FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama's health care reform wins in court again





handfleisch
The courts have handed Obama's Affordable Care Act another victory. Even conservative judges are finding it Constitutional. Looks like the lives saved by Obama's historic health care reform will continue.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/11/08/us/politics/politics-us-healthcare-court.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
Quote:

Appeals Court Backs Health Care Law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law got a boost on Tuesday when an appeals court agreed with a lower court that dismissed a challenge and found the law's minimum coverage requirement was constitutional.

The Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that had found it constitutional to require Americans to buy healthcare insurance coverage by early 2014 or face a penalty and had dismissed a lawsuit challenging it.

"It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race ... or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family," wrote Judge Laurence Silberman in the majority opinion, citing past federal mandates that inspired legal fights.

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins."

It was the latest victory for the Obama administration, which sought the new law to try to stem the soaring costs of healthcare and to increase coverage for the more than 35 million Americans without healthcare insurance.

Silberman, a noted conservative judge, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and was joined by Judge Harry Edwards who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter. The dissenting judge was Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by President George W. Bush.
Hello_World
I just can't believe there are people who wish to challenge it.
ocalhoun
Hello_World wrote:
I just can't believe there are people who wish to challenge it.

Some of us don't like government interference.
Hello_World
Oh wait.

I thought this was about Obama's public health care plan.

This is about forcing people to buy private health insurance.

I'm sure confused. I thought Obama was making public health care available to everyone.

I thought the whole health care thing was like Australia's Medicare. I guess I was wrong, this plan is shit.

I don't think people should be forced to buy health care, I think the government should provide it free of charge to all.

What a fool I am to not read it properly.
jmi256
Hello_World wrote:
Oh wait.

I thought this was about Obama's public health care plan.

This is about forcing people to buy private health insurance.

I'm sure confused. I thought Obama was making public health care available to everyone.

I thought the whole health care thing was like Australia's Medicare. I guess I was wrong, this plan is shit.

I don't think people should be forced to buy health care, I think the government should provide it free of charge to all.

What a fool I am to not read it properly.


Obamacare has nothing to do with making healthcare affordable, but rather forcing people to buy private healthcare insurance from Obama’s campaign contributors or face penalties. The Republicans wanted to lower overall costs by increasing competition (allowing people to shop for the lowest price, even if that means crossing state lines), investing in cost-cutting measures (making research and development easier) and reducing waste that is rampant in the current system. And nothing is free. The doctors, nurses, technician, receptionists, orderlies, etc, can’t be expected to work for free, and someone has to pay to pay them for their labor.

BTW, the court decision did not say that Obamacare was Constitutional. The judges deemed that the law constituted to what was essentially a tax, which is out of their jurisdiction, and the matter would have to go to another court. Those who brought the suit were from a religious group who wanted to argue that forcing them to enter the insurance system went against their religious beliefs. It is similar to the Amish (and Mennonites I think as well), who are exempt from some insurance mandates in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Amish do not drive cars, but they do ride their horse and buggies on streets and therefore are “required” to have insurance in case there is an accident. The Mennonite drive, I believe. Their religious beliefs do not allow them to engage in usury, etc, and they have used those grounds to get exempted by insurance mandates. However, they have to maintain a large amount of money/property in what is basically escrow in the event they have an accident and need to pay someone one.
Hello_World
Eh. When this whole thing came out, they were always talking about things like how all Americans would have access to healthcare etc.

I just assumed, even up until now, that the system would be like ours.

That is, we pay the government tax, the government pays the doctors, nurses, technician, receptionists, orderlies, etc. It doesn't include physio, dental or optical, or quasi things like naturopaths or acupuncture.

And yeah, we do pay more tax due to it, but it works well.

And then on top of that, we have a private system, which is relatively new. If you get private health insuarance, you pay less tax and you get dental, optical, physio, even acupuncture, depending on the insurance you choose to buy.

But here, no business ever buys insurance for their employees, you get your own - except workcover insurance (if you have an accident on the job.)

I'd much rather pay the government to do its job than be forced to pay another bill to a private company. And it is based on your rate of pay, so if you are unemployed, you still have access to the same public system as everyone else.

That's my opinion. Shame, this was one of the things I liked most about Obama.
handfleisch
Hello_World wrote:
Eh. When this whole thing came out, they were always talking about things like how all Americans would have access to healthcare etc.
I just assumed, even up until now, that the system would be like ours.
That is, we pay the government tax, the government pays the doctors, nurses, technician, receptionists, orderlies, etc. It doesn't include physio, dental or optical, or quasi things like naturopaths or acupuncture.
And yeah, we do pay more tax due to it, but it works well.
And then on top of that, we have a private system, which is relatively new. If you get private health insuarance, you pay less tax and you get dental, optical, physio, even acupuncture, depending on the insurance you choose to buy.
But here, no business ever buys insurance for their employees, you get your own - except workcover insurance (if you have an accident on the job.)
I'd much rather pay the government to do its job than be forced to pay another bill to a private company. And it is based on your rate of pay, so if you are unemployed, you still have access to the same public system as everyone else.
That's my opinion. Shame, this was one of the things I liked most about Obama.


It's true a single payer system would have been best, like you have in your country. You have to understand that politics and the power of money would not allow this when Obama started his push to get health care reform. The Republicans were screaming that Obama was a Marxist for even mentioning it. But being "forced to pay for health insurance" in this case is not as bad as you might think. It's sort of like being "forced" to put children in child seats in the car. Yes people are "forced" to buy these things and put their kids into them, but most people don't look at it that way -- in fact they disapprove of the people who don't do it. Same goes for the mandatory car insurance that most states have. This part of the health care system will be similar -- a large pool of affordable, regulated insurers will be available for choosing, and the "penalty" for not having insurance will be nonexistent to light for several years. It's for those who don't already have insurance through their work. When everyone has it, it will be a huge cost saver for everyone, and of course a huge benefit to the people who couldn't get insurance at all in the US before now (because Obama's reform has outlawed refusing insurance to people due to the fact that they are already sick, the "pre-existing conditions").
Hello_World
Quote:
because Obama's reform has outlawed refusing insurance to people due to the fact that they are already sick, the "pre-existing conditions"


That in particular is a massively good thing. Imagine - the very same people who most need healthcare can't get it - wow that is too mean for words. That alone is a huge step forward.

But still - how does Obama expect say unemployed people, homeless people etc, to pay the bill for health insurance?

I assume we are talking of a bill in the vacinity of say $800- a year?

Homeless people don't have enough money for shelter... how could they pay? And if they 'illegally' don't, what is going to happen to them when they get sick?

You are right to compare it to car insurance I guess - we pay 'registration' which is compulsory if you drive a car, it insures you if you hit either a person or a public infrastructure thing (say, a powerline), but not other cars. People think badly if you try to drive without it (or even if you drive without non-compulsory normal car insurance).

But then... if you can afford a car, you can afford rego. A homeless person...

It's a shame the US is so crazy about what is 'Marxist'. Why can't America look around the world and see what works in non-Marxist countries... I understand Canada and UK both have good health systems, and I think some Scanenavian countries too...
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
That is, we pay the government tax, the government pays the doctors, nurses, technician, receptionists, orderlies, etc. It doesn't include physio, dental or optical, or quasi things like naturopaths or acupuncture.

And yeah, we do pay more tax due to it, but it works well.

...

I'd much rather pay the government to do its job than be forced to pay another bill to a private company. And it is based on your rate of pay, so if you are unemployed, you still have access to the same public system as everyone else.


Wouldn't trade my higher taxes for universal health care for lower taxes and a bullshit system either. Backwards system they have in the States, and one of the strongest reasons why my wife moved here, rather than having me move to the States to be together. (that and Amercans' infatuation with firearms, but that's another story Wink )
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Same goes for the mandatory car insurance that most states have.


Hello_World wrote:

You are right to compare it to car insurance I guess - we pay 'registration' which is compulsory if you drive a car, it insures you if you hit either a person or a public infrastructure thing (say, a powerline), but not other cars. People think badly if you try to drive without it (or even if you drive without non-compulsory normal car insurance).

But then... if you can afford a car, you can afford rego. A homeless person...


May I take a moment to point out that the car insurance comparison is not entirely accurate?

You can avoid the car insurance mandate by simply not owning a car, or at least not driving it on public roads.
There is no way to avoid the health insurance mandate though.
Hello_World
Quote:
You can avoid the car insurance mandate by simply not owning a car, or at least not driving it on public roads.
There is no way to avoid the health insurance mandate though.


Yeah, I agree. That's what I really kinda meant by:

Quote:
But then... if you can afford a car, you can afford rego. A homeless person...


except that I didn't make it explicit or really understandable lol... A homeless person... can't opt out by not owning a car for example.

But it is true that most people think about it in the that way, that you are doing a bad thing if you don't have it, that it is normal and ordinary to be forced to pay.

And presumably there will still be people who can't or haven't pay health insurance for whatever reason, what will happen to them?

Ankhanu:
Quote:
Wouldn't trade my higher taxes for universal health care for lower taxes and a bullshit system either
.

Too right.
ocalhoun
Hello_World wrote:

But it is true that most people think about it in the that way, that you are doing a bad thing if you don't have it, that it is normal and ordinary to be forced to pay.

In an ideal world, nobody would ever be forced to do anything.
Quote:

And presumably there will still be people who can't or haven't pay health insurance for whatever reason, what will happen to them?

There are supposed to be subsidies covering the cost for those who can't afford it.
(And really, don't we already have medicare for the poor?)
deanhills
Dems also want people to think the Republicans don't want health coverage for all. Obviously to gain political points with voters. Must say however by negotiating the Bill with making concessions to some of the Republicans in order to buy their votes, and growing the bill into thousands of pages that are probably going to keep people confused and busy for ever to interpret and implement it, Republicans are equally responsible for the end-product that they are moaning about. Ventura is right, we probably have a 2-party dictatorship at present that is very harmful to the US.
Related topics
CIA chief: Cheney practically hoping for terrorism on US
Left-Wing Extremist Media
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Hey, look! Somebody being reasonable about healthcare reform
Obama's Brilliant First Year. Most active since Roosevelt
Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship
Palin says her family went to Canada for health care
Anti-HCR protesters mock Parkinson's victim
CHANGE: OBAMA'S HISTORIC HEALTH CARE REFORM WINS
Health Care bill
New health care law a godsend for Texas lawyer, family
US health care changes take effect today. SUPER
Legal setback for Obama's health care regulations ....
House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.