|
Post by bazukar on Aug 13, 2011 16:22:10 GMT
finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=03 courts have upheld it, and 3 have declared it unconstitutional. So this pretty much guarantees that the requirement that all americans buy health care or face penalties goes to the SC for deliberation. I myself am very, very uncomfortable with this provision of the new helthcare law. I think if it passes it sets a dangerous precedent and will give congress powers it should not have. Slippery slope doesn't even begin to cover it. I'm all for healthcare reform. I acknowledge the current system is outright broke. But I do not like this and wish we could look to other contries for examples on how to do better health care rather than take what I believe is a reckless and far reaching action. And before anyone brings up car insurance being mandatory it's not the same thing. I can choose not to drive and use public transportation or carpool and I don't face a tax penalty for it. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 13, 2011 21:15:18 GMT
finance.yahoo.com/news/Appeals-court-strikes-health-apf-2954064794.html?x=03 courts have upheld it, and 3 have declared it unconstitutional. So this pretty much guarantees that the requirement that all americans buy health care or face penalties goes to the SC for deliberation. I myself am very, very uncomfortable with this provision of the new helthcare law. I think if it passes it sets a dangerous precedent and will give congress powers it should not have. Slippery slope doesn't even begin to cover it. I'm all for healthcare reform. I acknowledge the current system is outright broke. But I do not like this and wish we could look to other contries for examples on how to do better health care rather than take what I believe is a reckless and far reaching action. And before anyone brings up car insurance being mandatory it's not the same thing. I can choose not to drive and use public transportation or carpool and I don't face a tax penalty for it. Thoughts? Slippery slope arguments are the weakest sort, because of their reliance on a nonextant, hypothetical future. It's possible to place nearly anything on a scale with two poles, and argue that a move towards one pole risks landing us AT that pole, which is pretty far from the presently accepted mean. On net, such arguments are meaningless. I think the law is clearly constitutional, but I suspect it'll be 5-4 in SCOTUS. It's just another way of taxing, which is very clearly within the purview of the powers granted the federal government. This is far from 'reckless' or 'far-reaching', and is a very sensible solution to the free rider problem here. Contitutionality aside, I don't much like it either. As a tax analogue, it's very regressive. What we needed was a public option. It has proven EXTREMELY popular in Mass., however, so opinions may change when the law goes fully into effect. Funky
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Aug 13, 2011 21:33:32 GMT
I don't completely disagree with your first point on the slippery slope argument, but I still feel it holds some water in this case. Our current congress sucks. Looking at the last 15 years of our current congress and it's stated designs on our future I feel the precedent here expanding further the power of congress' commerce powers is a bad thing. That's where my slippery slope comes from. While I don't know the future, and I'm not a doomsayer, I think we can both agree it's not all sunshine and rainbows incoming.
I'm not well versed enough in constitutional law to argue if it falls under the taxation powers of congress. I'm not so sure though since it's not exactly a tax, but a requirement that you buy a service, and you will be penalized if you do not purchase said service. Perhaps reckless was a very poor choice of words, but I think that should this aspect hold up, it will be far reaching.
Thinking about it though, ever since the government was successful in making social security mandatory, shouldn't we have been expecting something like this sooner or later? I agree with you that there is a huge problem with free riding but i wonder if this will really help costs. Our current government is horrible at regulating industry and I can see all kinds of trouble coming from this when everyone is paying in.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 13, 2011 21:43:40 GMT
Actually, I the problems with government regulation of industry nowadays are that it's generally too weak/captured - a lot of that happened under Bush. Strip away mine regulations, drilling regulations and - surprise! - giant diasters in both. The market has been underregulated since Reagan and Clinton stripped away Depression-era regs.
You should be very wary of arguments talking about big, oppressive government regulation burdening business - that's generally meaningless babble from the right side of the political spectrum. Government should have a very large, and increasing, role in regulating the market in today's global economy - without it, the market is prone to all kinds of disaster. An unregulated market is as bad as a pure command economy. Market theory makes all sorts of unrealistic assumptions that need to obtain in order for markets to function efficiently, and while we're never going to see them all obtain, government has a necessary role in helping them to obtain.
Unfortunately, you're right in that some government regulation has been captured by campaign donations from special interests. Such donations should absolutely be illegal - they are market-breaking, and are creating TERRIBLE policy outcomes. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Allowing them to give to politicians in return for policy decisions is nothing short of bribery, and America and its people suffer as a result.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Aug 13, 2011 22:21:46 GMT
Quit it dammit, you're talking sense and I'm agreeing with you I do have to say, it always amazes me that anyone with a brain could ever possibly believe that complete deregulation of anything is a good thing. More proof that americans are devolving into vegetables. They keep voting for these ppl. edit: huh huh. my post count rules. huh huh.
|
|
|
Post by Mudeye on Sept 12, 2011 17:44:51 GMT
Complaints about government over-burdening industry these days are pretty hard to defend. US businesses have had record breaking profits the last two years. The workers are in a record breaking recession. The burden is clearly on the workers and not on the businesses.
|
|
|
Post by dynneroth on Sept 12, 2011 18:11:22 GMT
I would agree that many large corporations are seeing profits. However, this also affects the small business owner. I know this is anecdotal, but I have personally seen quite a few small business owners either close shop because they can't keep up with the tax burden or significantly reduce the number of employees they have, even to the point of getting rid of everyone except immediate family members. The small business owners then don't pay the family members, they just provide for them at home.
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Sept 12, 2011 18:16:04 GMT
Im agianst this as I simply don't believe in insurance and find it to be a complete scam but thats my opinion and personal reasons for not having any but the minimum legally required.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 12, 2011 18:36:32 GMT
You don't believe in insurance?
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Sept 12, 2011 22:05:59 GMT
Im agianst this as I simply don't believe in insurance and find it to be a complete scam but thats my opinion and personal reasons for not having any but the minimum legally required. I hear what you're saying, but calling it a "scam" is a bit of a stretch if only because they do actually pay claims. That said, the biggest problem in America is not the availability of insurance but the cost of delivery imho. It doesn't matter who provides the insurance -- if they're all facing the same constraints there won't be too much difference in price. That's the only hang up I have about healthcare reform -- it addresses the symptom and not the cause....but that's a debate in and of itself
|
|
|
Post by Stormchaser on Sept 13, 2011 4:27:48 GMT
Jimbo, I feel where you are coming from, but insurance isn't really a scam, rather a voluntary investment. One that may or may not pay off for you.
Insurance is, imo, risk management. Do you want to pay money now up front so that others can use it now, and then use other's money later when you need it? Even if you might never actually get your money back due to good fate? -OR- Would you rather take a risk and save your money, reap the interest/dividends/capital gains and possibly pay later when an unfortunate event happens? Insurance is like pre-paying for a loan that you might not ever use, loosing your capital in the process. However, you might need that loan which saves your life.
Its a choice. If you take the risk and cannot pay, then that's the risk you took and you must find funds another way if you didn't or couldn't prepare. Fortunately, there are several options. Charities, family, fund raising events, and other proactive solutions, including LOCAL government options. Forcing everyone to purchase insurance takes voluntary funds away from these alternate choices, which is why I personally dislike insurance, however I understand and accept that groups of folks might want to pool resources, have at it! Again, its a choice .. and being forced to pay into a policy I have no desire to participate, in order to pay for someone else's treatment is theft of my PRIVATE property.
Our FEDERAL government was not given the power to force decisions for us citizens. Our FEDERAL government was given specific tasks and is prohibited to go beyond those tasks. Compelling me to enter into a private contract or pay a fine (or go to jail if i don't pay) is an excellent example of FEDERAL overreach. The rules in the Constitution must be followed. The separations of powers between the states and our federal governments are defined, and unfortunately we in America are un·moored from those definitions. Thus, I look forward to and fully expect our Supreme Court to rule this provision in the heath care law as unconstitutional.
The current problem in America, is that some of us (not me) are too focused on how many folks are covered, rather than how available and the quality of the care we get. What is the point of having everyone in the country covered if we are gonna die while waiting for our promised treatments or by getting substandard treatments.
------------
PS. I refuse to get into a quote war. I understand this is a left leaning community and I will not get into a silly battle when none of us are gonna yield to the other. I cannot be silent in such an important time in our country, however I'm not gonna waste my time on non-constructive arguing. My purpose is to hopefully clarify and voice a position that others might have, and encourage those folks to become active and speak up for what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Sept 13, 2011 4:43:07 GMT
Its a choice. If you take the risk and cannot pay, then that's the risk you took and you must find funds another way if you didn't or couldn't prepare. Fortunately, there are several options. Charities, family, fund raising events, and other proactive solutions, including LOCAL government options. Forcing everyone to purchase insurance takes voluntary funds away from these alternate choices, which is why I personally dislike insurance, however I understand and accept that groups of folks might want to pool resources, have at it! Again, its a choice .. and being forced to pay into a policy I have no desire to participate, in order to pay for someone else's treatment is theft of my PRIVATE property. Our FEDERAL government was not given the power to force decisions for us citizens. Our FEDERAL government was given specific tasks and is prohibited to go beyond those tasks. Compelling me to enter into a private contract or pay a fine (or go to jail if i don't pay) is an excellent example of FEDERAL overreach. The rules in the Constitution must be followed. The separations of powers between the states and our federal governments are defined, and unfortunately we in America are un·moored from those definitions. Thus, I look forward to and fully expect our Supreme Court to rule this provision in the heath care law as unconstitutional. The current problem in America, is that some of us (not me) are too focused on how many folks are covered, rather than how available and the quality of the care we get. What is the point of having everyone in the country covered if we are gonna die while waiting for our promised treatments or by getting substandard treatments. Not trying to start a war with you, but that only works on paper. In reality, people cannot be denied treatment for lack of insurance and somebody has to pay for it -- whether it's through higher insurance premiums or $10 bandaids at the hospital. Furthermore, we have no debtors prison in America, so there's little incentive for people to borrow from family or work with charities or local government programs (which operate on our tax dollars, btw) to pay their bills. So you end up with a situation in which people are free to make a choice but don't have to face any consequences of that choice and the rest of us have to pick up the tab. I'm not going to get into a Constitutional debate because I'm not qualified. I can, however, discuss economics with a little bit of confidence, and the economics of our current healthcare system are simply unsustainable - we either need to only treat those who can pay for it or try to find a way to treat all. I'm neither endorsing nor condemning either of those options, mind you....just suggesting that this is a very complex issue with a lot of moving parts. Trying to reduce it to one or two philosophical positions doesn't really solve anything.
|
|
|
Post by Stormchaser on Sept 13, 2011 5:19:26 GMT
You are right. To treat those that can pay, or treat everyone regardless is the essence of the debate. Massachusetts has come up with a plan who treats all, other states have rejected similar ideas. My point is that these states, cities, counties, and other communities are the ones who should be making decisions for themselves. If I want live in state where I pay heath care insurance or face a penalty I know exactly were to go. If I want to live in a state where I am free of such laws such as Virginia, I know where to go. The competition of ideas between the states/cities/communities will result in a far more effective and humane system in the long run, rather than a dozen folks sitting on a advisory board who makes decisions for mutli-millions of unique and vastly different situations. The topic I am focusing on is about federal law, and more specifically the federal individual mandate. The method which 'The People' decide is upon them, not a small bureau of folks.
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Sept 13, 2011 14:11:27 GMT
I could go into when and where I find it to be a scam but I think that even in the matter of risk prevention there are things people can do on their own. I could invest the same amount I pay per month each moth into an account and right now Id probably break even for car insurance for health insurance I would be profiting. It is a nice big discussion to go into all that. The bottom line is that this law is no solution and for people like myself is more of a problem. I understand there are people that need insurance and I understand that the government wants to protect people. I do not believe in protecting people from themselves is the bottom line and I understand that insurance isn't just about the person named on a policy but health insurance is much more so than many other types.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Sept 13, 2011 17:17:41 GMT
I could go into when and where I find it to be a scam but I think that even in the matter of risk prevention there are things people can do on their own. I could invest the same amount I pay per month each moth into an account and right now Id probably break even for car insurance for health insurance I would be profiting. The entire point of insurances is the word probably that you used in that sentence. Insurance is not a forced savings for a rainy day. It is a safety blanket against probably not. The interesting questions are what the gvt should do when probably not happens (and when you deal with large numbers of people it leaves probably not, skips right past probably, and becomes assureadly), and what should it do for folks who aren't rigorous about savings for all the regularly expected probablies that we all run into in life.
|
|