Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Big day for the president tomorrow


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
225 replies to this topic

#221 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 16,820
  • Reputation: 4,805
HUDDLER

Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:40 AM

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."

#222 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 16,820
  • Reputation: 4,805
HUDDLER

Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:45 AM

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.

#223 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 01 July 2012 - 01:58 AM

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

#224 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,930
  • Reputation: 1,460
HUDDLER

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:26 AM

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.

#225 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,930
  • Reputation: 1,460
HUDDLER

Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:31 AM

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.

#226 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 01 July 2012 - 11:01 AM

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.