Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, April 9, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
In his letter to the editor, “Health care act will ruin America,” Richard McCord says the new health care bill would ruin America. He opined the insurance mandate would violate the Fifth Amendment. Wrong and wrong.
All of us with cars must have automobile insurance. None can opt out. So much for the spurious amendment argument.
Ruin America? Socialism? Do we have our doctors as government employees? Nope. Do the feds own every hospital? I don’t think so.
In the two years since its passage:
• 2.5 million more adults under age 26 are included in their parents’ health plan.
• Insurance companies must spend at least 80 percent of premiums on health care and not on officers’ salaries.
• Premiums cannot be raised by more than 10 percent without documentation.
• Coverage for children cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions.
• The “doughnut hole” is beginning to close, making drugs for seniors more affordable.
Not fully implemented, the law has made a difference for millions of Americans. Eventually it will ensure that millions more will have quality health care that Americans deserve.
Obama, knowingly running yearly budget deficits of over $1 trillion plus, ram yet another costly liberal entitlement down American's throat. The 2010 election results proved this was an unpopular move and yet another example of liberal overreach. Obamacare forced younger people to buy full coverage health insurance in order to pay for the uninsuranced, a cost-shifting scheme on a generation already burdened with nearly a $16 trillion dollar national debt, over $1 trillion dollars in student loans, over $4 trillion in unfunded liabilities from local & state pensions with a young adult unemployment rate of twice the national rate at 16.7%. Liberals prey on the future of our young by burdening them with so much debt. liberals cannot manage our nation's finances and will eat our young in order to advance their liberal agenda. Liberals just can't come to grips that entitlement costs that is ruining our country's future prosperity. In 1965, the projected cost of Medicare for 1990 was $12 billion. The actual cost was $120 billion. Social security was designed when life expectancy was 59 years old. Now its 76 years old. The costs of our existing entitlements have always exceeded the actual projected costs and liberals do not have any plans to solve this financial crisis cause by entitlements. The same cost overruns have already started to occur with Obamacare. The cost of the Obamacare entitlement will be higher than projected because circumstances change and liberals do not have solutions to adjust to these changing circumstances. They bring a new entitlement regardless of the cost. The continued miscalculation of the cost of entitlements is what's destroying our economy and keeping 12 to 14 million people out of work for 4 years now.
End insurance companies altogether. The only service they provide is to collect a pool of money and dole it out as required. So of course they will gladly take money from young, healthy people and reject old and unhealthy people.
I say let those who can afford medical care, pay for it themselves. Save up and try not to get sick or in an accident until you've plenty of money in the bank. Or at least a couple of chickens.
While Obama was clever to front load the benefit - it will not fix the pain that is coming
Democrats could have passed a lawful bill that had a single payer system instead of a individual mandate and a small business mandate - and Democrats had the votes.
Democrats could have passed a lawful bill that states which parts of the bill still are in effect (serverablity- decoupled) if another section is struck down. Thus when the individual Mandate is struck down the pre-existing condition section would have remained, the 27 year limit on parents family policy would have remained, the Medicare donut hole fix could have remained, the Medicaid change could have remained.
Democrats could have passed a lawful bill that had a allowed high-deductible low premium (AKA catastrophic) insurance that young health people would swarm too - Obama was in effect forcing them to subside the older sicker people.
What possessed Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to produce an inept bankrupting unlawful bill?
--------)
"Premiums cannot be raised by more than 10 percent without documentation"
Now Obama has guaranteed annual increases of 10% and a 20% return on revenue.
Big oil only gets a2% return
We can't afford our entitlements Dennis. Our nearly $16 trillion in debt should tell you that. And that's before Obamacare starts to add billions more to our deficit. You liberals are giving out so much free stuff that fewer Americans have reason to work. Now we have a bunch of ungrateful people in our society who want yet more free stuff namely the Occupiers. Businesses now won't invest long term, retiring baby-boomers with now fixed income are spending less and those with means won't buy until they know who's going to pay for our unfunded government services and entitlement programs. This is causing 12 to 14 million people to remain unemployed. This is the cost of the entitlement society that you, Obama and other liberals have created. In the mid-1970s, the era of big government and accelerated social spending to fulfill unsustainable promises had begun in earnest. From 1947 to 1972, total government (federal, state, and local) spending averaged 26.7% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. In 2011, it has hit nearly 41%. Considering the present course of the GDP and with programs such as ObamaCare, spending will exceed 46% of GDP by 2016. For comparison, some nations recently in the news: Greece is at 51% of its GDP, Spain 49%, Italy 51%, and Portugal 50.2%.
Are we on a path to Greece? High tax, low business investment and high unemployment? It sure looks like it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/v...
Dennis,
Face it, you liberals have created an unfunded entitlement society. $16 trillion national debt and $4 trillion in state /local government debt due mainly to unfunded government pensions, hello? Right now, the top 10% of wage earners paid 70% of total federal income taxes. Yet when you compare to 2007, the top 1% of wage earners earn 34% less income based on the 2009 tax data. Our tax revenue collected is estimated to be 14.5% of GDP this year compared to 18% historically. We have 17% fewer tax filers in 2009 compared to 2007. Liberals desperately need business to invest, top wage earners to spend/invest and consumers to spend yet you and the Occupiers rail against the very people you need to fund at least a portion of your entitlement society. Why do you and the occupiers rail against big business, capitalism and the top wage earners who liberals desperately need in order to fund some of their entitlement society? Aren't you biting the hand that feeds your liberal programs Dennis? Aren't you biting the hand that feeds state/local pensions? The 12 to 14 million people out of work is the cost of your unfunded entitlement society Dennis. It's the trade-off that liberals are willing to accept. Face the facts.
Much like the requirement to purchase auto liablity insurance, the healthcare mandate is about personal responsibility.
I was shocked that a Justice of the Supreme Court would compare it with a mandate to buy broccoli. A persons refusal to buy broccoli does not make the vegetable more expensive for the rest of us. A person's refusal to buy health insurance does.
With freedom comes responsibility!
"Much like the requirement to purchase auto liablity insurance, the healthcare mandate is about personal responsibility."
It's the penalty for inactivity that is a cause of concern for many Americans. 67% believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage. A penalty for not buying something sets a precedent for numerous other mandated purchases in the future. Once you open that door(mandating a purchase or receive a penalty) it becomes a high hurdle to ever get it shut again. This would favor liberals who want NSA(no strings attached) spending.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...
Reffy doesn't understand that there is no such thing as "inactivity" when it comes to health care. You either have preventative measures or treatment after the fact. EVERYONE uses the system but Reffy thinks free riders are OK.
Mark doesn't understand that there are a substantial amount of people who only need catastrophic insurance, not full coverage. See, Mark and other liberals want healthy young people to pay full coverage health insurance in order to cover the uninsured. As if loading our children with $16 trillion in national debt, $4 trillion in state debt and over $1 trillion in student loan debt isn't enough. When you're 45 get the full coverage insurance. Don't put people in the full coverage insurance pool if they're generally healthy and don't need it.
One of the biggest let downs for former President Harry S. Truman during his presidency was not getting a universal health care bill signed into law back then. He said this when being interviewed back in 1948.That was 64 years ago and today we have the same type of arguments pro and con.This will never stop,just as social security has been argued since it's inception 78 years ago.With 48 million, or more Americans without coverage one would think lets get this done and move on to other issues.
The letter writer is correct. Obamacare front loaded the benefits of the law and delayed the costs. This was done to "sell" it to Americans who in polls at the time of the bill's passage showed a majority opposed. After 2 years of the benefits, two-thirds of Americans believe the Supreme Court should strike down Obamacare in its entirety or at least the individual mandate. Obviously, the strategy to sell the law to Americans didn't work.
At the risk of being redundant, the Congressional Budget Office says this about Obamacare. The CBO is a non-partisan gov't agency so it's findings and conclusions are non-political, unlike most who are for and against Obamacare.
"While just one American without health insurance is too many, and caring for uninsured Americans contributes to the soaring cost of health care, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that implementing the Health Care Law will cost more than $1 trillion and add $239 billion to the federal deficit by 2019. At a cost like that, statistics on the uninsured should be looked at closely."
"According to the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] the number of uninsured Americans is 46 Million as follows:
10 Million are non-citizens who don't want to buy insurance.
18.3 Million are under age 34 and work for employers who provide health insurance BUT they don't want to buy it. Reasons given are that they are too young and too healthy.
14 Million are uninsured BUT eligible for HEALTH CARE from Medicaid and/or State Children's Health Insurance [SCHIP]."
This leaves about 4 Million Americans uninsured who by law have to be provided minimum levels of HEALTH CARE if they go to a hospital that participates in Medicare and most hospitals in the USA do.
Health Care in the USA needs to be reformed and revamped. All Americans agree. But Obamacare is not the best solution as two-thirds of Americans consistently agree. Not when it passed and not now. More than likely the Supreme Court will declare the individual mandate unconstitutional and send the law back to the Congress for revisions. As well it should.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
"All of us with cars must have automobile insurance. None can opt out. So much for the spurious amendment argument."
I think the letter writer is confused.
ObamaCare is Federal law and must adhere to the US Constitution and it limitations on the power of the Federal government.
Automobile car insurance requirement is a state law and must adhere to each state's constitution.
There is a big difference.
Spend, Baby, Spend! Mandate, Baby, Mandate!
I've read posts from people in their medical situations that have been heartbreaking. I've given their writings due considerations when they give their reasons for supporting "ObamaCare".
I'm still against "socialized medicine" in any form. Don't get me wrong. I strongly believe healthcare should be accessible and affordable to all Americans.
I had more than my share of disagreements, politically with Ronald Reagan. However, when it came to healthcare, Reagan had it right. His warnings of the economic dangers to the security of our nation, declining proficiency in personal medical care and choice, are all beginning to play out with the passage of "ObamaCare".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLD...
I'm an Independent voter, and open to all opinions and viewpoints. Instead of the usual "party-line" rants and insults, listen To Reagan's speech for a few minutes on healthcare and then comment on his advice. We can all stand to learn a great deal from each other on opposite sides of the spectrum.
To hopefully begin this dialogue, I start by confirming my research from an author that wrote, "There appears to be nothing in the "Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or any ruling by any court in this country which gives anybody a right to healthcare. It just doesn't exist."
In my opinion, this puts the words of President Obama's rights to healthcare in conflict.
There is one thing that is a fact in this whole debate.
America MUST HAVE a better health care system than the one we have now.
I just pray that the Democrats don't throw up their hands and give up in frustration at the obstacles put in their way all the time.
Likewise, I also pray the Tea/Republican Party comes to their senses and collectively does something other than obstruct, block and/or vote down anything related to achieving this. I just hope someday they grasp reality and sit down at the bargaining table (like they were elected to do) and figure out how to make it happen.
But the likelihood of any of this happening, at this time, seems as remote as frogs sprouting wings.
So they don't have to suffer slamming their butts on the ground every time they leap....
@SgtRock -
For clarification's sake, you are correct that the PP&ACA is a federal law that must adhere to the US Constitution. You are also correct that each state's auto insurance mandates are state laws that must adhere to that state's constitution.
However, you seem to be under the extraordinarily erroneous belief that state laws don't have to adhere to the US Constitution. In fact, they very much have to.
There are innumerable examples of state laws being struck down by federal courts because the state law didn't pass must under the US Constitution. Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas are two of the better known cases.
I don't know whether a state's auto insurance mandate has ever been challenged as unconstitutional. I can almost assure you, however, that if the PP&ACA's mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, every state law mandating auto insurance will be challenged and struck down for the very same reasons.
So much for progress in this country.
We cannot continue to allow 44 million Americans to be without health care insurance in a private system when many of them go to emergency rooms and then don't pay.
We also cannot approve this hybrid plan (Affordable Care Act) that is part private and part government, has an unconstitutional mandate in it and doesn't control costs.
We need to start over and either go to a single payer government controlled system or find a way to cut costs in the private sector health and insurance areas so more people can afford insurance and health care.
As usual, our worthless Congress has taken a real world critical issue and made an absolute mess of it.
Michael
The biggest thing the letter writer is mistaken on is his claim that "All of us with cars must have automobile insurance. None can opt out."
Both statements are untrue.
1. Automobile insurance is only a requirement if you want to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. It is not a universal requirement since people without motor vehicles are unaffected as are people with motor vehicles who operate them on private land only (most common example is farm vehicles)
2. Anyone who wants to CAN opt out of buying automobile insurance. Every state in the US allows operators to "self insure" rather than buying insurance from a third party. If you choose to accept personal liablility and can show that they have the financial resources at their disposal to meet minimum liability requirements can opt out of the requirement to carry automobile insurance.
3. There is no legislated monetary penalty for not buying car insurance. You simply are not allowed to register your car or operate it on public roads.
So sorry, but auto insurance is not an apt comparison to the ACA at all.
How about this. What does the populous think. If over 50% of the people in the US don't want it then strike it down. People like Dip like having government run thier lives. Probably because they have no original thought and need to be led around like sheep.
Hey Dip when you go to Florida on vacation do you walk or ride your bike?
Oh and lets not overlook:
4. State mandated minimum coverage for auto insurance is to make sure you can cover damage you do to OTHER PEOPLE'S bodies and property and are liable for...not your own. You can choose to not have any coverage whatsoever for your own death, injury, or property.
The ACA isn't about protecting others from injury you might inflict on them, so it would best be compared to whether or not you have to carry coverage for your own injury or property while driving.....which you don't.
Dennis,
I don't think you can see it given the world view you hold, but both R's and D's (with a few exceptions) supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until is was safe politically not to.
When SS and Medicare are heading toward going bust; Congress can't find its way to a decent reform of the health care and insurance industries that really does control rising costs; when we have no coherent energy policy, etc, I find it very difficult to find a bright side.
And yes, I know the R's and former President Bush did not do a bang up job, but I find little to cheer when we go from a guy and a party that bat 125 to one that bats 145.
We're in deep do do and spin it however you like, we need alot better performance than we are seeing.
Michael
Bradley,
You propose an interesting discussion.
I've mentioned this before, that John Locke, who can in many ways be considered the spiritual god-father of our Declaration of Independence, often included "health" with "life, liberty and property" as basic human rights.
If we consider the police, fire protection, military and public schools to be legitimate services to be provided by the government, then it is not a stretch to view health care delivery the same way. Keep in mind that Benjamin Franklin started the first public hospital.
The rub comes from what level of service to provide. Just as it would be unrealistic to expect the government to provide a police officer at your house 24/7 there has to be limits to what health care services government could provide.
I can think of two particular examples that are problematic in giving emergency treatment.
Fist, would be kidney dialysis. The first one might be considered an emergency life-saving procedure, but when it continues on a routine basis two or three times a week it becomes a different matter.
The second is a blocked artery requiring a stent. That is basically a one-time thing. Yes, there is usually some kind of follow up with a doctor for prescriptions, etc., but you don't expect to need to go back to the hospital for more work.
But both of those procedures are very expensive today. And neither can be seen in the same light as something that save a life that was in danger due to an accident, such as being shot or stabbed.
I can see an argument that says it is legitimate for the government to provide true emergency care for victims of accidents, but matters arising from general illness should be dealt with by the private sector.
Before anyone starts to blast on this, I recognize that this is a very tentative formulation of a vague idea at this point. My main thought is to draw the distinction between accidents and other conditions that require emergency care.
Look at the other services provided by the government. You get a certain "basic" level. If you want more, you can always go to the private sector for it.
My position on this topic is simple. 1) Give people the option to decline the mandate and those same people will be refused medical care by their choosing. Period. 2) No coverage for illegals. Period. Harsh yes, but needs to happen.
It's a cluster especially the part that treats young adults like indentured servants but thats what happens when you let conservatives infect something.Republicans don't even treat their own children well!
And throwing out the unconstitutional action will benefit 50 million TAXPAYERS.
The States and individuals have all the rights not enumerated (specifically given) for the federal government. Individuals could take action against State requirements for auto insurance or health care. Might even win some of the "requirements."
Wow!!! Talk about learning! Great info on your post, "Boftx".
I can tell you gave your commentary a great deal of thought and completed your post with reasonable and practical means.
From your words on this issue, initially, I could certainly support a medical care system such as what you proposed, but with, as you said, a good bit of tweaking. It appears to be, maybe, a workable compromise between the left and right wing political groups.
Emergency room visits, come to my mind, first. These provisions would have to be clearly defined in what constitutes a legitimate emergency room visit and what should be handled by the medical professionals in the private sector.
In your words, "Boftx", "it is legitimate for the government to provide true emergency care for victims of accidents, but matters arising from general illness should be dealt with by the private sector."
Perfect!!!
"However, you seem to be under the extraordinarily erroneous belief that state laws don't have to adhere to the US Constitution. In fact, they very much have to."
Yes they do have to comply with the US Constitution but there is really nothing in the US Constitution that limits the power of the states in reqard to states mandating health insurance for its residents.
The bulk of the US Constitution is to list the explict powers of the Federal government and to restrict the power of the Federal government.
So ObamaCare is being challenged for grabing too much power that is not listed in the US Constitution.
I don't think that one would take a state mandate for health insurance to a Federal court. It would be a state court matter.
Bradley,
Thanks for the kind words. I've posted this link before, but on the off-chance you didn't see it before here it is again: http://www.modernwhig.org/whigblog/newin...
I got a lot of inspiration from that essay (especially the final paragraph.)
Like you, I do not favor socialism. But it can not be denied that there are some elements of socialism involved when one looks at the legitimate functions of government. When viewed in that light, along with the historical and philosophical foundation of our country, then universal health care takes on new dimensions in my opinion.
My goal is to determine if there is a rational basis for viewing health care delivery as a legitimate function of government. If that can be done, then the next step is to determine just what that delivery should be. (Paying for it is just a relatively minor detail in deciding what method of taxation is best. Yes, that can be a great discussion all by itself.)
I should mention that I tend to view full-blown socialism as government controlled charity. I think charity should be strictly a private matter and therefore disagree with true socialism. I also see socialism as almost the exact opposite of the Enlightenment (Classical Liberalism) which placed great emphasis on the individual being allowed to reach their full potential without interference from Church or State.
So far as I can tell, no one, not one single politician or blogger (with rare exception) or user here, has addressed the philosophical basis for government providing health care delivery on the same level as other "normal" services.
I must confess that I don't usually pay too much attention to SgtRock, but this time he has a very good point.
Without consideration for the other elements of the ACA (Obamacare) he is correct that it is the implementation of the individual mandate that has so many people upset.
Simply put, it was based on the wrong principle, the Commerce Clause.
Wickard v Filburn was a horrible decision to begin with, and it was the basis for allowing the feds to say states could not legalize medicinal marijuana. Now President Obama and Harry Reid would like to see it used to compel us to buy what they deem is in our best interests.
Given that almost all activity today can be seen as interstate commerce in some way thanks to earlier decisions and the Internet are there any limits to Congressional power if the individual mandate is allowed to stand?
NO!!!
Any true reform must be based on proving that universal health care is a legitimate function of government and must be based on Constitutional grounds that DO NOT go beyond that single issue.
The Constitution established a government that should be big enough to do the job, but no bigger! The individual mandate in the ACA removes *all* restrictions and must be rejected not only by the Court, but by any American who understands what this country stands for.
limited government leaves a vacuum in which the rich prey on the poor. What we have right now is "socialism" for the rich because the govenment acts in the wealthy peoples behalf. The bank bail outs , the oil, gas and mining subsidies, the no bid contracts.The captured markets in health care.In fact the only people playing the capitalism farce are the poor and unemployed. The only part of the constitution you right wingers seem to protect is the one the gives handguns to children.
Irwin.....GREAT LETTER, RIGHT ON.
YES, Obamacare is already helping millions of
Americans and IS ALREADY THE LAW OF THE LAND.
Just because heartless republicans say it's
unconstitutional means nothing.
Republicans make stupid and ignorant comments on
this post everyday.
AND these heartless, teabagger clowns ALREADY
HAVE FULL HEALTH INSURANCE THEMSELVES.
They just don't care if low income people don't
have health insurance.
EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS FULL HEALTH CARE, PERIOD!!!
Mr. rich guy, Willard Romney, who has full,
life-time health care for himself and his family,
said he will repeal ACA for millions of Americans.
Romney DOES NOT CARE!!!
Obama CARES!!!
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN.
AND NEVER BELIEVE HEARTLESS REPUBLICAN LIARS!!
AND the two-trillion dollars bush/cheney wasted
in their lying WMD war in Iraq would have paid
for all Americans health care FOR YEARS!!!!
YES, the heartless republicans, who are against
Obamacare, are a cancer on our country.
No doubt about it.
"What possessed Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to produce an inept bankrupting unlawful bill?"
They are dumbocrats afterall.
I'm confused by your posts teamster.....are you saying that unconstitutional laws are OK with you as long as they benefit some people?
.....or that you're OK with unconstitutional laws because you think that people pointing out that little "constitutionality" issue are just a bunch of big old meanies?
Either way the appropriate thing would be to address the constitutionality issue or start working towards a different law that accomplishes the same ends without violating the Constitution. Name calling doesn't really elevate your argument.
wendor.......
Did I say that unconstitutional laws are OK?
NO, I did not.
And just because you republicans say that the
ACA is unconstititional does not make it so.
Why were republicans silent when the worst
breaking of our constitution was commited by
republicans on the Supreme Court when they handed
the office of president to George Bush, after
Al Gore got more votes?
You republicans have NOTHING to say about the
constitution after that crime.
Whether fans of Obamacare like it not, the Supreme Court will likely strike down the individual mandate of the law, if not the whole law. It will go back to Congress for revisions, at best, and/or repealed, and replaced at worse. The best thing for supporters of Obamacare is to accept the defeat and disappointment and move forward not backward.
I suggest as a start to look at Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal for incentivizing all Americans to buy health care insurance: Using tax credits. It may be the way the individual mandate is passed and adopted. And it is constitutional to boot.
Carmine A. DiFazio
And teamster, just because you say it isn't unconstitional doesn'take it so either.
As as for revisionist history, the US Supreme Court did not declare anyone the winner of the presidential election. Go READ the ruling. What they said was that neither the US Supreme Court or the State Supreme Court had any legal standing to bypass what was written and enacted in state law - unless that state law was declared unconstitutional. Further, that a partial recount of just certain counties would be an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause. Since the state supreme court had ordered additional full recounts that would not be finished before the deadline required in state law - but didn't declare the deadline law unconstitutional, just that they wanted to ignore it in this case and set their own deadline - the US Supreme Court ruled that the state supreme court had overstepped their authority and that the count AS OF THE DATE OF THE DFEADLINE had to stand as the official total.
Kind of a tenuous grasp on reality you have there. My guess would be that you've never actually read the supreme court opinion on the matter, but instead have relied on "news sources" to break it down into palatable sound bites for you. Try actually reading it and see what it REALLY says, not what a set of talking heads with an agenda told you to believe.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00...