EPTThese are completely separate discussions.
The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
TheNihilist
United States178 Posts
These are completely separate discussions. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:37 LazyDT wrote: Nature isn't equal or fair, and people aren't either. not sure what you intended by adding this thing at the end your statement, but in general you wanna be careful when implying "people aren't equal". it's an ugly thing to get into | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:47 TheNihilist wrote: I feel sorry for the OP. This entire thread is now off topic. It is not about whether or not Obamacare is a "good" thing, its about whether it is constitutional and legal. These completely separate discussions. Completely related discussions. If it's unconstitutional, could an exception be made if it's something really beneficial? Not implying that it is beneficial or not, but "what if" | ||
|
ClaYPooL
United States6 Posts
You are absolutely right, there would be positive and negative effects. However, I don't think I said that 'everyone can do it', I said it can be done. I really think there should be negative effects for people who don't make it out. I mean to be honest, why should I be punished(taxed much more heavily, mandated to pay for others way in life) when I have worked so hard to do the right thing? Whereas the unmotivated get rewarded(virtually no taxes, pretty much free money/groceries/healthcare etc.) for doing the wrong thing. Don't get me wrong. I totally understand the spirit of the legislation, and the idea of healping the needy, but just flat out taking things from hardworking people and giving them to people that don't work does not help them. Everyone knows that you value the things that you earn much much more than the things that are given(in general). Uninsured Cost On System Unfortunately, you're already paying for the broke, lazy people who choose not to have insurance. It fascinates me why we idealize what it's like to poor. Yea, public housing is so nice, food stamps make life so easy. Considering the vast amounts of inequality in the US, it's amazing how working class anger is directed at the poor. That's another topic though the issue with the Supreme Court ruling will revolve around whether or not you think that the decision to not buy insurance is "economic inactivity". The conservative justices that have upheld the ACA have done so because they feel, with precedent though I forget the case name, that since everyone will consume health care at some point, the decision to not have it has effects as well. I have multiple sclerosis and the two MRIs I needed cost 8,000 dollars. Without insurance, who pays for that? The answer according to the link above is We do. The problem with the ACA is not going to be access but cost control. I don't see how it's going to address the problem of health care inflation. All in all, I think it's a step in the right direction. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:49 FallDownMarigold wrote: Completely related discussions. If it's unconstitutional, could an exception be made if it's something really beneficial? Not implying that it is beneficial or not, but "what if" An exception.... to the constitution? Where do you come up with this stuff? | ||
|
polysciguy
United States488 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:52 Lockitupv2 wrote: An exception.... to the constitution? Where do you come up with this stuff? What? I think you are confused | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15322 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
And they aren't trying to regulate "economic activity," they are trying to PUNISH economic INACTIVITY. The people who think a constitution is meaningless and should be disregarded.... you scare me. You have gotten so used to freedom you take it for granted. The greatest threat to the freedom of a nation is it's own government, and it absolutely MUST be restricted and controlled, and that is the purpose of a constitution. On March 24 2012 01:49 FallDownMarigold wrote: Completely related discussions. If it's unconstitutional, could an exception be made if it's something really beneficial? Not implying that it is beneficial or not, but "what if" LOL! | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:20 Lockitupv2 wrote: Its simplistic because it makes sense and is easy to understand. There is competition is the private sector, which insures that the product you get is good or the company will go out of business. The government cant go out of business. There is no pressure to make good things, theres no worry. Everything the government has made has been absolutely terrible. From phones to cars, terrible. Competition increases the quality of items. Government health care will suck. Canadian health care is slow and long, France has protesting doctors. I agree companies arent governments and cant pass governmental policy, thats not what im getting at and im not sure what your trying to say either. I'm sorry but you have no idea what you speak of. While I can't tell you for sure that American government healthcare will be wonderful (it may well be ruined by the Republicans or whatever replacementparty exists in 20 years from now) I can tell you that government healthcare in general is a very good idea and there are lots of very successful proofs-of-concept around the world. And by the way, phones and cars are not healthcare. To even bring it up just degrades your opinion and pots so thoroughly. On March 24 2012 02:14 liberal wrote: I'm not gonna get into the discussion of whether it is good/bad, but it is clearly not constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the authority to force citizens to purchase a product from a private company. If the government can force you to purchase from a private company, then there's practically nothing they can't force you to do, and the entire purpose of a constitution is gone. And they aren't trying to regulate "economic activity," they are trying to PUNISH economic INACTIVITY. The people who think a constitution is meaningless and should be disregarded.... you scare me. You have gotten so used to freedom you take it for granted. The greatest threat to the freedom of a nation is it's own government, and it absolutely MUST be restricted and controlled, and that is the purpose of a constitution. Yeah man, let's hump that no-so-relevant piece if paper instead of having an up to date constitution like most nations around the world! I don't get the constitution fetisch. Yes you should have some form of constitution, absolutely. It doesn't have to be a 18th century one. Strictly speaking the government is not forcing you to buy anything, and even more importantly they are not forcing you to turn to any specific actor. Should it be unconstitutional (I doubt that it is) then maybe you should rewrite parts of said constitution. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:14 liberal wrote: I'm not gonna get into the discussion of whether it is good/bad, but it is clearly not constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the authority to force citizens to purchase a product from a private company. If the government can force you to purchase from a private company, then there's practically nothing they can't force you to do, and the entire purpose of a constitution is gone. And they aren't trying to regulate "economic activity," they are trying to PUNISH economic INACTIVITY. The people who think a constitution is meaningless and should be disregarded.... you scare me. You have gotten so used to freedom you take it for granted. The greatest threat to the freedom of a nation is it's own government, and it absolutely MUST be restricted and controlled, and that is the purpose of a constitution. But what about here, where we have a real problem threatening health care, overall? Why can't such a problem entail some kind of exception or amending to the constitution? some kind of loop hole? something? k ill just quit beating around the bush: Adverse selection must be addressed, now, in US health care. If not via individual mandate, then how will this problem be addressed? I mean yeah, it's hilarious I suggested that this problem facing health care is actually more important than the constitution. That even sounds funny to me. But, like, whats your plan on adverse selection and health care without IM? LOL | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me. I'm with Barrin on this one... Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:09 LazyDT wrote: It spells disaster for healthcare in the sense that you are thinking. Healthcare where everyone is taxed to pay for everyone else's problems. I would rather not have this open trough of money being ladled out to whomever 'needs it', which is really just semantics for 'whoever doesn't work hard enough to earn their own'. And before anyone implies that I'm not in a position to say this, let me clarify. I am an uninsured student paying my own way through college from an extremely poor background. If you work hard enough you can do it WITHOUT government handouts/Social Security/Medicare/aid. We don't want this crap healthcare system, and I don't want to be paying for people that were in my position for the rest of my life, simply because they didn't have the motivation to get out of that position. Because it is more than possible. I would rather have the option to buy my own insurance, not freaking regulated by the government, and certainly not MANDATED by the government on and individual or group basis. I would much rather have my own freedom to do what I like and not be told that I must pay for anything. Edit: And while yes, obviously with a strict and proper interpretation of the Constitution + Amendments Obamacare's Individual AND Group mandate are completely illegal, I would not at all be surprised if they ruled the opposite. The Constitution has been so trampled already. I hate hearing every other clueless conservative on the internet say, "Well I come from a poor background, and if I can do it, everyone can do it!" Either you are quite fortunate or just straight up lying. Someone has to be pretty damn oblivious to say that everyone is able to simply work hard and get themselves out of horrible living conditions. The world just does not work like that. That is naive, childish thinking. Your actually wrong, because if you give bad service, then no one will come to you to get care. That's how a true market works. The consumer picks where they want to go. Another problem with your statement, the United States has some of the highest regulations and restrictions to become a doctor and practice the profession in the world. The real problem is a few things, first being tort reform. Estimated to save 27% on healthcare costs by the Congressional Budget Office. So what's the problem? Most the people in political positions are lawyers, and you guessed it, lawyers make tons of money off frivolous lawsuits each year. Another problem is the amount of overweight, unhealthy lifestyles that people in America live by. It was estimated that 70% of costs in the U.S. healthcare system are self induced by smoking and living unhealthy lifestyles (Wikimed). EDIT: If your too poor to see a doctor the government already pays for you to. So people who say that we are inhumane for not giving care to people who are dying, well your dead wrong. Learn the system before you criticize it. This is the huge problem with overly-conservative fiscal thinking - you are all in dream land where your hypothetical true market fixes everything. Unfortunately, very few markets in the U.S. are true (competitive) markets. Take cable TV as an example. In most areas in the U.S., you have one option for a provider. If you don't like them, you settle for satellite TV, or you're more or less screwed. Just a really basic example but many markets are in the same vein - having only one or very few providers, giving the consumer little actual choice. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 24 2012 00:53 Miyoshino wrote: Indeed, if the Belgium, Swedish or Swiss government tried to pass a health care system that is so bureaocratic, gives private companies huge powers and doesn't really solve any of the health care regulation problems, there will be riots. Obamacare is a bad system. You need universal publicly paid covering for sure as a minimum. Most non US people who voted voted against this for this reason. So did I..I am actually very surprised that so many people are in favour of Obamacare. Right wing so-called conservatives in the US opposite it. The shattered and non-organized left wing in the US opposite it. Foreigenrs would opposite it. Then we only have some US middle of the road Obama lovers left who would vote in favour of it. When Fox news shows a poll on how many oppose Obamacare, many of the oppose votes are disappointed Obama voters who see how well some of the European systems are doing and are confused why the US isn't good enough to deserve such a system as well. The point is that it's a massive step in the right direction. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:17 FallDownMarigold wrote: But what about here, where we have a real problem threatening health care, overall? Why can't such a problem entail some kind of exception or amending to the constitution? some kind of loop hole? something? k ill just quit beating around the bush: Adverse selection must be addressed, now, in US health care. If not via individual mandate, then how will this problem be addressed? Yes, it is possible to amend the constitution, but you won't get the support necessary to actually achieve it in the US, at least for a couple more decades. As far as "exception," just no... As far as "loopholes," well, the courts in the US have been abusing them for years. It's possible the supreme court will go with a loophole instead of actually adhering to the constitution, but I doubt it. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On March 24 2012 01:49 FallDownMarigold wrote: Completely related discussions. If it's unconstitutional, could an exception be made if it's something really beneficial? Not implying that it is beneficial or not, but "what if" Would sort of defeat the purpose of a CONSTITUTION wouldn't it? On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me. Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore! -.- Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:20 liberal wrote: Yes, it is possible to amend the constitution, but you won't get the support necessary to actually achieve it in the US, at least for a couple more decades. As far as "exception," just no... As far as "loopholes," well, the courts in the US have been abusing them for years. It's possible the supreme court will go with a loophole instead of actually adhering to the constitution, but I doubt it. K forget i used "exception", you obviously understood what I meant. I guess "loopholes" is the more accurate term, in place of "exceptions". I will remember that in future use, thx. here's to hoping A) the supreme court goes with an exception (err, loophole, woops), or B) someone comes up with a plan for mitigating adverse selection without infringing upon the constitution | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
| ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:16 HellRoxYa wrote: I'm sorry but you have no idea what you speak of. While I can't tell you for sure that American government healthcare will be wonderful (it may well be ruined by the Republicans or whatever replacementparty exists in 20 years from now) I can tell you that government healthcare in general is a very good idea and there are lots of very successful proofs-of-concept around the world. And by the way, phones and cars are not healthcare. To even bring it up just degrades your opinion and pots so thoroughly. Yeah man, let's hump that no-so-relevant piece if paper instead of having an up to date constitution like most nations around the world! I don't get the constitution fetisch. Yes you should have some form of constitution, absolutely. It doesn't have to be a 18th century one. Strictly speaking the government is not forcing you to buy anything, and even more importantly they are not forcing you to turn to any specific actor. Should it be unconstitutional (I doubt that it is) then maybe you should rewrite parts of said constitution. So bringing up examples in the past where government has failed profoundly shouldnt be considered, when government is going to try to run something again? | ||
| ||
