the private sector can print their own money. Thus we will see private insurance companies whittling away and lots of private sector workers losing their jobs.

I don't know; is it worth it to take away the jobs of a few for the other few who do not have health insurance?