Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Davidson Deac II

Big day for the president tomorrow

226 posts in this topic

Sounds like some people need to go call the Waaambulance. It was approved and upheld. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, still a world of difference between requiring people engaged in interstate commerce to purchase insurance and requiring people not involved in interstate commerce to purchase something. In 1798, we were engaged in an undeclared naval war with france, and merchant ships were part of the war, and in those days considered a Naval reserve or militia of sorts.

DId the dissenting opinions reference either of these events (I read part of the dissent, but not all). If not, then it would seem that even the justices that disagreed with Roberts don't think those items were relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point youre just arguing semantics. I dont particularly like the idea of purchase mandates, especially in this case when it seems geared toward increasing revenue streams for insurance companies. But I dont see it as an issue the courts need to deal with since health care is so intertwined with government anyway. Its not like people without health insurance are not involved in the health care industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously, this magical idea that there are people who are not taking part in the health care industry is a bunch of bullcrap. At some point in someone's life they are going to be involved in that industry, and for many of the uninsured, they are actually involved in it quite regularly or are extremely likely to be involved in it shortly - and on someone else's dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously, this magical idea that there are people who are not taking part in the health care industry is a bunch of bullcrap. At some point in someone's life they are going to be involved in that industry, and for many of the uninsured, they are actually involved in it quite regularly or are extremely likely to be involved in it shortly - and on someone else's dime.

Nothing about that will change due to this bill, though, unless I'm completely missing something. I haven't done research but it seems to me that the vast majority of the uninsured live near the poverty level, who are exempt from the mandate. I'm not imagining many comfortable suburbanites sitting back saying "Yeah, I can afford it, but I get kind of a rush by being uninsured."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just because I feel gross that I'm taking the same side regarding this bill as G5 and the others, I need to point out that I support actual single payer public healthcare and my problem is that this bill doesn't go far enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing about that will change due to this bill, though, unless I'm completely missing something. I haven't done research but it seems to me that the vast majority of the uninsured live near the poverty level, who are exempt from the mandate. I'm not imagining many comfortable suburbanites sitting back saying "Yeah, I can afford it, but I get kind of a rush by being uninsured."

The poor are exempt from the penalties from the mandate, but coverage is increased for them. My understanding was that coverage would be expanded to cover more "working poor" through medicaid (I think). Whether or not it goes far enough, or covers everyone, is a different story; it should help the situation in some regards. The goal here is to reduce costs because having insurance will open them up to different care than they currently have available now; hopefully cutting costs from emergency rooms treating patients without emergency issues. Even though "someone else" is still paying for them, the cost is not the same as trips to the ER etc.

But there are actually quite a few healthy people right now without insurance, though many of them will end up on parent's plans soon. There are also some people with means right now who are going without coverage. Their numbers are small I think, but they are out there. I have heard either 1% or 4 million people (by 2016) will end up paying a penalty by opting not to have health insurance.

edit: clarified

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point youre just arguing semantics. I dont particularly like the idea of purchase mandates, especially in this case when it seems geared toward increasing revenue streams for insurance companies. But I dont see it as an issue the courts need to deal with since health care is so intertwined with government anyway. Its not like people without health insurance are not involved in the health care industry.

Some would argue that Roberts opinion is Semantics. But when it comes to court rulings, the Semantics are important.

But fwiw, I am ok with the rulings. Obama care with all its positives and negatives, is now a fact of life, so we will see if it really accomplishes what the president intends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor are exempt from the penalties from the mandate, but coverage is increased for them. My understanding was that coverage would be expanded to cover more "working poor" through medicaid (I think). Whether or not it goes far enough, or covers everyone, is a different story; it should help the situation in some regards. The goal here is to reduce costs because having insurance will open them up to different care than they currently have available now; hopefully cutting costs from emergency rooms treating patients without emergency issues. Even though "someone else" is still paying for them, the cost is not the same as trips to the ER etc.

But there are actually quite a few healthy people right now without insurance, though many of them will end up on parent's plans soon. There are also some people with means right now who are going without coverage. Their numbers are small I think, but they are out there. I have heard either 1% or 4 million people (by 2016) will end up paying a penalty by opting not to have health insurance.

edit: clarified

My understanding is that those whose income is 133% of the poverty level are now elegible for Medicade and naturally they are exempt from the mandate.

Of course, there will still be a few people who don't get coverage. Those working under the table for example. They are not a huge percentage of the population, but they do exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was interesting- a quote from Sen Obama from 2005 on why he would not vote for John Roberts supreme court nomination

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites