You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Here's what's going to happen:
People will blow off buying insurance until they need it. IF they get caught, they will pay a small fee. If they wait until they need it (cancer or a bad accident), they will gladly pay the "tax" then purchase insurance and promptly spend 100K+ on whatever happened - they won't be denied since there is no preexisting clause anymore. Then they will drop coverage again, so they will be taking from insurance, but only paying in a little bit while they use much more than they are putting in. This law is simply going to destroy the private insurance industry AND make insurance so expensive that NOBODY will be able to afford it because we will ALL be paying for the people scamming the system. The process will repeat when the gov't takes over after this bill destroys the industry and nobody will be able to afford it or the country will go bankrupt. This isn't solving anything, but it sure is creating a lot of problems.
This is like allowing people on their death bed to purchase $1,000,000 in life insurance for $15/month. Think about that for a bit and how there's NO WAY THIS CAN WORK.
Come up with something that fixes things and I will support it 100%. Forcing this pile of crap illegally down our throats is unacceptable.
That doesn't make sense and requires quite a bit of leg work, meaning most Americans aren't going to do it. I'd also imagine there are provisions inside this law that won't allow people to do this. It would negate the entire point of the ACA in the first place.
More people will buy insurance, thus lowering the cost of insurance. That's how the market place works. Likewise, those who are insured won't get hosed when they get sick (I know about this from first hand experience) nor will they have caps on what the insurance company will pay if they do decide to pay for care.
Those who can not afford to pay will be picked up by the expansion of Medicaid.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
buzzsaw wrote:Here's what's going to happen:
People will blow off buying insurance until they need it. IF they get caught, they will pay a small fee. If they wait until they need it (cancer or a bad accident), they will gladly pay the "tax" then purchase insurance and promptly spend 100K+ on whatever happened - they won't be denied since there is no preexisting clause anymore. Then they will drop coverage again, so they will be taking from insurance, but only paying in a little bit while they use much more than they are putting in. This law is simply going to destroy the private insurance industry AND make insurance so expensive that NOBODY will be able to afford it because we will ALL be paying for the people scamming the system. The process will repeat when the gov't takes over after this bill destroys the industry and nobody will be able to afford it or the country will go bankrupt. This isn't solving anything, but it sure is creating a lot of problems.
This is like allowing people on their death bed to purchase $1,000,000 in life insurance for $15/month. Think about that for a bit and how there's NO WAY THIS CAN WORK.
Come up with something that fixes things and I will support it 100%. Forcing this pile of crap illegally down our throats is unacceptable.
That doesn't make sense and requires quite a bit of leg work, meaning most Americans aren't going to do it. I'd also imagine there are provisions inside this law that won't allow people to do this. It would negate the entire point of the ACA in the first place.
More people will buy insurance, thus lowering the cost of insurance. That's how the market place works. Likewise, those who are insured won't get hosed when they get sick (I know about this from first hand experience) nor will they have caps on what the insurance company will pay if they do decide to pay for care.
Those who can not afford to pay will be picked up by the expansion of Medicaid.
It doesn't take most Americans doing it to kill the system. It's the people that make "too much money" for medicaid, but not enough in their minds to pay for insurance. What doesn't make sense is believing that this is a solution to the problem. It's not, nor was it intended to be one.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Now who's picking and choosing?
If they would've said it was "unconstitutional", which Fox News had their finger on the button as fast as they could report it, then had to take it off... you as well as others would be calling it a "great victory" and "spot on".
Then they find it 'constitutional' (doesn't matter what your opinion is Buzz, they're the court), now all of the sudden "they redefined this", "it still is unconstitutional", "they ignored the constitution", etc.
It's constitutional. The court said so. That's the country we live in. Don't like it, suck on it, or get out.
And before you say anything else -- I would say the exact same thing if it was me found guilty of murder. If a court says "i'm guilty" -- i'm guilty. It doesn't matter what my appeal is, it doesn't matter what I think, that's the court. That's the country we live in. THAT'S WHAT YOU GET when you let courts decide the rules.
You can't pick and choose when you agree with verdicts, to suit your needs.
If I was found guilty of murder, I would know right there that I either need to "deal with it", "kill myself", or "shoot my way out of the courtroom" and run.
Either way... i'm not gonna argue semantics with them over it. THAT i'm not gonna do. Guaranteed. This was 'the appeal'. The court said it was constitutional. It's a done deal. Be a big boy and live with it, or don't. But the discussion is OVER.
Here's what's going to happen:
People will blow off buying insurance until they need it. IF they get caught, they will pay a small fee. If they wait until they need it (cancer or a bad accident), they will gladly pay the "tax" then purchase insurance and promptly spend 100K+ on whatever happened - they won't be denied since there is no preexisting clause anymore. Then they will drop coverage again, so they will be taking from insurance, but only paying in a little bit while they use much more than they are putting in. This law is simply going to destroy the private insurance industry AND make insurance so expensive that NOBODY will be able to afford it because we will ALL be paying for the people scamming the system. The process will repeat when the gov't takes over after this bill destroys the industry and nobody will be able to afford it or the country will go bankrupt. This isn't solving anything, but it sure is creating a lot of problems.
This is like allowing people on their death bed to purchase $1,000,000 in life insurance for $15/month. Think about that for a bit and how there's NO WAY THIS CAN WORK.
Come up with something that fixes things and I will support it 100%. Forcing this pile of crap illegally down our throats is unacceptable.
This will NEVER EVER EVER EVER HAPPEN.
Public opinion is already slowly swaying in favor of "hearing out Obamacare".
Dude you might not agree with it, but Americans are stupid. That we know. Americans will bitch about hating it, then they will turn and slowly like it.
I GUARANTEE YOU
Write this down
When the time comes in 2014, I guarantee you 99% of all Americans will buy health insurance, gladly, and only 1% will go without. ONE PERCENT
So don't oversell this. Americans WILL eventually get on board. They are like trained zombies. Good or bad.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
And by the way Buzz, Japan has had a socialized system for years, and industry has THRIVED and turned in record profits.
It will NOT destroy industry. The fact is INDUSTRY has RAPED the American for years on pricing. It's about time it swayed in our favor. Knee surgeries will cost $5,000 bucks instead of the $25,000 we were paying in a "democracized" system.
How free! *whistles the national anthem while rubbing spit on my asshole for the taking*
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
buzzsaw wrote:It is unconstitiutional.
Ummm....The SCOTUS said otherwise.
You don't need a Presidential appointment or a law degree to discuss the Constitution in the US. You aren't bound to agree with the majority in every case - in fact, it'd be impossible to do so with the contradictory opinions over the years. In this case in particular, 4 of the 9 Justices felt adamantly that the entire bill was unconstitutional, so you'd be disingenuous to say that view has no merit.
The decision itself is fascinating, at times both ingenious and ridiculous. I worry that it's split so many ways and so compartmentalized that the lower courts will struggle to implement its standards for Commerce Clause, Taxing Power, Necessary + Proper interpretations. But the pressing political concern is resolved, and the worst case scenario (upheld on Commerce Clause grounds) was struck down. So it's hard to get super emotional about this one, I think (although I feel that way about the Court almost always, except rare ones like Bush v Gore or Kelo v. New London).
The argument that was had in the public sphere over the mandate the past year has unquestionably been pertaining to the Commerce Clause. On that front, SCOTUS found that the law is unconstitutional. Then they found another argument that the law's defenders had abandoned after it was rejected by every single lower court to hear the case. In that way, Roberts was tremendously activist in his interpretation. But in using his vote to defer to the political branches on a question of major public policy, he was loyal to judicial deference. Fucking brilliant.
I think it's bad policy, and I think mandates to engage in commerce are unconstitutional, but had the program been announced as 'hey, we're increasing a bunch of taxes a bit and using the fund to buy the poor health insurance', which is functionally very similar to the core of ACA, it's unquestionably Constitutional. So if you're outraged after the decision, I think it should be at Congress and the White House for crafting the bill and selling it the way they did. Fight the policy battles in the policy arena.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
Cramer wrote:buzzsaw wrote:It is unconstitiutional.
Ummm....The SCOTUS said otherwise.
You don't need a Presidential appointment or a law degree to discuss the Constitution in the US. You aren't bound to agree with the majority in every case - in fact, it'd be impossible to do so with the contradictory opinions over the years. In this case in particular, 4 of the 9 Justices felt adamantly that the entire bill was unconstitutional, so you'd be disingenuous to say that view has no merit.
The decision itself is fascinating, at times both ingenious and ridiculous. I worry that it's split so many ways and so compartmentalized that the lower courts will struggle to implement its standards for Commerce Clause, Taxing Power, Necessary + Proper interpretations. But the pressing political concern is resolved, and the worst case scenario (upheld on Commerce Clause grounds) was struck down. So it's hard to get super emotional about this one, I think (although I feel that way about the Court almost always, except rare ones like Bush v Gore or Kelo v. New London).
The argument that was had in the public sphere over the mandate the past year has unquestionably been pertaining to the Commerce Clause. On that front, SCOTUS found that the law is unconstitutional. Then they found another argument that the law's defenders had abandoned after it was rejected by every single lower court to hear the case. In that way, Roberts was tremendously activist in his interpretation. But in using his vote to defer to the political branches on a question of major public policy, he was loyal to judicial deference. Fucking brilliant.
I think it's bad policy, and I think mandates to engage in commerce are unconstitutional, but had the program been announced as 'hey, we're increasing a bunch of taxes a bit and using the fund to buy the poor health insurance', which is functionally very similar to the core of ACA, it's unquestionably Constitutional. So if you're outraged after the decision, I think it should be at Congress and the White House for crafting the bill and selling it the way they did. Fight the policy battles in the policy arena.
Exactly why I'm forced to vote republican. I don't like it, but this issue is big enough for me (and my wife's family that is heavily democratic) to vote republican.
The law is unconstitutional. It's no different than this band being GnR...just because the ticket (or paper) says so, doesn't make it so.
And JR - you're smoking crack if you think it's growing in popularity. Maybe Florida loves it, but that's not the response I'm seeing.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
And by the way Buzz, Japan has had a socialized system for years, and industry has THRIVED and turned in record profits.
It will NOT destroy industry. The fact is INDUSTRY has RAPED the American for years on pricing. It's about time it swayed in our favor. Knee surgeries will cost $5,000 bucks instead of the $25,000 we were paying in a "democracized" system.
How free! *whistles the national anthem while rubbing spit on my asshole for the taking*
Maybe it works there. They don't have THIS system. They don't have the entitled American mindset.
You're going to be eating your words if this doesn't get repealed. Your surgery is now going to cost $40,000 and you'll be paying more in premium and deductible to get the insurance in the first place. Someone's going to pay for the freeloaders and it's not going to be the insurance companies or the doctors.
Re: Americans oppose health care law despite supporting it
His surgery will go up anyway, it has nothing to do with that law. We pay typically 83% more for sugeries, like heart surgery for example, than the rest of the world, including Canada, because the medical cartels can do anything they want. Anyway, we're talking about something that's going to effect 4 million people out of the 30 million who aren't insured. And these 4 million are the "free loaders" who can aford health care but don't get it. So please. 4 million people are going to get that tax penalty.
And you can't have an "entitled mindset" when the majority of Amercians currently aren't given anything, but on the contrary, have the only free market health care system in the world, where medical/insurance monopolies make the rules and reject anyone they want, or drop people for any reason. We do not have a guaranteed health coverage unless you're a senior citizen or in extreme poverty (which isn't as easy to qualify for as people seem to think). The majority of personal bankruptcies in this country are over medical bills. Saying American's having an entitlement mindset, is not living in the world of reality.
Japan is a great example, because it would be a great system for us, even tweaked a bit. We have a better immigration flow into the country along with families having more children, Japan has neither of those things.
And the ruling, which was pointed out by several constitutional scholars before the ruling, goes under the right to tax, so it is constitutional.
No constitutional-conservative justice would vote that way, otherwise.
I'm not even happy with the mandate, we need a single payer/public option system, with a panel that negotiates (like every other industry in the country, like food and water) all medical and pharmecutical costs, capping the amount they can charge for your surgery to your asprin, capping the malpractice suits that drive up insurance, and taking away food and farm subsidies from the corporations and giving them to doctors and hospitals. That's healthcare reform.
