Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by commiecat

The Constitution is brought up over a specific cause in the reform act which states that citizens are charged a fee of ~ $97USD/yr if they choose not to have an insurance plan. There are a few exceptions, but basically we will have to buy a plan or pay the annual fee. Some judges are saying that this clause is unconstitutional and the recent event is that one judge went so far as to say that the entire reform act should be repealed because of this clause.

Right now if you need medical attention, you can get it regardless of citizenship and/or your ability to pay for treatment. Public hospitals cannot deny someone emergency care, and while there are a few hospitals excluded from the actual mandate, I believe all of them still follow it. The annual fee in the health care act was designed to help encourage people to get insurance while also helping to recover the cost of treating people without it.

Thank you for clarification,

Just for the interest and still off topic, but how much does this insurance plan cost?

Originally Posted by commiecat

SRP does have guidelines on posting political and/or controversial topics. Site staff always keeps a close eye on these types of threads and as long as it stays topical and clear of any obvious personal attacks, we leave it be.

Yep...thats why I said you got a right to say what you want here.I was questioning the wiseness of it.I was not trying to say this was breaking any rules.I was simply suggesting that we look in ourselves and ask..was this wise?Otherwise ,debate away and go with god etc.

This may have been addressed already in this thread, and if so, I apologize. But it puzzles me a bit that those among our elected officials who decry the new law's requirement that we all buy health insurance or pay a penalty are apparently comfortable with the current system that requires those of us WITH health insurance to pay higher premiums to cover the the costs of health care for those who don't. There seems to me to be an inherent contradiction there, and I imagine that those same elected officials must be aware of it. If that's the case, then it seems to me that this "objection" is being used as a distraction to whip up sentiment against this law in a way that leads people to ignore or forget about the real benefits that accrue to them BECAUSE of the law.

Originally Posted by Durhampiper

This may have been addressed already in this thread, and if so, I apologize. But it puzzles me a bit that those among our elected officials who decry the new law's requirement that we all buy health insurance or pay a penalty are apparently comfortable with the current system that requires those of us WITH health insurance to pay higher premiums to cover the the costs of health care for those who don't. There seems to me to be an inherent contradiction there, and I imagine that those same elected officials must be aware of it. If that's the case, then it seems to me that this "objection" is being used as a distraction to whip up sentiment against this law in a way that leads people to ignore or forget about the real benefits that accrue to them BECAUSE of the law.

Because choosing to pay $7000/year for insurance is democratic, whereas the government telling you to pay $3000/year for the same insurance or face a $100/year fine is socialist.

Are you also saying to eliminate SS and Public schools?

Originally Posted by commiecat

Because choosing to pay $7000/year for insurance is democratic, whereas the government telling you to pay $3000/year for the same insurance or face a $100/year fine is socialist.

Originally Posted by commiecat

Because choosing to pay $7000/year for insurance is democratic, whereas the government telling you to pay $3000/year for the same insurance or face a $100/year fine is socialist.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that argument. As someone else I think has pointed out in this thread, there are basically two types of people in this world: those who have needed medical attention, and those who are going to. It seems to me that users of the health care system--all of us, sooner or later--ought to have to pay for the use of that system. Right now, I and others like me with health insurance pay higher premiums to cover the cost of treating those who don't. How is THAT democratic? I don't have a choice about paying that portion of my premium. My insurance company doesn't offer me the option of not paying that cost. If you drive a car, the law requires you to have autmobile insurance. If you take out a mortgage to buy a house, you're required to have homeowner's insurance. I think of those things truly as choices. Do we say that the laws requiring insurance in those cases are socialistic? I could choose to rent, rather than buy, a house. I could choose to ride a bike or take public transportation, rather than drive a car. I can't choose to fall ill or not, or to be injured in an accident or not--in short, I can't CHOOSE not to need health care. Two years ago, my older daughter had an injury that made it necessary to have her shoulder completely rebuilt. If we hadn't had health insurance, we couldn't have afforded her care. I guess I could have ditched the health insurance and taken her to the emergency room and expected the insured population to pick up the tab--or bankrupted my family.

Originally Posted by jeffegg2

Are you also saying to eliminate SS and Public schools?

Originally Posted by Durhampiper

Sorry, I'm just not buying that argument. As someone else I think has pointed out in this thread, there are basically two types of people in this world: those who have needed medical attention, and those who are going to. It seems to me that users of the health care system--all of us, sooner or later--ought to have to pay for the use of that system. Right now, I and others like me with health insurance pay higher premiums to cover the cost of treating those who don't. How is THAT democratic? I don't have a choice about paying that portion of my premium. My insurance company doesn't offer me the option of not paying that cost. If you drive a car, the law requires you to have autmobile insurance. If you take out a mortgage to buy a house, you're required to have homeowner's insurance. I think of those things truly as choices. Do we say that the laws requiring insurance in those cases are socialistic? I could choose to rent, rather than buy, a house. I could choose to ride a bike or take public transportation, rather than drive a car. I can't choose to fall ill or not, or to be injured in an accident or not--in short, I can't CHOOSE not to need health care. Two years ago, my older daughter had an injury that made it necessary to have her shoulder completely rebuilt. If we hadn't had health insurance, we couldn't have afforded her care. I guess I could have ditched the health insurance and taken her to the emergency room and expected the insured population to pick up the tab--or bankrupted my family.

I should have clarified that I was being sarcastic with my post. I'm all in favor of health care reform. We pay too much for too little and our health statistics -- including financial -- are far below the national systems used by most (all?) of the developed countries.

The opposition uses terms like socialist and nanny state in regards to European systems. They'd rather pay their exorbitant prices because they can (democracy!) than have their tax dollars go towards funding programs that assist all Americans, even if they're included (socialism!). I got the numbers from here: in '07 we paid about $7300 per capita versus $3000 in the UK.

Commiecat,

I guess I sounded a bit more heated than I intended to. From your last post, it seems to me that your reaction to charges of "socialism" and the use of other bugaboo words in this debate is pretty much what mine is: it's a scare tactic that obscures the real issues and the real reasons for the opposition to this legislation.

I find it the hissing shame of the world that a nation with our resources and with what have traditionally been our better values can't provide adequate health care for all its citizens at a reasonable cost.