Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yeah, because every senior has an abundance of income and isn't living off VA benefits and Social Security.

There are plenty of senior veterans. And don't forget all the unemployed younger veterans.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Huffington Post

Health Care Mandate Will Affect Few, Study Finds

The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.

The reason this is false is actually given several paragraphs later:

Health care reform prevents insurers from discriminating against patients with pre-existing conditions and caps premiums that can be charged. The only way to accomplish such reform, backers say, is to require healthy people to insure themselves, rather than wait until they get sick.

If you can't be turned down because of a preexisting condition -- why would anyone, if not mandated under penalty of law, pay hundreds of dollars a month when healthy rather than waiting until they actually needed health insurance to purchase it?

[Irvine511]

Conservatives often make the best arguments for a single-payer system.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The reason this is false is actually given several paragraphs later:


If you can't be turned down because of a preexisting condition -- why would anyone, if not mandated under penalty of law, pay hundreds of dollars a month when healthy rather than waiting until they actually needed health insurance to purchase it?

I don't see the connection between these two ideas to be honest.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Must be great to have a govt health plan like Dick Cheney's. I don't see how anyone with substandard or no health insurance would still be alive if they had his health problems.

That is one thing that really drives me nuts about this. The very same politicians ranting against this "evil healthcare" sure don't seem to mind taking that cushy healthcare for themselves. Apparently it's fine for them, but for anyone else? Nope. Scary. Taking away liberties, or something.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I don't see the connection between these two ideas to be honest.

To quote myself: If you can't be turned down because of a preexisting condition -- why would anyone, if not mandated under penalty of law, pay hundreds of dollars a month when healthy rather than waiting until they actually needed health insurance to purchase it?

How would you answer that? Especially if, as more people drop out, rates would rise even higher on those paying premiums.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Conservatives often make the best arguments for a single-payer system.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.
-- Justice Kennedy

Not if you were listening.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Not if you were listening.

think bigger.

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

To quote myself: If you can't be turned down because of a preexisting condition -- why would anyone, if not mandated under penalty of law, pay hundreds of dollars a month when healthy rather than waiting until they actually needed health insurance to purchase it?

How would you answer that? Especially if, as more people drop out, rates would rise even higher on those paying premiums.

This has to be the WORSE argument you've made in this debate. So denying a preexisting condition is just an incentitive plan? For who? Surely not those that had the preexisting condition.

Not only does your argument make you look like a horrible health providor, but it makes the argument for the side that many of us have been arguing for years. Congrats

[digitize]

INDY is right. If health insurance cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions but there is no mandate, there is no incentive for people to buy health insurance before they develop such a condition, which in turn will drive up premiums, which in turn will make people less likely to buy health insurance before developing pre-existing conditions, et cetera until the health insurance industry collapses. And the government will spend exorbitantly in the process. It's not feasible to have this act without the mandate, which I believe is what INDY is arguing. The difference is (I believe) that he wants neither the mandate nor the rest of that law while most of this forum wants both.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by digitize

INDY is right. If health insurance cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions but there is no mandate, there is no incentive for people to buy health insurance before they develop such a condition, which in turn will drive up premiums, which in turn will make people less likely to buy health insurance before developing pre-existing conditions, et cetera until the health insurance industry collapses. And the government will spend exorbitantly in the process. It's not feasible to have this act without the mandate, which I believe is what INDY is arguing. The difference is (I believe) that he wants neither the mandate nor the rest of that law while most of this forum wants both.

Right, but this is where the current system was already heading, except that those with pre-existing conditions were left to suffer. A system that only works for the well off and healthy.

INDY supports the current system where those with certain diseases will not be covered by ANYONE. His only solution was HSAs, which once again only help the well off and healthy.

[BigMacPhisto]

Worst thing I've ever heard:

Justice Kennedy questioned whether the government had the power to force people to do something for the good of others.

"The reason this is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you," he said.

"Here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases. That changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way."

Jesus Christ. So forcing men to report for duty to "save others" in Vietnam or face jail time was completely legal, but forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a fine is not?

There is no prior precedent or constitutional grounds to strike down this law or any part of it whatsoever. I don't agree with the Affordable Health Care Act and feel that it does far more to prevent future changes to the industry than it does good changes now, but striking down the law is nothing more than partisan nonsense.

If only Justice Kennedy had gone blind and walked into a car during the Obama administration...

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

If only Justice Kennedy had gone blind and walked into a car during the Obama administration...

Charming.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by digitize

INDY is right. If health insurance cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions but there is no mandate, there is no incentive for people to buy health insurance before they develop such a condition, which in turn will drive up premiums, which in turn will make people less likely to buy health insurance before developing pre-existing conditions, et cetera until the health insurance industry collapses. And the government will spend exorbitantly in the process. It's not feasible to have this act without the mandate, which I believe is what INDY is arguing. The difference is (I believe) that he wants neither the mandate nor the rest of that law while most of this forum wants both.

INDY is indeed correct. The individual mandate is the lynchpin to the entire private-sector insurance handout that is the Affordable Care Act.

Just as with Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care insurance reform law.

The entirety of the healthcare law worked out for the national level relies on that individual mandate to make it work. It's either private insurers with the individual mandate, or a single-payer system, or nothing at all.

I would almost say fuck it and leave it up to the states to hammer out healthcare reform. Unfortunately, the very people this legislation is intended to help (poor and middle class without health insurance) often do not have the financial means for the mobility to pick up and move to another state that isn't as shitty as their conservative one that allows them to get left behind by society.

[Irvine511]

Obama wins this politically no matter what.

if it goes down, they get to run agains the Roberts/Scalia/BushVGore/CitizensUnited tyrannical unelected unaccountable activist judges who stole health insurance from 40m people and those with preexisting conditions. then arguments for a single-payer system become much, much more compelling. because, as we see, health care is not a commodity and not ordinary commerce. it is it's own thing.

if it is upheld, he looks like he was right all along.

[MrsSpringsteen]

From a pro Romney site

RomneyCare - The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care | Mitt Romney Central

Romney is occasionally asked by the more conservative/libertarian voters, why he used an individual mandate. Romney replies:

“The key factor that some of my libertarian friends forget is that today, everybody who doesn’t have insurance is getting free coverage from the government. And the question is, do we want people to pay what they can afford, or do we want people to ride free on everyone else. And when that is recognized as the choice, most conservatives come my way.”

To Romney, the mandate that all individuals buy health insurance represented the conservative ideal of personal responsibility. Romney believed that whenever possible, individuals should take care of themselves, and not rely on the government for assistance. Too many people had been receiving “free” health care from the government even though many of those individuals could afford to pay for it themselves.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Obama wins this politically no matter what.

if it goes down, they get to run agains the Roberts/Scalia/BushVGore/CitizensUnited tyrannical unelected unaccountable activist judges who stole health insurance from 40m people and those with preexisting conditions. then arguments for a single-payer system become much, much more compelling. because, as we see, health care is not a commodity and not ordinary commerce. it is it's own thing.

if it is upheld, he looks like he was right all along.

I'm not so sure of that. If the SCOTUS kills the Affordable Care Act, it will certainly energize the left. Many people further to the left who view Obama as a moderate may be made a little less apathetic about voting, but considering the popularity polling for ObamaCare Socialism™, my guess is that it would probably only enhance the message that Obama is destroying the American model of limited government or whatever. It's not like the SCOTUS would be killing a wildly popular bill.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

To quote myself: If you can't be turned down because of a preexisting condition -- why would anyone, if not mandated under penalty of law, pay hundreds of dollars a month when healthy rather than waiting until they actually needed health insurance to purchase it?

How would you answer that? Especially if, as more people drop out, rates would rise even higher on those paying premiums.

I would answer it like this:

Originally Posted by digitize

INDY is right. If health insurance cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions but there is no mandate, there is no incentive for people to buy health insurance before they develop such a condition, which in turn will drive up premiums, which in turn will make people less likely to buy health insurance before developing pre-existing conditions, et cetera until the health insurance industry collapses. And the government will spend exorbitantly in the process. It's not feasible to have this act without the mandate, which I believe is what INDY is arguing. The difference is (I believe) that he wants neither the mandate nor the rest of that law while most of this forum wants both.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by digitize

I'm not so sure of that. If the SCOTUS kills the Affordable Care Act, it will certainly energize the left. Many people further to the left who view Obama as a moderate may be made a little less apathetic about voting, but considering the popularity polling for ObamaCare Socialism™, my guess is that it would probably only enhance the message that Obama is destroying the American model of limited government or whatever. It's not like the SCOTUS would be killing a wildly popular bill.

here's what Republican David Frum thinks:

"[If the ACA is struck down,] Republicans will need a Plan B. Unfortunately, they wasted the past three years that might have developed one. If the Supreme Court doesn't rescue them from themselves, they'll be heading into this election season arguing, in effect, Our plan is to take away the government-mandated insurance of millions of people under age 65, and replace it with nothing. And we're doing this so as to better protect the government-mandated insurance of people over 65—until we begin to phase out that insurance, too, for everybody now under 55,"

the bill may become much more popular in death, as elements of the ACA are highly popular.

the administration has done a shitty, shitty job selling this thing.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the administration has done a shitty, shitty job selling this thing.

That's because you can't polish a turd.

This was always a shitty Bill. And worse yet, Obama expended all of his political capital on something that's shitty.

There should have been an opt-into a single payer system built in there, which would have denied any plausibility for an unconstitutional argument. Since Obama didn't have the guts to go for it, this is what we're dealing with now on and with a hyper-political Supreme Court.

INDY is right that this law doesn't function without the mandate, but I don't see the SCOTUS striking it outright. Their comments today suggest that even Scalia thinks its inappropriate for the SCOTUS to go through a page-flip and then decide what the true legislative intent would have been, and what else should stand or go. You'll either see the mandate severed or, much less likely it seems right now, the whole thing be held up.