Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic there, seems like maybe? No offense to your step dad but I think the VA is terrible. Just knowing what I know about it from the care a family member has gotten there.

I don't trust the govt to do what's best for me, I've become very cynical about govt. But I do believe in universal/affordable health care. MA has had it for years, including a mandate, and it seems to be working fairly well.

What matters is that all people that work for the VA work very hard and care very much. He told me that the govt could give us the best health care in the world based on the model he worked with. From what I understood, it was a solvent healthy program that could easily be translated into a nation wide institiution. I don't care what it costs because the government will figure out how to spend our money wisely, it always does. If the people in office don't give us what we all want, we simply vote them out and start from scratch. I hate that the supreme court is deciding parts of this. It should just be Congress's decesion. They are the real voice of the people.
 
think bigger.

Antonin Scalia addressed that as well:

‘‘The federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do?”
if a mandate for private insurance isn't constitutional -- which, given this Citizens United Court, who can predict? -- then it becomes an argument for the utter indispensability of a single-payer system paid for via tax.

remember, the mandate was a conservative idea.

In response to Hillarycare, yes, some conservative think-tanks and politicians proposed the idea but it never had grassroots support. And it certainly doesn't mean it was a good idea (although I could argue some points in favor of something along those lines) or constitutional on a federal level.

I could remind you that Barack Obama was against a mandate as well in 2008 debates with Hillary Clinton but that would be mean.
 
Antonin Scalia addressed that as well:

‘‘The federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do?”


setting aside a Scalia argument ... it's the mandate that's at issue, not universal health care itself.

"forcing" you to buy insurance may fall beyond the powers of government.

providing health care via taxes certainly does not. just ask the elderly, the poor, veterans, etc. unless you think that Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are, too, unconstitutional.

as are the police, the fire department, roads, schools, or any other government service.





I could remind you that Barack Obama was against a mandate as well in 2008 debates with Hillary Clinton but that would be mean.


that would mean, what? that Obama changed to acquiesce to political reality having to author the law essentially around Olympia Snowe because of insane Senators and Senate rules?
 
I kind of hate typing this, but, gosh, it does seem like Obama has set another political-judo trap.

He wins, he's validated.
He loses, he gets to run against mean Mr Scalia who just took away health care from 40m people and people with aids, cancer, Parkinson's, etc.

That should be even easier than Romney.
 
if it gets stuck down
then Romney will be the only one standing that was able to pass a healthcare plan that is popular and working

why not vote for the guy that can get the job done right?
 
Because he's spent the past 2 years violently disowning it. They just labeled him the "godfather" of the ACA.

There are no end to the layers and complexities of Obama-judo!
 
setting aside a Scalia argument ... it's the mandate that's at issue, not universal health care itself.

"forcing" you to buy insurance may fall beyond the powers of government.
Sure, Scalia was addressing the mandate in this quote but he would also recognize that our constitution is a constitution of negative rights -- a limited federal government -- as opposed to containing enumerated positives rights such as a universal right to health care.

providing health care via taxes certainly does not. just ask the elderly, the poor, veterans, etc. unless you think that Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are, too, unconstitutional.

as are the police, the fire department, roads, schools, or any other government service.

And how much longer are most of those programs financially sustainable? Answer, without substantial benefit cuts, restructuring or increased tax burdens on the American people, not frickin' long.

The last thing I'm defending is the status quo. But what a tragically wasted opportunity to reform our health care delivery and payment system to use the free market to encourage greater efficiency, cost control, increase accessibility and improve outcomes. What a wasted opportunity to put individuals and physicians back in charge of health care decisions rather than insurance companies, employers or politicians.

There was another direction to go.

that would mean, what? that Obama changed to acquiesce to political reality having to author the law essentially around Olympia Snowe because of insane Senators and Senate rules?

Well I guess they're only insane Senators and Senate rules when they stand athwart liberal utopianism just as the Court is only acting politically when it limits the scope of government -- creating new rights and governmental responsibilities being strictly proper, "sane" and apolitical.
 
he would also recognize that our constitution is a constitution of negative rights -- a limited federal government

Tell you what, when the conservatives get themselves straightened out on what they think constitutes "limited federal government", then we'll talk.

setting aside a Scalia argument

I was going to say, I remember hearing Scalia's views here and there over the years on various issues. I also seem to recall finding those views...eesh.
 
What has your side come up with as a viable alternative?

Health Saving Accounts. They were in the Medicare part D bill.

Protection from catastrophic costs, lower premiums, lower costs for my employer, same preventative care benefits, my personal contributions are "pre-tax" and if I don't use the money for health care needs it builds up and can eventually be passed on in inheritance like any other savings account.

I'm a more cost-conscious consumer than someone paying a $10 copay for everything that's for sure.
 
I kind of hate typing this, but, gosh, it does seem like Obama has set another political-judo trap.

He wins, he's validated.
He loses, he gets to run against mean Mr Scalia who just took away health care from 40m people and people with aids, cancer, Parkinson's, etc.

That should be even easier than Romney.

no just Scailia, but 5 of the Supreme Court, the conservatives in Congress, religious leaders, conservative people, insurance companies, the deficit, fox news, o'reily, glenn beck. so much blame to go around. just let obama rule us for gods sake. our country would be the best in the world if we just modeled our health care after Europe.
 
if it gets stuck down
then Romney will be the only one standing that was able to pass a healthcare plan that is popular and working

why not vote for the guy that can get the job done right?

no way, he flip flops all the time.

obama has stuck to his guns and promised us change. its what everyone wants right?
 
HSAs are awesome if you're healthy and fairly well off.

yeah right and even then you pay through the f'n nose and get nothing for it. Just let Medicare take care of the older folks for now, and let the rest of us get into a government program where I don't need to think about this anymore. The more the govt does for me the better.
 
Health Saving Accounts. They were in the Medicare part D bill.

Protection from catastrophic costs, lower premiums, lower costs for my employer, same preventative care benefits, my personal contributions are "pre-tax" and if I don't use the money for health care needs it builds up and can eventually be passed on in inheritance like any other savings account.

I'm a more cost-conscious consumer than someone paying a $10 copay for everything that's for sure.

if the insurance companies are behind this, its all about money. the government is really about taking care of us. we have nothing to lose by letting them take over the whole system.
 
Health Saving Accounts. They were in the Medicare part D bill.

How does that do anything to combat rising costs?

Do you mandate an amount of $ that people have to put in an HSA? What about people who don't bother saving any (given how leveraged your average US citizen is, they're not saving for anything much less healthcare)? What happens when people run out? Just back to square one (declare bankruptcy, get into further unmanageable debt)?
 
How does that do anything to combat rising costs?

Do you mandate an amount of $ that people have to put in an HSA? What about people who don't bother saving any (given how leveraged your average US citizen is, they're not saving for anything much less healthcare)? What happens when people run out? Just back to square one (declare bankruptcy, get into further unmanageable debt)?

exactly, you can't count on us to save any money for anything. i spend it as i make it knowing the govt will bail me out if i get into any real emergency, and this health care plan will take care of that. :up:
 
HSAs are a worse idea than the status quo. At least the middle class who can afford insurance get the benefit of spreading risk around and not being out hundreds of thousands of dollars that they'd never be able to afford if they were just required to save up with an HSA.
 
HSAs are a worse idea than the status quo. At least the middle class who can afford insurance get the benefit of spreading risk around and not being out hundreds of thousands of dollars that they'd never be able to afford if they were just required to save up with an HSA.

why should the middle class be the only ones who benefit? Everyone deserves access to all health care regardless. the govt will make sure that all people in the country (whether a citizen or not) will get this access. No one will have to be worry about getting sick because they well be taken care of. i don't understand why people just dont' get it. lives are more important than budgets and bottom lines. our govt can do this if we just let them.
 
HSAs are a worse idea than the status quo. At least the middle class who can afford insurance get the benefit of spreading risk around and not being out hundreds of thousands of dollars that they'd never be able to afford if they were just required to save up with an HSA.

HSAs are great for people that can afford it, for the healthy, and they are great for providers. This is the perspective that INDY is coming from. He's someone who can afford it and he's a health provider(that I assume works more with cash than insurance companies), so that's his limited scope.

No way in hell do HSAs work for anyone else.
 
lives are more important than budgets and bottom lines.
Of course they are, but we live in a society that money IS god. Even the god fearing Tea Partiers worship the free market and capitalism over their version of Jesus.

our govt can do this if we just let them.

Now I agree with a lot of your sentiment, but you do come off sounding slightly naive and a little too trusting of the government. To me at the end of the day, the people and the health providers would be the ideal scenario to have in charge of healthcare, but NO ONE has come up with a model that allows that. So I trust the government over a profit driven insurance industry. But by no means do I ever place ALL my trust in a government.
 
BVS said:
HSAs are great for people that can afford it, for the healthy, and they are great for providers. This is the perspective that INDY is coming from. He's someone who can afford it and he's a health provider(that I assume works more with cash than insurance companies), so that's his limited scope.

No way in hell do HSAs work for anyone else.

I wouldn't even say that they're great for the wealthy. I think even rich people would generally prefer to have several hundred dollars per month taken out of their paycheck then to build up and potentially surrender hundreds of thousands of dollars in case they get cancer.
 
I wouldn't even say that they're great for the wealthy. I think even rich people would generally prefer to have several hundred dollars per month taken out of their paycheck then to build up and potentially surrender hundreds of thousands of dollars in case they get cancer.

Yeah, well that's why I say the well to do and the healthy. And you're right they don't really work for major ongoing illnesses unless you saved all your life and are only sick at the end. But you don't "lose" the money like you would in insurance. A healthy 27 year old who is making six figures can save money pretty easy, so at the end of the fiscal year he still has access to his/her HSA, but they seemingly "wasted" their insurance money since they didn't really use it.
 
Of course they are, but we live in a society that money IS god. Even the god fearing Tea Partiers worship the free market and capitalism over their version of Jesus.



Now I agree with a lot of your sentiment, but you do come off sounding slightly naive and a little too trusting of the government. To me at the end of the day, the people and the health providers would be the ideal scenario to have in charge of healthcare, but NO ONE has come up with a model that allows that. So I trust the government over a profit driven insurance industry. But by no means do I ever place ALL my trust in a government.

you and i agree totally here, but the govt has a great track record of taking care of people in social programs. my step dad worked at the VA for 35 years in washington and raves about what a smooth effiecent machine it is so why not. the government has nothing to gain just by helping everyone out. i personally feel that rich persons are the evil behind all of our troubles so we should just take everything they have and give it to the downtrodden and unemployed. they don't deserve to live a better life than we do just because they have greed on there side. i don't like being called naive seeing as that nothing people and the private industries they work in really works. the govt. will do this and we will all be happy. ideally govt control over prices, salaries, and markets will lead to fairness and happiness. kinda like i really believe so much of the worlds problems would be solved by simple uniformity (kind like school uniforms solves so many social issues) if everyone has exactly the same of everything then greed takes a huge hit! all of my trust will always be with the govt, as people are flawed, not govt.
 
you and i agree totally here, but the govt has a great track record of taking care of people in social programs. my step dad worked at the VA for 35 years in washington and raves about what a smooth effiecent machine it is so why not. the government has nothing to gain just by helping everyone out. i personally feel that rich persons are the evil behind all of our troubles so we should just take everything they have and give it to the downtrodden and unemployed. they don't deserve to live a better life than we do just because they have greed on there side. i don't like being called naive seeing as that nothing people and the private industries they work in really works. the govt. will do this and we will all be happy. ideally govt control over prices, salaries, and markets will lead to fairness and happiness. kinda like i really believe so much of the worlds problems would be solved by simple uniformity (kind like school uniforms solves so many social issues) if everyone has exactly the same of everything then greed takes a huge hit! all of my trust will always be with the govt, as people are flawed, not govt.

I mean no offense by calling you naive, my apologies. It's just that I think history has proven that government has often been flawed.
 
I mean no offense by calling you naive, my apologies. It's just that I think history has proven that government has often been flawed.

for social programs, very very rare. You can give me one failure and I'll give you 20 great programs. Europe is a great model for us and we refuse to look at there programs of efficiency and fairness. Hell, I hear Canada has it right. I bet Mexico is even better too but I haven't really looked into it.

plus, i have never heard of anyone speak bad about there own healthcare systems (in other countries.) we are the only ones who complain so we are the ones in the wrong clearly.
 
I am Canadian and I thank God every day that I don't have to worry about all of this. I am naive, because I don't understand the opposition to Universal health care. In my case, my infant son was extremely ill. They couldn't treat him in the city where I live, so they air ambulanced him to Toronto where he got world class care. He was hospitalized for 3 weeks. When he was well enough to travel, he was flown home on a plane just for him. He had months of follow up. My cost out of pocket? Nothing. Of course we do pay taxes, but I cannot even imagine the outcome of my situation if I did not live in Canada.
 
I am Canadian and I thank God every day that I don't have to worry about all of this. I am naive, because I don't understand the opposition to Universal health care. In my case, my infant son was extremely ill. They couldn't treat him in the city where I live, so they air ambulanced him to Toronto where he got world class care. He was hospitalized for 3 weeks. When he was well enough to travel, he was flown home on a plane just for him. He had months of follow up. My cost out of pocket? Nothing. Of course we do pay taxes, but I cannot even imagine the outcome of my situation if I did not live in Canada.

perfect example of I am sure of millions. We should have this. great health care that hardly costs anything and it is fair. I don't want to think about it more anymore either. I should probably go to Canada, as the USA is severly flawed.
 
We pay through taxes, so it does cost us, but if something major happens, as it did to my family, we don't have to worry about losing our house. My grandfather doesn't have to worry about not having coverage because of pre-existing health conditions.

My son is nicknamed the "Million dollar baby" by our doctor. From what he told me the costs would be if we actually paid out of pocket, this is true.
 
Back
Top Bottom