Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

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.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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?

[Irvine511]

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.

[deep]

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?

[Irvine511]

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!

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The last thing I'm defending is the status quo.

.

What has your side come up with as a viable alternative?

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[Irvine511]

Do you think a HSA is going to last long if you get bone cancer?

[BVS]

HSAs are awesome if you're healthy and fairly well off.

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by deep

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?

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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)?

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[digitize]

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.

[Swan269]

Originally Posted by digitize

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.