The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…

On June 29 2012 17:00 kwizach wrote:
It is telling that the people opposing the ACA in this thread have literally no arguments but ideological talking points that are completely disconnected from reality. Every time they try arguing their position with arguments based on the real world, they end up being wrong (impact of the ACA on the deficit, on the economy, on the quality of care, etc.). What it boils down to is this: you do not want to be paying taxes (and this applies to everything, not just healthcare). We get it.

On June 29 2012 18:09 paralleluniverse wrote:

Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?

In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.

Nor would the commerce power be unbridled, absent THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s “activity” limitation. Congress wouldremain unable to regulate noneconomic conduct that has only an attenuated effect on interstate commerce and is traditionally left to state law. See Lopez, 514 U. S., at 567; Morrison, 529 U. S., at 617–619. In Lopez, for example, the Court held that the Federal Governmentlacked power, under the Commerce Clause, to criminalize the possession of a gun in a local school zone. Possessing a gun near a school, the Court reasoned, “is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.” 514 U. S., at 567; ibid. (noting that the Courtwould have “to pile inference upon inference” to concludethat gun possession has a substantial effect on commerce).Relying on similar logic, the Court concluded in Morrison that Congress could not regulate gender-motivated violence, which the Court deemed to have too “attenuated [an] effect upon interstate commerce.” 529 U. S., at 615.
An individual’s decision to self-insure, I have explained,is an economic act with the requisite connection to interstate commerce. See supra, at 16–17. Other choices
individuals make are unlikely to fit the same or similar description. As an example of the type of regulation hefears, THE CHIEF JUSTICE cites a Government mandate to purchase green vegetables. Ante, at 22–23. One could call this concern “the broccoli horrible.” Congress, THE CHIEF JUSTICE posits, might adopt such a mandate, reasoningthat an individual’s failure to eat a healthy diet, like the failure to purchase health insurance, imposes costs on others. See ibid.
Consider the chain of inferences the Court would have to accept to conclude that a vegetable-purchase mandatewas likely to have a substantial effect on the health-carecosts borne by lithe Americans. The Court would have to believe that individuals forced to buy vegetables would then eat them (instead of throwing or giving them away),would prepare the vegetables in a healthy way (steamed or raw, not deep-fried), would cut back on unhealthy foods, and would not allow other factors (such as lack of exercise or little sleep) to trump the improved diet.9 Such “pil[ingof] inference upon inference” is just what the Court refused to do in Lopez and Morrison.

On June 29 2012 18:24 Mafe wrote:

As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable.
I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.

Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.

And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?

And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?

On June 29 2012 18:35 Pandemona wrote:
So i can get my head around the healthcare costs, what is the average monthly wage of an American? Say minimun wage you would take home x amount of $s?

On June 29 2012 18:41 kyllinghest wrote:

So a rich person has more right to live than average joe? Why is it so important to be different from the rest of the world?

Congratulations America, I think this one will turn out to be awesome for you.

On June 29 2012 19:10 Ironsights wrote:
The united states supreme court has re-written a law to force it to be constitutional...

Honestly everyone of the 5 who were for this should be impeached and imprisoned for treason. They have blatantly violated the terms of their service, broken the vows of their office, and betrayed the american people.

And for what? A broken bill and a precedent that Congress can use taxes to strong arm the peopel of america into purchasing whatever they order them to.

Lady Liberty just took one hell of a beating.

On June 29 2012 18:09 paralleluniverse wrote:

Wow, is it really 14% in Germany?

In Australia, the cost of universal healthcare is funded by 1.5% of taxable income, called the Medicare Levy.

On June 29 2012 18:41 kyllinghest wrote:

So a rich person has more right to live than average joe? Why is it so important to be different from the rest of the world?

Congratulations America, I think this one will turn out to be awesome for you.

On June 29 2012 15:35 Pillage wrote:


Alot of it just centers around our current policies toward medicine. I can say that the US is very good with it's care quality as well as the expedience of many of the procedures. There are three great things about having a private Medical Industry, everyone knows what they're doing, they're experienced, and they'll fix you up fast as hell. I'm not sure about how well it handles the "paperwork" relative to Single Payer countries but I'd bet is a little bit better because the government lets it do its own thing.

The main issue is the fact that when you introduce government into the equation it's "one more phone call you need to make" if you know what I mean. The introduction of bureaucrats slows the process down, as they don't really know what's going on, they're just a check-step for all of the procedures. Hospital administrators are just as guilty too for slowing things down, but they often can see all of the pieces on the board when a patient is being treated, and serve their purpose for 'conducting the orchestra" on a day to day basis. That is the inevitable result of subsidization though, things become more expensive for everyone and overall quality drops because the government must serve the lowest common denominator that requires 80% of all of the work.

If there is one thing I like about the law its the fact that it forces the insurance companies to speed the process up by paying for shit right away regardless of what's going on with the patient. That's the way it should work. The doctor gives his orders, the orders are obeyed, the proper money is given for the treatment, and the patent goes home feeling fine. The dynamic between insurance and MD is at the front lines of determining the price of the treatment. You have the insurance company trying to fulfill it's end of the contract while trying to keep costs low, and you have the doctor doing the diagnosis and trying to find the best treatment options for the patient. This is honestly where I don't think any regulation needs to exist anymore, as the IC must pay regardless of what is going on. Chopping off existing regulations here streamlines the process, and I'm disappointed that the bill did no such thing.


On another note one more benefit is that it also prevents them (the IC) from blowing off patents who have easy to fix things that if left untreated will go to the ER and jack the bill up for the taxpayers. The law is structured in an ok manner is this regard, there are some other things that are concerning, but i'm too tired to nitpick right now.

The converse of that, and what I don't really like, is the fact that the companies will have to pay out the ass to prevent every little thing that's possible from happening to Mr. Smith. This is inevitably what will happen with a large government presence in healthcare, due to the fact that government gives zero fucks about how much money it spends. When the government has that much power over insurance companies, no one will be able to pay for their own healthcare. Are we there yet now? I'm pretty sure we're not, but the direction its going in plus everything else I see in the media today makes it seem to be looming in a more obvious manner.

I fundamentally refuse to accept a single-payer system here, as it will obliterate the quality of medicine we've worked so hard to build here and send many prospective doctors into other fields. We need smart people in medicine, as mistakes here are punished through the loss of life on a daily basis, not many other professions can say the same.

The bill has some good ideas in it, but my faith in the the effectiveness of their implementation is small, government here has never been known to execute their plans in an effective degree, and I don't see why new legislation is needed when the pieces are already there (Medicaid). The bill also fails to cut regulations in other areas that I deem important now that the bill is law. This is why I don't like new legislation in the first place really, because government can't clean up after itself when it gets a new toy.

On June 29 2012 20:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good thing the USA isn't in a 15 trillion dollar debt hole and they can easily afford this policy.
Whats next on Obamas policy radar? Maybe closing Guantanamo Bay like he promised when he won the election back in 08'? Deadline over two years now and counting..... Balls in your court Obama.

On June 29 2012 20:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good thing the USA isn't in a 15 trillion dollar debt hole and they can easily afford this policy.

On June 29 2012 20:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good thing the USA isn't in a 15 trillion dollar debt hole and they can easily afford this policy.
Whats next on Obamas policy radar? Maybe closing Guantanamo Bay like he promised when he won the election back in 08'? Deadline over two years now and counting..... Balls in your court Obama.

On June 29 2012 18:24 Mafe wrote:

As I said, 14% is value talked about. But for my understanding it is completely wrong to think that "cheap system = good system". I have no idea what people get for the "1.5%" in Australia in comparison to the "14%" in germany and if these the numbers are comparable.
I personally feel like I don't pay too much, but that might be because having a chronical desease I receive much more than I pay. However the main flaw imoh here is that too much money goes to pharmacy companies and too little to some (but not all) doctors.

Also I hope to see the new health system in the US succeed.

And one question about the US: As I mentioned I'm chronically ill. Does this mean I would not get any good health insurance in US with the current system, or what would be ways to get one?

And one point: I heard that in the US people tend tohave to pay around 3times as much as in europe for COMPARABLE medical insurance? Can anybody who has an idea of "COMPARABLE medical insurance" confirm or deny this?

On June 29 2012 21:37 ackbar wrote:


Under the pre-Obamacare system, you would be unable to get insurance, as you would have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies would label you as being 'too expensive' to insure.

With Obamacare, insurance companies cant turn you down for pre-existing conditions. They *have* to insure you.

On June 29 2012 21:36 LaughingTulkas wrote:
Disclaimer: I haven't read the thread, this is just my reaction.

The main issue for me here is that unprecedented expansion of the governments power.

Basically, the government now has the right to demand money from me (tax) when I don't do what they want me to do. Sure, right now it's healthcare, which is a good thing. I'm not mad about it being healthcare. But the precedent is now set that they can do this for whatever they see fit. There's nothing to stop them from demanding I pay them money if I don't by HoTS, or any other private product sold by a private company.

I'm not saying they will do this, but the power is now theirs to control, and with human nature being what it is, its more than likely it's only a matter of time before such power gets abused. These are the liberties we are giving up, and who knows when the price will need to be paid.

(I am all for having everyone have healthcare, especially those who want it but can't afford it, but there has to be a better solution than forcing under penalty of law those who don't want to buy it, especially at the cost of giving the government such control over our lives.)