Key provision in HealthCare Law

[Andara Bledin]

It's fucking socialism, and it's disgusting.

You are aware that this country has been semi-socialist for a very long time. I wish people would stop using the term as a boogie-word instead of just complaining about the things they don't like directly. (note: not saying that you didn't, also)

Oooh... socialism... scaaaary.

^-.-^

[protege]

That's what you get for having a do-good socialist fuck in office.

Don't blame me. I voted for McCain At least Obama, according to CNBC yesterday, is "moving away from the left, and towards the center." With his (as of yesterday) approval rating at 46%, it's easy to see why.

Here's one thing I'd like to know. Why, instead of closing the loopholes that let employers not offer insurance to part-timers...did our government insist on forcing everyone to get healthcare? Wouldn't it have been easier to simply close the loopholes? I have a feeling that if that had been done, there wouldn't be so many cries of "OMG SOCIALISM," or Big Brother, etc. But then, the Messiah wouldn't have been able to make all of those empty promises

[AdminAssistant]

The idea was/is that if everyone is paying into the system, then coverage will be more affordable.

Yeah, damn socialism. Gotta hate that state-funded public education. And roads. And social security and disability. And..yeah.

It does seem that Obama is moving away from the left. Which is sad, because not only will he not be able to win over conservatives or right-leaning moderates, he's now pissing off the same people that got him in office. I understand why he's changed his position on the Bush tax cuts (i.e. GOP good ol boys threatening a gridlock), but I'm not any happier about it.

[Fuzzykitten99]

The biggest problem is most are getting confused with is healthCARE and heath INSURANCE. There is a LARGE difference. EVERYONE has access to healthCARE here in the US. You can go into any clinic and be treated. Same as in the UK. However the difference is who pays for it. What most refer to as health INSURANCE is actually used more like ‘prepaid health CARE’. Think about it. You don’t (and cannot) use your car insurance for basic maintenance and upkeep or breakdowns. It is there in the case of an accident involving circumstances that impair the vehicle. Injuries are usually covered under this as well.

People compare this plan like the government mandating auto insurance. However they are not comparing the same things. The individual states that do mandate it, only require you to carry insurance if you choose to use the privilege of operating a vehicle on public roads you must have a license to do so, and carry insurance. If you do not drive on public roads, you DO NOT need to carry auto insurance. You can still drive a vehicle on your own land without insurance. Obama’s plan forces EVERYONE to either obtain private insurance (which is restricted to only purchase in your own state) or be penalized. This itself forces people to purchase something they might not normally do. Insurance is not required to live a normal life and go about daily activities.

The force to buy is the single biggest problem most of the public has with this ‘plan’. It states right in the bill that this plan mandates several things (read the bill yourself-most of congress has not!). The first one is an insurance mandate requiring all employers to provide health insurance or pay an 8 percent payroll tax penalty. Individuals who do not have insurance will be forced to pay a 2.5 percent “health insurance” tax penalty. (www.scpolicycouncil.com)

If you already cannot afford to pay for healthCARE, or a small premium for health INSURANCE, how are you going to afford to pay a penalty?

I have read and heard others here and elsewhere say something like “the system in Canada (or UK, pick your system) works for the most part, and everybody is entitled to a mostly adequate level of care.” First off, the entitlement mentality is what got the US into the budget problems it has now. No one is entitled to anything they did not earn or is not written in the Bill of Rights. Second, if you are satisfied with just ‘adequate’ care, then that’s your prerogative. That is the difference between the US and Canada (or UK). Most of the US residents won’t settle with ‘just ok’. We go for the bigger, better, stronger, faster. Is that such a bad thing? If it were really that bad, then think about all the technology and advancements in medicine we have now, thanks to the innovations and free-market inventions (that did not require government grants or permits to be done, BTW). The innovations and technology used here far surpasses that used in other countries around the world, and is why many from around the world come to the US to receive treatment for various illnesses.

One main reason of rising health care costs is that very same technological innovation. Innovation is NOT free. It costs money in research and facilities, and necessary supplies. However without such innovation, quality of care will decline. Obama’s proposal to pay doctors and hospitals a flat free to provide medical care will encourage rationing even more than the basic idea of the plan. Already, under the Massachusetts connector plan, there is a 33-55 day waiting period to see a primary care physician. (www.scpolicycouncil.com) Our system here is not perfect either, but by all means, it is FAR BETTER than what you find in the UK AND CANADA combined. If not, then again, why do residents of both UK and Canada routinely travel at their own expense to get treatment here that their own country refuses to pay for or provide at all?

The other big issue that many have with the plan is the severe increase in taxes to pay for all this. The Obama-Care plan will be funded by a cumulative 5.4 percent increase in the top tax brackets (beginning at $280,000). … According to the Cato Institute, 60 percent of those hit with the surtax will be SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS who file their taxes under a 1040 with a schedule of deductions. (www.scpolicycouncil.com) These business owners often have a few to several employees. The additional costs of doing business will then be passed to either the employees in the name of salary freezes, or lay-offs, or the costs will be passed to the end consumers, who (under this bill) would also be hit with forced insurance premiums (the law requires it) or pay a penalty. So costs of goods goes up (making it harder on the family budget)as well as being penalized in one way or another-making it even doubly harder on the budget, if there is any left.

The last thing is that almost no one in the current congress wants to say it out loud (hopefully the newly elected ones will) that this was passed as part of a ‘budget’ bill that was attached to the military spending budget. Therefore it was not actually passed as an official law. The President only signed the bill as a ‘budget’. Obama-care is not officially a law because it neglected to be passed as one is normally voted on and passed. This combined with the forced-purchase of a product or be penalized is in itself illegal. The budget was passed for current and new spending. They can still spend the money on the program but they cannot legally enforce the rules set by it.
One final word on it: If you think that all politicians are scumbags and don't do what is in the best interest for the country, why on earth would you put them in charge of your healthcare? They have already proven they cannot handle Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid (who reject more claims than any other private insurer), War on Poverty, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the U.S. Postal Service, FEMA, Department of Energy, and pretty much any other government funded project. Would you entrust your car to be fixed at a shop that had this kind of success rate?

[FArchivist]

Making it madatory and a fine-able punishment to NOT have it? Absurd. If someone works at a gas station and can't get on state insurance or afford their own policy, how are they going to afford a fine? Really, I mean really here.

The government forcing people to do things a certain way, and not do certain things, is steering so far away from what this country was founded on. Last I checked, we came to this country to get away from governments and control that was nothing but holding people down and forcing them all to be the same.

It's fucking socialism, and it's disgusting.

I'm going to quibble over points. I hope you don't mind.

1) The health care law is nowhere near socialism. In fact, nothing that has been done by Obama would be socialist. In order for it to be socialist, the government would have to nationalize all health insurance companies, all hospitals, all medical personnel, and completely outlaw private medicine altogether. You wouldn't have a choice of getting private insurance because it doesn't exist. This is in accordance with economic and political definitions of socialism.

The health care mandate is actually a 'mixed-system' proposal heavily weighted towards capitalism. Canada and Germany and the UK and other places with national health care systems aren't even socialist, really.

But most people in the USA use the word socialism incorrectly anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

2) The idea that government is taking over healthcare is a lie anyway, but better people than I have compiled facts.

3) If someone can't get on state insurance or afford private insurance, they do not have to pay the fine. They can get on FedGov health insurance. It's part of the law.

4) We weren't really founded on getting away from government and control. Truth be told, a bunch of rich white landowners here in North America decided they wanted power and control instead of the UK handling it. Thus, rebellion, all tarted up in fine words and shining promises and clever rhetoric. After all, the Founding Fathers certainly didn't have any interest in freeing the enslaved and indentured, treating women equally, or even allowing people who didn't own land to vote.

Don't blame me. I voted for McCain At least Obama, according to CNBC yesterday, is "moving away from the left, and towards the center." With his (as of yesterday) approval rating at 46%, it's easy to see why.

*snorts* He's always been a centrist. The left in this nation is not really left. You've got the right-center and the far right and that's about it. It's a good thing I'm an authoritarian.

Here's one thing I'd like to know. Why, instead of closing the loopholes that let employers not offer insurance to part-timers...did our government insist on forcing everyone to get healthcare? Wouldn't it have been easier to simply close the loopholes?

Surprisingly not. The Supreme Court declared these loopholes illegal in 1945, but the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1946 restored power to the insurance companies at their behest. In order to close the loopholes, that Act has to be repealed. After 5 failed attempts to repeal it since 1946, this is the first attempt that has succeeded.

The laws and court cases have basically created a choice: You can have the Feds regulate it or you can have the insurance companies make their own rules and loopholes as they please. Unless they change the definition of Santa Clara, there's nothing to be done about it.

The biggest problem is most are getting confused with is healthCARE and heath INSURANCE. There is a LARGE difference.

Theoretically, yes. In reality, in the USA healthcare and health insurance are indivisible. What health care is actually available to you is determined by what health insurance you can afford to have. What health insurance you have is determined solely by your economic status.

EVERYONE has access to healthCARE here in the US. You can go into any clinic and be treated.

So long as you can afford it.
And if you can't afford it, and receive care, you will lose what little property you have when they garnish your accounts, put liens on your property, and call in your loans.
*shrugs* But that's capitalism. Dog-eat-dog.

If you already cannot afford to pay for healthCARE, or a small premium for health INSURANCE, how are you going to afford to pay a penalty?

Well, if you're within so many (2x-4x depending) of the poverty level, you will have immediate access to FedGov operated insurance and so will not be subject to the penalty. But I notice a lot of people miss that.

No one is entitled to anything they did not earn or is not written in the Bill of Rights.

This assumes a strict constructionist viewpoint of the US Constitution. If we are to follow this, you do not have a right of privacy, as that is not listed anywhere in the USC or the Bill of Rights.

As it is, right to a certain standard of health care is usually argued as justified under the General Welfare clause of the preamble, and enforced by the Necessary & Proper clause.

We go for the bigger, better, stronger, faster. Is that such a bad thing?

Actually, yes it can. See the scientific viewpoints on sustainability and resource usage in societies that still undergo scarcity.

If it were really that bad, then think about all the technology and advancements in medicine we have now, thanks to the innovations and free-market inventions (that did not require government grants or permits to be done, BTW). The innovations and technology used here far surpasses that used in other countries around the world, and is why many from around the world come to the US to receive treatment for various illnesses.

That is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard in my entire life.

Flash Fact: Many other countries in the world are just as advanced as we Americans are, and in fact, in some places surpass us in various areas.

Flash Fact: Of the people who come to the USA for medical treatments, the majority of those are coming here for a) cosmetic surgery or b) because they can pay to get to the head of the line. Period. This doesn't even include the vast number of Americans who go to other countries to get vital surgeries that are available here because it's cheaper in other countries.

I refer you to the WHO World Health Report for further education on the subject.

If not, then again, why do residents of both UK and Canada routinely travel at their own expense to get treatment here that their own country refuses to pay for or provide at all?

Mainly because the national health care systems of those countries don't consider boob jobs, tummy tucks, and lip collagen injections to be more important or more deserving of care than someone with cancer.

According to the Cato Institute, 60 percent of those hit with the surtax will be SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS who file their taxes under a 1040 with a schedule of deductions. (www.scpolicycouncil.com) These business owners often have a few to several employees. The additional costs of doing business will then be passed to either the employees in the name of salary freezes, or lay-offs, or the costs will be passed to the end consumers, who (under this bill) would also be hit with forced insurance premiums (the law requires it) or pay a penalty. So costs of goods goes up (making it harder on the family budget)as well as being penalized in one way or another-making it even doubly harder on the budget, if there is any left.

Except that while small businesses employ 53% of the private sector employees in the United States, they only make up 13% of the GNP. (GNP, not GDP. Large difference between the two.) 87% of the GNP is created by multinationals, for whom the above benefits. I'm sorry it has to be that way, but the Big Dawgs win out.

[I should point out that this is one reason why I think EVERYTHING in the USA should be corporate and small business consigned to the dustbin of history. If you can't compete globally, why compete? You're just going to get bought anyway.]

The last thing is that almost no one in the current congress wants to say it out loud (hopefully the newly elected ones will) that this was passed as part of a ‘budget’ bill that was attached to the military spending budget. Therefore it was not actually passed as an official law. The President only signed the bill as a ‘budget’. Obama-care is not officially a law because it neglected to be passed as one is normally voted on and passed. This combined with the forced-purchase of a product or be penalized is in itself illegal.

This is a complete and total lie. I don't know where you got your information from, but it is total crap.

1) The idea that the mandate is illegal is completely crap. The mandate has been deemed constitutional by two judges already, this judge notwithstanding. Also, the idea has traditionally gathered support from insurance companies and central figures within the Republican Party (Charles Grassley, Mitt Romney, and the late John Chafee are examples) have promoted it heavily. No one has ever suggested it would be illegal until now and there are many good legal opinions on the subject that I can point you too.

2) The health care bill WAS passed and signed into law on its own. It was not part of a military budget and ISN'T a budget at all. IThe Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act was signed into law as a federal statute on March 23, 2010. There is no mention of a military budget or anything else within it. You can read the full text of the Act here.

Where the heck did you get this conspiracy-level hoo-ha about it not being an actual law from?

If you think that all politicians are scumbags and don't do what is in the best interest for the country, why on earth would you put them in charge of your healthcare? They have already proven they cannot handle Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid (who reject more claims than any other private insurer), War on Poverty, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the U.S. Postal Service, FEMA, Department of Energy, and pretty much any other government funded project. Would you entrust your car to be fixed at a shop that had this kind of success rate?

1) I do trust my government in general or I would have immigrated by now. Especially as I don't believe in violence or red revolution.

2) Let me you ask this: Who do you trust more, a government employee who at least is supposed to care about your concerns as a citizen or a corporate man who's only goal is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders? I can tell you who I'm going to trust more and it sure won't be the guy who will retroactively cancel your health insurance because your daughter with leukemia will impact his profit line and stands in the way of his bonus. Don't believe it happens? Yes, the health insurance companies do this. They told Congress. And they wouldn't stop unless the bill was passed.

I keep telling people, corporations are sociopaths, and no one listens. I work for one. I've always worked for a corporation. I KNOW this. Considering I trust small business less than I trust a corporation, why are people surprised I trust government more than either? At least a government is supposed to pretend to care. And are more predictable.