What should we be mandated to buy?

[Jeremiah65]

Crony Capitalism at it's finest.

I find it funny that the left (and those of us that understand true "free market capitalsim") are generally against big corporations getting Government favors...this was a HUGE favor to the insurance companies...yet because you perceive it can be useful this time...you look away from the dark stain that it really is.

There were several other paths that could have been taken to achieve the goals of a "healthier" population. There other courses of action to assure people get the healthcare they need.

This is a prop up for a specific industry/service provider...that depends on/is contingent on.... forcing majority participation. They could have "forced" we all just pay into the medicaid waste fund and issue every single citizen a card for necessary medical visits/procedures....but that wouldn't prop up the guys drawing a percentage off of every healthcare policy...that wouldn't pump billions into the securities exchange...

I don't need to strain my eyes to see the cronyism here...I am just shocked that intelligent and educated people refuse to see what it actually is.

I am NOT against people getting the medical attention that they need...but there is an old saying "don't p!ss on my head and tell me it is raining"...

Edited April 13, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[Babe Ruth]

The "health of the nation" comes under the aegis of "General Welfare". As for 'liberal interpretations', the framers left much of the Constitution ambiguous to encourage interpretations relevant to the specific circumstance. They realised that being exacting in defining what govt can, and can not, do would probably lead to the document becoming irrelevant in some situations.

While this gives the lawmakers significant latitude in their intepretations, it may - as Mr B. Franklin commented upon signing - be the best one could hope for given it is essentially a compromise agreement.

Not really. They knew that they could be quite specific in enumerating the powers of government. Half of them were lawyers, and thus accomplished with the language and the law. So they enumerated powers in the document.

And realizing that even precise wording cannot cover all the situations that arise in human relations, they created a court to interpret the law and apply it in any given case.

And of course they insisted upon a jury of citizens to be involved in most cases.

And the government does not have the power to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest, and it does not have the power to tell the citizen which contracts he should enter into. It is sophistry to suggest otherwise.

[Babe Ruth]

Well, I have the fact that the US Congress, Senate and the SCOTUS appear to agree with me.

But apart from that, you're right - I have nothing to back that up.

That's almost like saying Charles Manson appears to agree with you.

[Yamato]

Health Insurance.. is not Health Care.

Right, because you can get health care without health insurance! *slaps forehead*

[Yamato]

The "health of the nation" comes under the aegis of "General Welfare". As for 'liberal interpretations', the framers left much of the Constitution ambiguous to encourage interpretations relevant to the specific circumstance. They realised that being exacting in defining what govt can, and can not, do would probably lead to the document becoming irrelevant in some situations.

While this gives the lawmakers significant latitude in their intepretations, it may - as Mr B. Franklin commented upon signing - be the best one could hope for given it is essentially a compromise agreement.

Locking up hundreds of thousands of good people in govt cages because they possessed a plant that has more to do with health than any pill pumped out of your Corporatocracy isn't doing anything for the "health of the nation". If you're going to trust a bank robber to keep your money safe, that would be another analog.

[Jeremiah65]

Locking up hundreds of thousands of good people in govt cages because they possessed a plant that has more to do with health than any pill pumped out of your Corporatocracy isn't doing anything for the "health of the nation". If you're going to trust a bank robber to keep your money safe, that would be another analog.

Now you've done it...you used a logical argument right to the bone...

This is a racket...a scam...a ruse. How can people not see the profiteering going on in the shadows? This is and has never been about healthcare or citizen well being. This has always been about the Benjamins baby!

I said it above and have said it more times than I can count...I am not against people getting the healthcare they need and I am not against there being a system to help them deal with the costs. I am not a huge fan of socialized medicine because...wait for it...I have never experienced it...I hear horror stories...but that very well could be clever propaganda. I do have a few friends in Germany and England and they seem totally fine with it...but when the word comes down over here...it's like burning a flag or using pages from the bible to roll joints with...blasphemy!

What I do know is...ACA is crony capitalism...it is not socialized medicine. IF the young invincibles don't join in and start offsetting the cost...guess what old fart ...your rates are going to rise...why? Because the providers are going to make their percentage and if the burden spikes and they think they are going to make less...then the rates will rise. Now factor in hospitals that thnk they can bleed this system...they will...now comes the big pharma companies..."Shiza...we can charge whatever we want for this guys cancer treatment...he ain't gonna argue"....and on and on....the people that suffer...are the policy holders...these giant douches are not going to take a cut in profit margins...I can promise you that.

[Yamato]

I agree with you completely Jeremiah, it's a huge opportunity for corruption; and non-corrupt waste if there is such a thing. Obamacare should have been bringing the govt walls down that prevented people from having access to all manners of coverage that was already available.

Just tearing down the silly barriers to entry (already destroying any credibility the govt had in matters of health care incidentally) was all it would take. And it would have been more competitive and costs and prices would have been able to come down tremendously. Even 80-90% reductions in 10 years from now wouldn't have surprised me. But govt went so much further than that, and had to administer the whole bloody affair itself. How invalid it looks to just trust central authority to do the right thing...it's absolutely baffling on any honest examination of governments in world history including ours.

But the ballyhoo and fear-mongering from the democrat minions paid off. And it was as if insurance companies wouldn't be waiting in the wings to pick people up.

Imagine the storm of supply from foreign countries who'd be chomping at the bit to insure American citizens for their health care. The countries behind real commodities-based currencies don't have to worry about our inflation trying to afford to insure us either. Opening up the markets worldwide would have stomped the uninsurance problem into the dirt. But a bunch of happy talk followed by a bunch of sloppy action that's going to cost the country our economic superpower before the end is what we wound up with.

Govts already drew their magic lines though so we gotta be good plebs and just suck it up! "Everybody look at where you are, inside of the lines." See those two lines, you're in between those. "You're all a bunch of small-time players and that's where you can find your insurance at hahahah!" "We must respect the lines!" Look, this one runs along the Ohio river! How dare you cross the river to get insurance!!?!?! You can't do things that are good for yourself, way over there! *strict authority face* You've got to stay in your own box where you belong, underling! Unless, our King dictates for us how we receive our choices, and then runs operations for us too. Just brilliant. What could go wrong?

imho this issue is fundamentally wrong and thus damn the details of it, good or bad. Both parties have grievous amounts of scum stains on their faces; now it's the democrats turn to play up to their constituency and ruin the country with more bloated bureaucracy not to mention the devastation of privacy. And I hope we'll both be in agreement still, when republicans drop their next big turd.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Yamato

[+DieChecker]

And the ACA passed into law with the House and Senate belonging to different Parties, so it was both major parties (or enough on both sides that mattered) who agree.

Technically you are right. When the ACA was signed by the President it was March 2010. And the 112th Congress, which had a Republican House. Yet, if you read the ACA document it was Enacted by the 111th Congress, with a Democrat House and Democrat Senate.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 155 (2009):

Oct. 7, 8, considered and passed

House.

Nov. 21, 30, Dec. 1-10, 13, 15, 16,

19-24, considered and passed

Senate, amended.

Vol. 156 (2010):

[+DieChecker]

The govts job is supposed to be to protect and serve the citizens. That does not mean the citizen does not have a responsibility to the nation.

Yet does it mean the government gets to define the abilities of the citizens, or do the citizens get to define the abilities of the government?

So the citizens responsibility should include paying a national tax for not purchasing a service?

The mandate is not a tax, even the SCOTUS recognise that. The penalty a person is liable for if they do not take out healthcare insurance is a tax - but again, that has been okayed by the SCOTUS as constitutional.

So......

Mandate =\= Tax = Constitutional

Penalty = Tax = Constitutional

So the Mandate is not involved with the Penalty?

What does the Penalty enforce if not the Mandate to purchase insurance?

[SpiritWriter]

parking tickets and speeding tickets.... i mean I don't think I should have to pay them, but they are mandated and quite expensive too. They even take a picture of you speeding and send you the bill in the mail.

what else do they make me pay for hmmmmm........

lots of sh**

Obamacare is expensive and has bad coverage, it sucks and they can't even pick up their damn phone

[SpiritWriter]

their appeal department doesn't have a phone number or email or contact, they say they will contact you but they never do. The brokers don't call you either and you can't call the provider directly....... so far its a bust

[SpiritWriter]

oh, and they have an option on the voicemail to leave your number for a call back so you don't have to wait for an hour on the phone but guess what, they never call you back.. then when you ask them about it they say "oh, we don't have a call back department"

[lightly]

Right, because you can get health care without health insurance! *slaps forehead*

It's very expensive but.. yes.. i've been forced to do it that way for years now. I've had a minor operation.. My wife had some adrenal system 'issues' ..we've been trying to keep up on our dental care,.. and her chiropractor And, so far.... Still pay'ed out MUCH less , per year, than the lowest "health" insurance premium plans we could find. I was refused insurance before.. but my wife could have gotten a catastrophic plan ( for more than we could afford) And now.. after ACA the plans we were shown, through the on-line process and over the phone process , were both far more than we can afford. "affordable" is relative,, and apparently a bit of a mystery to our legislators?

.. if something MAJOR happened , before we can sort this out, we'd be wiped out. $$

and .. Medicaid!? i'd rather keep my teeth if i can.

Edited April 14, 2014 by lightly