The Healthcare Reform Act Individual Mandate, which is currently being argued at the Supreme Court over its constitunality, is very confusing to me strictly on an ideological point.

One side, the right mostly, is saying that the government cannot force everyone to buy health insurance. That is pretty understandable, and I truly respect their opinion on the matter. But here is where my confusion comes in...The folks who have no insurance still will be treated when they show up at a hospital, and that cost is built into the price of the Insurance Policy that I pay for.

The freeloaders with no insurance will continue to get treatment when the Individual Mandate is overturned. Don't the people on the right have concerns about people getting health care for free? How is this any different than people getting free food stamps that is such an issue on the right?

The lefties are fighting for people to be responsible, and supporting the idea that everyone maintain individual health coverage.

Doesn't this seem like a total reversal of position between the Right and Left? What am I missing?

What?! The people on the right? The Individual Mandate is their idea! Romney, Newt, Republican Senators in 1993 all were about the individual mandate, in fact, it's a Heritage Foundation idea.

Can't make this up.

Having said that, I expect that the supreme court to hold the party lines with Citizens United Case and that the mandate to be repealed and only those of us fortunate to have our employers or be able to buy insurance to be covered, the rest will be covered when they get ER treatment, driving up the rest of our costs.

The net effect there will be more severe than any faux tax cut they might dream up. THAT is the irony here since they're all about lowering our taxes.

Quote:The Healthcare Reform Act Individual Mandate, which is currently being argued at the Supreme Court over its constitunality, is very confusing to me strictly on an ideological point.

The reason you're confused is that political ideololgy is not supossed to play a role in Supreme Court deliberations.

Political ideology should be argued and debated during elections.

Governments involvement in private contracts or enterprise is a contradiction to the principles America was founded upon. Government "mandates" which interfere with an individuals right to chose what to do with his/her assets, beyond reasonable taxation for core, basic, fundamental government services comprises the concepts of "individual rights", free enterprise, and "constitutional" democracy, as those concepts were intended by our founding fathers.

Unfortunately, over the past several decades those concepts have been bastardized by politicians, media, academics, and even judges (or justices) to the extent that Americans have lost sight of the principles on which our country was built, and what distinguished the US as the greatest place on earth.

Our values have been compromised to such an extent that a knowledgeable old school Democrat in the 50's would be more appalled than a current Republican. That is as much a commentary about the current Republicans as it is Remocrats. Truth is, most folks who consider themselves "conservatives" don't have a clue as to what that is supposed to mean. Many think conservatism allows for compromising civil rights, and allowing "regulations" that serve the political interest of the day. That shouldn't be the case. Having said that Democrats tend to take it to another level.

The truth is, Americans are becoming far too accepting of socialistic principles, and have lost sight of why individual rights are so critical, and prerequisite, to our prosperity as a country in general. People get sick, people die. Some will be poor and some will be wealthy, with many in between. The more the "government" tries to provide for the "needs" of everyone who is poor or suffering, the more our system will fail. Government isn't our daddy, and cant fix all the wrongs or bad things in the country.

The only way Obama-care could survive constitutional scrutiny is with the most convoluted, strained, and "liberal" analysis by Justices who feel obligated to live up to the left wing principles expected of them; relying upon previous, equally horrendous prior decisions made under similar circumstances.

This is no longer a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Frankly, there is very little that distinguishes the two groups (and that is meant as an insult to both groups). This is a question whether we are now so deep into the quick sand of socialism/government control/regulation that we could never get back to what made us prosperous in the first place.

Thanks for the good comments. Not sure it answers the question, but maybe there really isn't an answer.

To me it comes down to someone is going to be forced into a position they don't want; me being forced to pay for someone else's medical care because they can't or won't pay for medical insurance, or, someone being forced into paying for insurance they don't want.

The Supreme Court is going to decide it, and somebody isn't going to be happy.

As for it being a "private" contract, though, I don't see it that way. The reason is that once that person without insurance needs care it becomes a public issue. Everyone at some point in their life is going to need medical care, there is no way around it. So in fact, I am being "taxed" by having to pay more on my policy to cover the uninsured. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Quote:The reason is that once that person without insurance needs care it becomes a public issue.

It doesn't have to be a "public issue" if you don't assume that receiving healthcare is someone's "right".

I appreciate the comments, brovol. It's nice to get a true legal perspective on things.

(03-28-2012 01:08 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:The reason is that once that person without insurance needs care it becomes a public issue.

It doesn't have to be a "public issue" if you don't assume that receiving healthcare is someone's "right".

Except I do consider it a right. Not saying that it's necessarily completely constitutional as currently worded but I see this as a moral issue and support the notion. If it requires a constitutional amendment to enable legality then we should go that road and let the public/states decide.

Quote:Except I do consider it a right.

And apparently those in the medical community agree. As several have said, no one is turned away from health care.

If as others stated, those that go to emergency rooms are actually paid for in our health care premiums, so then why have premiums escalated so much after the passing of this law.

Now that insurance companies won't be responsible for the cost being passed on by hospitals shouldn't those premiums be going down? Or is it possible that now that those insurance companies have to take on people with preexisting conditions (i.e. the insurance company is taking ALL THE RISK), they're going to have to build that cost into their premiums.

The Dems big hope is that the cost of premiums will get so high that businesseswon't be able to afford it, they'll throw in their hands, pay the governments fine, and then the feds will come in and handle it. Which of course will be little more than extending what we already give people on assistance-----medicare.

The only true way to contain costs is to return it to the individuals, not corporations and not groups. If we pay for our own insurance, and don't have to pay for people who don't, then it'll be a free market. Until then it's just pushing the chairs around the top deck of the Titanic.

Right now, a w2 employee doesn't get a tax break for their health insurance, that's wrong. It should be a tax credit IMO.

Well, to clarify... I believe that national, universal healthcare is the correct thing to do from a moral standpoint and should be considered a right in this country. I realize that not everyone shares this opinion.

However, I don't think that the current health care reform is perfect. Anything pieced together behind closed doors, where lobbyists are involved, and that ends up thousands of pages long likely doesn't have the public's best interests in mind. Whether or not it's legal is up to the courts to decide.

I think we should have a national system that everyone pays into and that covers everyone. If you're unable to pay, you should still be covered, otherwise we're all paying for it in the end anyway. More importantly, I really, really, really don't think that health care should be for-profit, period. That's one major issue with our current system - both the parts impacted by reform and the old systems still in place. Any time there's an underlying desire to make a profit, you're going to have to figure out how to spend less money and inevitably that means not paying out for everything.

Basically, I think a combination of for-profit insurance companies and lawyers have created a system that's overrun with excess spending. Without reforming that side of things, even if we change *how* we pay we're still going to be paying far too much across the board. And then if we can get that reformed, yes, I still think a single system that covers everyone is the best way to share costs on a national level.

Nobody should ever lose their house or be unable to feed their family due to medical bills. And I just don't see how we ever eliminate that possibility with the current systems.

^ This.

(03-28-2012 05:17 PM)stdatwmu Wrote:  Well, to clarify... I believe that national, universal healthcare is the correct thing to do from a moral standpoint and should be considered a right in this country. I realize that not everyone shares this opinion.

With all due respect stdat, "rights" are are only "rights" because the Constitution says they are "rights". The Constitution is what provides any and all power that the federal government enjoys. It breaks down, in the various Articles, what the authorities of the three branches of government are, and at the same time describes limitations of those branches.

Unfortunately stdat, I fear that the majority of Americans do not understand the Constitution, and America's dependence on the strength of the Constitution to preserve the tremendous prosperity that we have enjoyed for more than 200 years.

Individual rights were foremost to our founding fathers when they discussed and drafted the Constitution. They never intended to create or even imply any obligation by the government to "provide" for individuals. Indeed, quite to the contrary. They intended, and clearly expressed, that the federal government was to be limited, and its principle objective was to preserve the individuals freedoms; which include the right, among other things , to contract, and to acquire and preserve property.

Our founding fathers wisely understood that, unless we had a Constitution which expressly limited what the government could do, government and its power-brokers (legislators, presidents, kings) would get fat and ignore the rights of individuals. Really what the the government is supposed to do is allow individuals to seek and achieve prosperity through free enterprise, with as little interference as possible.

Monarchs and dictators force people to do what they dont want to do. That is not the "American way"; because our Constitution protects us from that.

"Moral" rights or obligations are for individuals to choose on their own. If you want to buy insurance for needy people, then feel free to do so (perhaps if the government would eliminate the entitlement system, and thus take less from you paycheck in taxes, you will enjoy more "take home" pay to spend charitably). But if someone in this country has a different concept of where his money should be spent, he should enjoy the freedom to make that decision on his own.

And by the way, the drafters of the Constitution even contemplated the possibility that the government might get leaders who lost sight of individual rights and the Constitution. That's why they included the Second Amendment; which didn't guarantee the right to bear arms for the purpose of "self protection", as many would have you believe, but did so, rather, so that individuals could collectively form militias and take arms against tyranny. In other words, so they could conduct revolution if and when our constitutional rights are being compromised by our own government.

I no longer think health insurance is a right. I think health care should be available to all, by however we as a country decide to make it available.

I also think that addressing the problem of the working poor being the only group not being insured and not having quality health care available to them is something we as a society should do for many reasons, including it's the right thing to do for all of us.

Quote:I think we should have a national system that everyone pays into and that covers everyone.

You mean, like a lock box that we would put money into that would be set aside just to pay for a national health care system----kind of like what we did with social security.............Oh wait

The Congressional Budget Office originally said this would cost us 980 billion to do. Now they're saying 1.7 trillion. If the projected cost doubled in only two years, how long before we're all in overtaxed hell? We know right now how much health care costs us, and in spite of its flaws no one is turned away at the emergency room. Better the devil I know then the devil I don't know.

Tweak the existing system, and use the states as labs to find out what works and what doesn't, rather than letting one tiny city on the east coast dictate it all without any previous research to back it up. Let insurance companies cross state lines and compete nationally. Dial back Bush's drug program. Baby steps, not legislation that is rammed down our throats in the middle of the night.

"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it" Nancy Pelosi

"Tweak" the existing system? What is that, the assumption that the majority of people work for large corporations and government agencies?

I disagree, I like how you on the right preach "individual freedom" then turn around and want the existing corporate model to stay in tact, oh with a little "tweaking" of course.

(03-28-2012 09:20 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  "Tweak" the existing system? What is that, the assumption that the majority of people work for large corporations and government agencies?

I disagree, I like how you on the right preach "individual freedom" then turn around and want the existing corporate model to stay in tact, oh with a little "tweaking" of course.

I understand your position. My son is in a similar position. I agree with you that people in your situation should get tax breaks. Mike and his wife have a catastrophic policy and pay for the smaller stuff out of pocket. They're young, down that road that may have to change.

I'm not w2, I'm working for my corporation again, I get the break for my health care premium and I buy good coverage because I think it's necessary. Kind of like having full replacement insurance on my house.

Regardless, if I have to go work for a corporation again due to the market drying up, etc, I don't like the idea of being a w2 and having the company that I hired on with have such a large role in my retirement planning (401K, 457K, 403K, etc) and health care. I'm really going to get aggressive these next two years and try to break free of having to do that.

Corporations get all the breaks, individual people get few. This healthcare debate is all about control being moved from the employer to the government, and I am working with principled people in a large corporation right now who are secretly hoping the government takes on a larger role and removes the burden from them.

Today more than ever, big corporations are all about their principles, shareholders, making a quick short term buck, and the employees are last.

Does anyone believe that going back to the system we started with, free enterprise capitalism, would be worth a try? I know it is very far fetched, and the concept will need to be gathered from old social studies books in the historic documents sections of libraries, but the idea was sound, and worked to such an extent that The United States was once prosperous economically, and indeed the envy of countries around the word.

Under this free enterprise capitalism thing we allow people to invest their resources, time, efforts, talents, money,and intelligence how they pleased. In fact, it encourages such self investment; because everyone must take care of himself. The governments role is limited, and basically serves to protect its citizens rights to achieve prosperity. Under this system it is actually a good thing to be motivated to "get rich"; even "filthy rich". I think they used to call it the American Dream".

Economies tend to prosper, and jobs are far more available. In fact, there is usually a demand for good hard working and talented folks; to such an extent that jobs for those people pay pretty good and have nice benefits. Do poor people exits under that system? Sure they do. They exist under every system.

I know, I know . . . . . I am living in fantasy land, and things are more complicated than that. Sure. Just saying . . . . .

Sure, start with our "capitalistic" Fortune 50 companies.

What's capitalistic about treating people and not getting paid? That's what is happening now. Also, what is capitalistic about tying our employment to healthcare and retirement savings?

Try starting a business "capitalistic style" in todays business climate, let alone all of the rules and regulations that I constantly hear whining about, the fact that a well funded, backed by Wall Street chain can crater a market and perform penetration marketing (losing money in that sector) to drive out competition makes getting into a business almost formidable. Unless of course, you want to take your hard earned money and put it on the line to gain their trust, then you can be backed by them with CREDIT.

It's a rigged game, we're on the short end of the stick as "capitalists".

The people that made the money under the parameters you described are now doing whatever it takes to preserve their position, not improve it, and we who are pretending that capitalism is still the system are effectively swimming upstream.

Brovol - I'm not arguing anything about how our Constitution works. You're the expert here and, as I said in my earlier post, if we want to mandate health care on the national level we very well may have to amend the Constitution to do so. So, if that is what needs to happen, then let's start that process and see if we can get 2/3 of the states to agree. Although I personally believe that we should have a national health care system (that's a great distinction made by DB in his post I quoted below) I realize majority still rules in this country.

(03-28-2012 08:52 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  I no longer think health insurance is a right. I think health care should be available to all, by however we as a country decide to make it available.

I also think that addressing the problem of the working poor being the only group not being insured and not having quality health care available to them is something we as a society should do for many reasons, including it's the right thing to do for all of us.

Agree with this 100%.

(03-28-2012 09:30 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Corporations get all the breaks, individual people get few. This healthcare debate is all about control being moved from the employer to the government, and I am working with principled people in a large corporation right now who are secretly hoping the government takes on a larger role and removes the burden from them.

Today more than ever, big corporations are all about their principles, shareholders, making a quick short term buck, and the employees are last.

And that's truly my major beef with the whole system as it currently exists. It's overwrought with excess costs and spending and, due to the fact that it exists ultimately for profit, it really only benefits the shareholders and folks at the top.

It's really more than health care - it's our whole mindset that's changed in this country. The fact that everything is now driven by short-term results on a meaningless spreadsheet or Powerpoint and translated into giant bonuses and stock options is the real failure. Nobody - from CEOs to politicians - is forced to think or plan long-term anymore and we all suffer because of that.