|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 23 2012 14:47 RJGooner wrote:For me personally I neither support it nor think it is constitutional. However, here is a good video I scrounged up for people looking for some more info. It's a debate at Harvard Law School between one the lawyers who is challenging Obamacare and two HLS professors. Link
Nice link, putting it in the OP.
|
On March 23 2012 14:51 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:47 RJGooner wrote:For me personally I neither support it nor think it is constitutional. However, here is a good video I scrounged up for people looking for some more info. It's a debate at Harvard Law School between one the lawyers who is challenging Obamacare and two HLS professors. Link Nice link, putting it in the OP.
Sorry was it originally in the OP? If so I missed it
|
On March 23 2012 14:54 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:51 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:47 RJGooner wrote:For me personally I neither support it nor think it is constitutional. However, here is a good video I scrounged up for people looking for some more info. It's a debate at Harvard Law School between one the lawyers who is challenging Obamacare and two HLS professors. Link Nice link, putting it in the OP. Sorry was it originally in the OP? If so I missed it
Nono I just put it in  You gave a good link!
|
On March 23 2012 14:34 meatbox wrote:America needs to withdraw troops and limit funding for the military to $500 per year, then they'll have money, also tax anyone making over $200,000 at 50%, over $500,000 at 60% and over 1 million at 60% with no tax shielding. Anyone earning less than $50,000 shouldn't be taxed. Should lead to free health care and subsidised tertiary education plus a healthy economy. 
Sweet, you've figured it out then? Awesome, we don't need any experts to decide things, we make up numbers that seem fair at the time and then hope we've got things right? I'm so glad the internet has such geniuses as you!
Anyways, I don't really like the idea of this law because its trying to fix an area that is already working in other areas. The USA has the best insurance industry in the world (agriculture insurance, etc.) that we should easily be able to find a way to have effective insurance for everyone. Quite simply, if you go without insurance then you have to accept the risks that come along with your choice. The problem is that we can't very well leave someone without treatment if they have a gash in the side of their head that is threatening their life. I think however, that this is an area of the economy that the government does not have to control absolutely, but only regulate. Perhaps their should be a minor addition to income taxes that would cover EXTREME costs, like broken bones, life-threatening issues, etc. Also I think that there should be some level of community support for the working poor with serious diseases. The addition in taxes though with these two changes might be quite small as well.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 23 2012 14:03 Zooper31 wrote:
Why do people call it Obamacare :/
It's a label created by the right wing to give it a negative connotation while making it possible to understand what is being discussed, without actually giving any meaningful information about the law itself. They did it with the Death Tax too, it's a fairly common political strategy.
|
please repeal please repeal please repeal please repeal!!!
|
On March 23 2012 15:07 Whitewing wrote:It's a label created by the right wing to give it a negative connotation while making it possible to understand what is being discussed, without actually giving any meaningful information about the law itself. They did it with the Death Tax too, it's a fairly common political strategy. Wait, how does it give it a negative connotation?
|
On March 23 2012 14:03 Zooper31 wrote:
Why do people call it Obamacare :/
Because they listen to Faux news.
On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy.
I want to smash my head against the wall rofl.
Try this on for size?
![[image loading]](http://gallery.burrowowl.net/index.php?q=/image/20541.png)
|
On March 23 2012 15:22 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 15:07 Whitewing wrote:On March 23 2012 14:03 Zooper31 wrote:
Why do people call it Obamacare :/ It's a label created by the right wing to give it a negative connotation while making it possible to understand what is being discussed, without actually giving any meaningful information about the law itself. They did it with the Death Tax too, it's a fairly common political strategy. Wait, how does it give it a negative connotation?
By pretending that it's a purely Democrat (aka "Liberal") policy, and pretending that it has nothing to do with the Republicans.
Standard political BS...make sure it's linked to your opponents, act like the entire law from front to back is broken, and then push through an extremely similar law when you're in office.
|
On March 23 2012 14:47 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:40 partisan wrote:
The idea that the ACA is moving towards socialism is laughable. The public already pays a heavy price for the uninsured, all the ACA does is bring that cost out of the shadows and attempt to contain it. Where we pay for the cost matters. From a philosophical perspective there is a big difference between paying for it in terms of higher private premiums, emergency room fees, and in other ways through externalities and paying for it through the government (or a government sponsored healthcare exchange, or penalties if we choose not to buy insurance, etc). Also, I guess we should just scrap amendments 9-11. Literally no point in even having them in there because they aren't worth the parchment they're scribbled on. Powers are expressly reserved to Congress, and no one else.
Good finally someone who knows about externalities of health care systems. You are right in that we infringe on people's rights by moving the costs into the public sector, and that would be the end of the discussion if you are expressively libertarian. But many countries have reduced their health care costs by taking advantage of the positive externalities of public healthcare. So what is the right choice?
|
In no way is this constitutional... also, I'm surprised so many people say they dislike their government, then advocate giving the government the power to force them to buy a producut...I guess this stems from the hilarious idea that health care is a "right" (rights apply to individuals, and what they have the "right" to do. Health care is not a right because it is dependent on other people. "We all MUST agree to help pay for each others medical costs.") I'm just sad that the vote will be so close. Justices are supposed to judge mainly based on the Constitution, but they can hardly agree to what it says (or just don't care what it says).
|
Medicare for every U.S citizen.
|
On March 23 2012 15:43 RifleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:47 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 14:40 partisan wrote:
The idea that the ACA is moving towards socialism is laughable. The public already pays a heavy price for the uninsured, all the ACA does is bring that cost out of the shadows and attempt to contain it. Where we pay for the cost matters. From a philosophical perspective there is a big difference between paying for it in terms of higher private premiums, emergency room fees, and in other ways through externalities and paying for it through the government (or a government sponsored healthcare exchange, or penalties if we choose not to buy insurance, etc). Also, I guess we should just scrap amendments 9-11. Literally no point in even having them in there because they aren't worth the parchment they're scribbled on. Powers are expressly reserved to Congress, and no one else. Good someone that finally knows about externalities of health care systems. You are right in that we infringe on peoples rights by moving the costs into the public sector, and that would be the end of the discussion if you are expressively libertarian. But many countries that have been able to reduce their health care costs by taking advantage of the positive externalities of public healthcare. So what is the right choice?
I think you might be oversimplifying the situation. This does not seem to me to be an either/or situation, where you must choose between a black and a white and your result is also in black and white. As I mentioned earlier, the US has an amazing insurance industry, and I think it could be modified to be about as efficient as totally controlled health-care without giving up the individuals' rights to control their own stuff. I'm not saying that its a sure thing, but it is another possiblility that has neither of the major negatives to either side.
Also, to Mr. CC, I agree that every American should have access to a stripped down version of medicare that would provide extremely bare coverage (only imminently life threatening diseases). I think that would take out the vast majority of stuff that goes unpaid for now, and the rest could best be covered by a reformed medical insurance industry. In my thought, that could provide a nice distribution of payments, where when you are young you only pay a little bit of insurance and only get a little back, and when you're old you pay more but get much more, but you can generally afford more.
|
I just watched the Harvard debate that you linked and it was excellent. I wish Barnett had had some more time to craft his rebuttal though.
What he said is 100% what I am thinking though. Name 1 thing outside of the enumerated rights of citizens in the Constitution and its amendments that Congress does not have the power to regulate (and even more, mandate) under this precedent/reading. No one person's actions (generally) have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, but taken as a group, the citizens of a state, a region, or even a city ALWAYS have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Congress could literally, tomorrow, mandate that everyone stop buying all flavors of jelly other than grape or pay a $500 fine per other jar. Why? Well (and I'm making this up to show my point but you get the idea) grape jelly uses the highest % of products made in the US of all jelly flavors, so buying that jelly helps the US economy more than buying other jellies. Therefore, better go do it because Congress has the power to regulate/mandate any action or inaction that substantially effects interstate commerce.
The worst part about this is the corruption that it makes possible. Under previous thought, Congress couldn't mandate that we all buy Ford cars, rather than another brand. Bring in this precedent though and guess what happens. All of a sudden, Ford is spending money to convince Congress that its business/cars help the economy the most. Ford donates more money than anyone else and Congress all of a sudden realizes that Ford is great for the economy and so now if you don't buy a Ford car you face a heavy tax penalty. Congress is not a central planning authority that can use its powers to regulate/mandate to show favoritism to certain corporations/companies/products. As if corruption and special interests weren't bad enough before, this just opens up Pandora's Box.
|
On March 23 2012 14:34 meatbox wrote:America needs to withdraw troops and limit funding for the military to $500 per year, then they'll have money, also tax anyone making over $200,000 at 50%, over $500,000 at 60% and over 1 million at 60% with no tax shielding. Anyone earning less than $50,000 shouldn't be taxed. Should lead to free health care and subsidised tertiary education plus a healthy economy.
You're insane...
|
On March 23 2012 15:44 Introvert wrote:
In no way is this constitutional... also, I'm surprised so many people say they dislike their government, then advocate giving the government the power to force them to buy a producut...I guess this stems from the hilarious idea that health care is a "right" (rights apply to individuals, and what they have the "right" to do. Health care is not a right because it is dependent on other people. "We all MUST agree to help pay for each others medical costs.") I'm just sad that the vote will be so close. Justices are supposed to judge mainly based on the Constitution, but they can hardly agree to what it says (or just don't care what it says).
Well judging from this post and first sentence alone, it's safe to say there would be no possibility of war within yourself.
|
On March 23 2012 14:34 meatbox wrote:America needs to withdraw troops and limit funding for the military to $500 per year, then they'll have money, also tax anyone making over $200,000 at 50%, over $500,000 at 60% and over 1 million at 60% with no tax shielding. Anyone earning less than $50,000 shouldn't be taxed. Should lead to free health care and subsidised tertiary education plus a healthy economy.
WTF? With that budget we couldn't even afford to pay one Soldier, heck even during the Jefferson presidency I'm sure the budget wasn't that low.
|
On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen.
True, but it's also ballooning crazy like. I would also argue against having Medicare and Social Security (especially Social Security). They always cost way more than estimated, for one.
The last 100 years (and to an extent, earlier) things have changed. People need to be weaned off of the idea of government "safety nets".
|
On March 23 2012 15:43 RifleCow wrote:
Good finally someone who knows about externalities of health care systems. You are right in that we infringe on people's rights by moving the costs into the public sector, and that would be the end of the discussion if you are expressively libertarian. But many countries have reduced their health care costs by taking advantage of the positive externalities of public healthcare. So what is the right choice?
Haha, it just so happens that I AM expressively libertarian so I don't think about the actual economic consequences of implementing the law. It is messy and empirical and really hard to settle.
I will offer a possible (bot nor necessarily plausible or provable) counter argument though. Those countries haven't actually reduced their health care costs. They have done one or both of the following:
(1) Financed short term health care costs with long term debt, pushing the cost into the future (where admittedly, it might be less burdensome due to inflation or other factors: I am thinking of places like Greece and Portugal here)
(2) Decreased economic expenditures in the healthcare sector, but simultaneously decreased economic productivity in other sectors or increased economic waste in terms of administration/monitoring/policing (I am thinking of the UK here with their OUTRAGEOUS expenditures on 'quangos' in the National Health Service).
I won't (can't) state that this is actually what is happening, but it is at least possible. Ricardian equivalence is a powerful thing.
|
On March 23 2012 15:51 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 15:44 Introvert wrote:
In no way is this constitutional... also, I'm surprised so many people say they dislike their government, then advocate giving the government the power to force them to buy a producut...I guess this stems from the hilarious idea that health care is a "right" (rights apply to individuals, and what they have the "right" to do. Health care is not a right because it is dependent on other people. "We all MUST agree to help pay for each others medical costs.") I'm just sad that the vote will be so close. Justices are supposed to judge mainly based on the Constitution, but they can hardly agree to what it says (or just don't care what it says). Well judging from this post and first sentence alone, it's safe to say there would be no possibility of war within yourself.
I'm afraid I don't follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
