NationStates

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... t-test/?hp

The article outlines a pretty diverse range of view points from various blogs. Basically the judge ruled that healthcare is a unique industry. Since the ER won't refuse a sick person we can't opt out of healthcare unless we sit home and die. Everyone is bound to need healthcare at somepoint. And actually those without insurance are more likely to need it because they don't catch symptoms early. So since we will use, or at least are very,very,very likely to use, healthcare much like we use or might use the police why shouldn't we be mandated to have insurance to pay for it much like our taxes go to the police. We shift the burden of pay to earlier rather than later, and in the process will save mony because preventive cre is cheaper.

So what does NSG think of health care reform's constitioninality? Personally I think it's fine considering the government has a vested interest in its citizens not dying (oversimplifying but true). I can't understand why people would object to not Wong rejected for a pre-existing condition, or for paying more for being female.

of course its constitutional.

all it required was the proper framing of the "mandate".

i think we need to fight to add in a public option. then the mandate isnt just a giveaway to the insurance companies.

RRR I HATE IT WHEN HIGHLY-EFFECTIVE COST-SAVING MEASURES ARE PUT IN PLACE

AND ALSO WHEN I AM FORCED TO PAY FOR SOMETHING I DON'T WANT, LIKE CAR INSURANCE

Edit: Actually, given the extraordinarily watered-down nature of the reform, this probably won't save a fuck of a lot of money (though it will indeed save more than previously). Principle stands.

I have no real comments on its constitutionality, but big props for basically getting to where we were in 1911, Americans.

grrrr

Yootwopia wrote:I have no real comments on its constitutionality, but big props for basically getting to where we were in 1911, Americans.

I think you forgot a word Yoot...

So basically, congress was like, "eh, you're probably gonna use it so let's make it mandatory."

This is great.

Hassett wrote:So basically, congress was like, "eh, you're probably gonna use it so let's make it mandatory."

it doesnt work out financially if large numbers of healthy people are allowed to opt out of insurance. so they mandated it.

now they have to figure out a way to make it really affordable for everyone.

This is going to become the next Housing Crisis, only it's going to be in the Health Insurance industry.

I can see the entire thing falling to the ground, burning like the Hindenburg.

Oh the humanity, why can't we choose over health insurance? I'm sure that you are all aware of the fact that if you don't own health insurance you will be fined in your taxes...

That's like being fined if you don't own an American Car, or if you don't do this or don't do that. This is a socialist authoritarianism that is springing up and people won't regret it until their ability to speak out against it is taken away!

And it's not like the insurance companies can choose to give you coverage. They HAVE to give you coverage, even if they lose money in the process. The Housing Crisis came about the same way: the damn bill is passed, the banks HAVE to give you the loan for your house REGARDLESS of if you cannot pay for the house, you default, your house is foreclosed, and everyone loses in the end.

I think that this is wholly unconstitutional. Again, this is NOT about the Right to Have Health Insurance, this is about the Right to Choose to Have Health Insurance or Not Have Health Insurance, and that right is being horribly infringed.

The same with the Insurance Companies. The companies HAVE to give you health insurance even if you are too old or have some kind of complicated condition, which means that in the case of the latter the insurance companies would shell out tremendous amounts of money to keep you healthy, or in the case of the former in which they shell out tremendous amounts of money to keep you healthy and they don't get it back because you die sooner or later. Would you put money into a car that is about to completely fall apart? Would you let your friend borrow your car despite the fact that every single car he drives ends up in a twisted pile of burning metal?

I say that the Obama Administration is infringing on the rights of the people one too many times. The people of the United States of America did NOT want this Obamacare bill imposed on them, no matter what ACORN or CNN or C-SPAN or whatever the Communoliberal spin doctors say!

Ashmoria wrote:of course its constitutional.

all it required was the proper framing of the "mandate".

i think we need to fight to add in a public option. then the mandate isnt just a giveaway to the insurance companies.

You know, I've been a big fan of the public option from the beginning. As long as the public option consisted of a zero deficit government operated program.

I still don't like the mandate, but lots of things I don't like are constitutional.

Mossat wrote: I say that the Obama Administration is infringing on the rights of the people one too many times. The people of the United States of America did NOT want this Obamacare bill imposed on them, no matter what ACORN or CNN or C-SPAN or whatever the Communoliberal spin doctors say!

which would make more sense if people didnt WANT insurance and if they could be denied treatment.

only a fool goes without insurance and we are not the kind of people who would allow a person to die on the street because he wasnt covered.

so everyone needs insurance and it needs to be affordable.

unless you find the RIGHT to die untreated to be extremely important....

I'm sure the Roberts court will be along to reverse this decision eventually.

Also while we're all being ideological, give me single-payer or give me death!

what a wonderful bill. You can tell that it's wonderful when 30 companies get waivers to not give 1 million employees the mandated coverage. It all works out, right? http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 7_ST_N.htm

Galloism wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:of course its constitutional.

all it required was the proper framing of the "mandate".

i think we need to fight to add in a public option. then the mandate isnt just a giveaway to the insurance companies.

You know, I've been a big fan of the public option from the beginning. As long as the public option consisted of a zero deficit government operated program.

I still don't like the mandate, but lots of things I don't like are constitutional.

yeah im not happy about the mandate without a public option.

but that is something to work towards not a reason to scuttle the progress that has been made.

Umbagar wrote:what a wonderful bill. You can tell that it's wonderful when 30 companies get waivers to not give 1 million employees the mandated coverage. It all works out, right? http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 7_ST_N.htm

if the republicans werent dicks we could fix whatever turns out to be wrong with the bill.

Ashmoria wrote:

Umbagar wrote:what a wonderful bill. You can tell that it's wonderful when 30 companies get waivers to not give 1 million employees the mandated coverage. It all works out, right? http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 7_ST_N.htm

if the republicans werent dicks we could fix whatever turns out to be wrong with the bill.

From their POV that's what the Republicans are trying to do...

Dyakovo wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:if the republicans werent dicks we could fix whatever turns out to be wrong with the bill.

From their POV that's what the Republicans are trying to do...

no

they are trying to deal a blow to the dems and the president.

if all they wanted to do was to FIX the bill they wouldnt be saying they want to REPEAL IT then replace it with essentially the same thing.

actually they are trying hard to not do anything at all. they are so fucking sure that they are going to win next month that they arent doing jackshit for the country.

Ashmoria wrote:

Umbagar wrote:what a wonderful bill. You can tell that it's wonderful when 30 companies get waivers to not give 1 million employees the mandated coverage. It all works out, right? http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 7_ST_N.htm

if the republicans werent dicks we could fix whatever turns out to be wrong with the bill.

For the millionth fricking time, the Democrats have the majority in the Congress, and have had the majority ever since Bush! They don't need the Republicans to get things done! They can't do anything because they can't get their act together.

Anyone who thinks that the bill is constitutional needs to get their head checked. Anyone who honestly believes that the Republicans are to blame for the lack of action in congress needs an operation, because their heads are so far up their asses that they cannot freely remove them on their own...

Ashmoria wrote:

Mossat wrote: I say that the Obama Administration is infringing on the rights of the people one too many times. The people of the United States of America did NOT want this Obamacare bill imposed on them, no matter what ACORN or CNN or C-SPAN or whatever the Communoliberal spin doctors say!

which would make more sense if people didnt WANT insurance and if they could be denied treatment.

only a fool goes without insurance and we are not the kind of people who would allow a person to die on the street because he wasnt covered.

so everyone needs insurance and it needs to be affordable.

unless you find the RIGHT to die untreated to be extremely important....

Right. How are people going to get "affordable" health insurance? Are you going to make them give it to them cheap?

Mossat wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:if the republicans werent dicks we could fix whatever turns out to be wrong with the bill.

For the millionth fricking time, the Democrats have the majority in the Congress, and have had the majority ever since Bush! They don't need the Republicans to get things done! They can't do anything because they can't get their act together.

Anyone who thinks that the bill is constitutional needs to get their head checked. Anyone who honestly believes that the Republicans are to blame for the lack of action in congress needs an operation, because their heads are so far up their asses that they cannot freely remove them on their own...

wow you know nothing about congress and you think you know more that judges do.

congratulations.

Mossat wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:which would make more sense if people didnt WANT insurance and if they could be denied treatment.

only a fool goes without insurance and we are not the kind of people who would allow a person to die on the street because he wasnt covered.

so everyone needs insurance and it needs to be affordable.

unless you find the RIGHT to die untreated to be extremely important....

Right. How are people going to get "affordable" health insurance? Are you going to make them give it to them cheap?

thats the rub eh?

there is a subsidy on insurance prices in the bill but no cost controls they are relying on the invisibly hand of the market to take care of that party.

its going to require a public option or consumer run insurance co-ops in the exchanges. (i dont remember if it allows for consumer co-ops)

Well, if congress were to tell us what was in the Health Care Bill and not hide it from us, despite their stressing "transparency," maybe the public would do something about it.

Instead we get Nancy Pelosi...
"Let's vote on the bill, then let's read it"

Ashmoria wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:From their POV that's what the Republicans are trying to do...

no

they are trying to deal a blow to the dems and the president.

if all they wanted to do was to FIX the bill they wouldnt be saying they want to REPEAL IT then replace it with essentially the same thing.

actually they are trying hard to not do anything at all. they are so fucking sure that they are going to win next month that they arent doing jackshit for the country.

Source for the Republicans wanting to repeal it and replace it with the same thing?

Mossat wrote:Well, if congress were to tell us what was in the Health Care Bill and not hide it from us, despite their stressing "transparency," maybe the public would do something about it.

Instead we get Nancy Pelosi...
"Let's vote on the bill, then let's read it"

does she have to come to your house and read it to you? its been law for over a year.