SCOTUS upholds ACA in 5-4 decision

[Thanatos 2,847]

Whatever you think about his decision, Roberts' siding with the four liberals took sheer guts.

 

The liberals still aren't going to like him, A) because he's still conservative, and B) because he gutted the Commerce Clause while he was at it, and the conservative side is going to consider him a traitor, at least for awhile.

 

Either A) he really did lose the battle in order to win the war, as one article put it, in which case he's a flat out genius or B) he was strongly convinced that his decision was the right one. Either way, however, most people are not going to think of him in glowing terms because of this decision. It may very well end up defining "his" court.

 

@Stevo: I do think this is a slippery slope. We're sitting at the top of it looking down, I just think Roberts' careful wording may keep us from actually starting down the path. The government was granted the power to force people to buy a product or pay a fine. It isn't that much of a leap to, say, force people to buy a Ford or pay a fine. Roberts' way of putting things still makes it a leap, but a very small one.

 

I think his point may be that the government does have the power to do something like that, constitutionally, and in order to stop it we need to elect leaders that won't pass bills that are terrible policy. Just because he ruled that the ACA is constitutional, doesn't mean that it's good policy. Obama may say it's time for the country to move on, (lol, I wonder what he would have said if they had deemed ACA unconstitutional), but this is a rather unpopular bill. The Republicans aren't going to let go of an issue they deem to be a winner. The fight is just getting warmed up. If Romney wins and the Republicans take/keep control of the two houses of Congress, I'd give it 2 to 1 odds that they repeal most of the bill, if not all of it.

 

I like the idea of the bill, I'm just unsure we can afford it. There are studies on both sides of the issue. And I know one thing for sure, we can't keep fighting wars AND do this health-care thing for all America at the same time. That's just economic suicide. Both parties are at fault here, because the Dems promised that they would get out of the middle east, and instead we actually sorta went into yet another war. It's time to stop being the world police, and let the UN do its damn job. If we think its incapable of doing so, then we should withdraw from it, not keep doing what the UN should be doing and putting American soldiers in harm's way.

 

I'll get off of my soapbox now.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

For those unfamiliar with the legislation, it's explained year-by-year in very simple terms here:

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

[Thanatos 2,847]

According to that logic, does the state also own my car?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

According to that logic, does the state also own my car?

 

And your house. And your property.

[Thanatos 2,847]

And your house. And your property.

 

My god, it also owns the video games I just bought.

 

What could the government possibly want with Soulstorm?

 

Maybe... maybe they're gonna settle all their differences with a giant 100 player game? I'd get on board with that.

[Brownage 7]

The fact that the Constitutionality of this bill came into question in the first place is a real shame. Think about it; the majority of Congress and the President of the United States--both of whom took a sworn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution--signed this bill, and four Supreme Court justices believe it to be Unconstitutional. That's my biggest problem with this situation.

 

As for the bill itself, anyone familiar with its workings want to educate me: how does this affect someone like me, who is already on a stable health care plan with my parents?

 

Doesn't affect you. With this "law", you're now able to stay on until you're 26 years old. Other than that, nothing much changes for you.

 

And I'd argue against your posts Philadelphia, but I might as well just be watching Bill Maher. You're just re-hashing the same liberal talking points over and over without providing any substance to your argument.

 

EDIT: And if that wasn't enough, you provided a link to REDDIT as a source. Well done.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Brownage

[Thanatos 2,847]

Doesn't affect you. With this "law", you're now able to stay on until you're 26 years old. Other than that, nothing much changes for you.

 

And I'd argue against your posts Philadelphia, but I might as well just be watching Bill Maher. You're just re-hashing the same liberal talking points over and over without providing any substance to your argument.

 

EDIT: And if that wasn't enough, you provided a link to REDDIT as a source. Well done.

 

Fine then, reply to mine. I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but I still disagree with most of the conservatives' viewpoints on this one.

 

Let's start with RP's statement. You agree or disagree with that?

 

Also, Phail's link is a simple explanation of what is in the bill, with links to the page number where he got this information.

 

I assume you didn't even bother to look at the page, but dismissed it out of hand. Yes, it's just a guy doing his best to give an explanation of what's in the bill, (kind of like we're just guys here debating about the impact of the bill), but he does a pretty good job of it. It's definitely worth a read.

 

As far as the bill itself, THIS is the problem I have with it, not the mandate part, not really. As of 1/1/2014:

No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255 )

 

That is simply not economically feasible in our current state. You cannot force a private company to take people regardless of their pre-existing conditions. It will drive insurance costs through the roof, and it doesn't seem to be properly accounted for. Apparently, they think the mandate tax will cover this... but I really don't see that.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Doesn't affect you. With this "law", you're now able to stay on until you're 26 years old. Other than that, nothing much changes for you.

 

And I'd argue against your posts Philadelphia, but I might as well just be watching Bill Maher. You're just re-hashing the same liberal talking points over and over without providing any substance to your argument.

 

EDIT: And if that wasn't enough, you provided a link to REDDIT as a source. Well done.

 

I don't believe I've said anything in here that would qualify as "talking points." Most of what I've posted regarding the legislation is from the actual legislation, with a little personal opinion injected. I don't allow news networks to influence my opinions (in fact, I don't watch them period), and the vast majority of sources where I get my information are peer-reviewed journals and other academic content. Take that for what you will.

 

For the record, I posted the Reddit link so those asking questions about the legislation could familiarize themselves with it in an easy to understand language. The source is entirely irrelevant and leads me to believe you didn't even read anything inside it.

 

That is simply not economically feasible in our current state. You cannot force a private company to take people regardless of their pre-existing conditions. It will drive insurance costs through the roof, and it doesn't seem to be properly accounted for. Apparently, they think the mandate tax will cover this... but I really don't see that.

 

I don't know exactly how it's going to work out, but ideally the huge number of healthy folks becoming newly insured will more than cover the relatively small number of those in the "pre-existing conditions" category. No doubt the sudden demand for insurance will drive prices up, but these healthy people who didn't have insurance before aren't going to suddenly be rushing into hospitals and doctors offices just because they have it now. In that regard, I don't believe it's going to drive up the costs of individual doctor visits, pharmaceutical costs, and such. But you're right in that insurance premiums will rise. Unfortunately, that was unavoidable regardless of the path taken (or, in the case of no health care reform, not taken at all). Costs have been skyrocketing in this country for some time. The rise in premiums isn't new, it's just front and center stage now.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't know exactly how it's going to work out, but ideally the huge number of healthy folks becoming newly insured will more than cover the relatively small number of those in the "pre-existing conditions" category. No doubt the sudden demand for insurance will drive prices up, but these healthy people who didn't have insurance before aren't going to suddenly be rushing into hospitals and doctors offices just because they have it now. In that regard, I don't believe it's going to drive up the costs of individual doctor visits, pharmaceutical costs, and such. But you're right in that insurance premiums will rise. Unfortunately, that was unavoidable regardless of the path taken (or, in the case of no health care reform, not taken at all). Costs have been skyrocketing in this country for some time. The rise in premiums isn't new, it's just front and center stage now.

 

Yes, health care has been on the rise since before Obama got into office... But just because it was a problem before doesn't mean we should just give in, say "fuck it", and then pass legislation that is going to further accelerate the skyrocketing cost.

 

And you act like Obamacare, or any other solution would have led to the same result. Incorrect.

 

If Obamacare got shut down, like it should have been, it would have paved the path for true reform to finally help cure the cost ailments facing our generation.

 

Medicare needs to be reformed straight up... And by reformed, I don't mean take MORE money OUT to accelerate its demise to fund legislation like Obamacare, which has been done already.

 

Give MORE power to the states to figure out ways and incentives to lower cost... Screw Big Brother. The decision by Justice Roberts helps slightly, but with the new "tax" on the individual, it really doesn't help a whole lot.

 

The industry has a severe lack of COMPETITION. And without competition, the prices are going to be UP. UP. UP. Let me go up to Minnesota or over to Kansas to find the most friendly health care policy for me and my family. If companies in Iowa see all of their potential customers going out-of-state to get coverage, do you think the Iowa based companies are going to raise prices? Absolutely not. Prices will go down.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Yes, health care has been on the rise since before Obama got into office... But just because it was a problem before doesn't mean we should just give in, say "fuck it", and then pass legislation that is going to further accelerate the skyrocketing cost.

 

Fair enough, but that's not what I was getting at. Prices are going to rise initially but with further reform (like I've said previously, this is only the first step) costs can and should be brought down significantly.

 

And you act like Obamacare, or any other solution would have led to the same result. Incorrect.

 

If Obamacare got shut down, like it should have been, it would have paved the path for true reform to finally help cure the cost ailments facing our generation.

 

Medicare needs to be reformed straight up... And by reformed, I don't mean take MORE money OUT to accelerate its demise to fund legislation like Obamacare, which has been done already.

 

Give MORE power to the states to figure out ways and incentives to lower cost... Screw Big Brother. The decision by Justice Roberts helps slightly, but with the new "tax" on the individual, it really doesn't help a whole lot.

 

The industry has a severe lack of COMPETITION. And without competition, the prices are going to be UP. UP. UP. Let me go up to Minnesota or over to Kansas to find the most friendly health care policy for me and my family. If companies in Iowa see all of their potential customers going out-of-state to get coverage, do you think the Iowa based companies are going to raise prices? Absolutely not. Prices will go down.

 

The severe lack of competition in the industry came with the introduction of two things: employer-insurance programs and managed care. The problem with your "fly from Minnesota to Kansas" theory is that you can't do that with the vast majority of insurance companies. They force you to stay within their provider networks, seeing only doctors they say you can see and taking only prescriptions they say you can take. Then those managed care companies essentially refuse to pay for those doctor visits and hospital visits until the doctor or hospital agree to take the absolute bare minimum payment for their services. They're getting fucked by insurance companies just as much as the consumers are. Combined with the fact that there's no true competition, interstate or intrastate, for insurance is why prices have been skyrocketing since the 90s.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Maverick 791]

Not to intervene but am I the only one getting negged by Zack for my views lol? Clearly there's others on my side as have posted, neg them too bitch.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The severe lack of competition in the industry came with the introduction of two things: employer-insurance programs and managed care. The problem with your "fly from Minnesota to Kansas" theory is that you can't do that with the vast majority of insurance companies. They force you to stay within their provider networks, seeing only doctors they say you can see and taking only prescriptions they say you can take. Then those managed care companies essentially refuse to pay for those doctor visits and hospital visits until the doctor or hospital agree to take the absolute bare minimum payment for their services. They're getting fucked by insurance companies just as much as the consumers are. Combined with the fact that there's no true competition, interstate or interstate, for insurance is why prices have been skyrocketing since the 90s.

 

My aunt ran into this earlier this week.

 

She was in Georgia and wanted to use her insurance to cover an emergency she had while there. Now the same insurance company is in Georgia that she uses in Bama, (I believe it's Blue Cross/Blue Shield), but they refused to cover it.

 

If the same organization would pool its resources across states, they would have more money coming in, and thus they could lower their prices and probably pick up more consumers. It's a very dumb system.

 

Not to intervene but am I the only one getting negged by Zack for my views lol? Clearly there's others on my side as have posted, neg them too bitch.

 

I'd wager that it's because of the ridiculous hyperbole you are using. (Or, since it's Zack, he may just be negging you knowing that you actually care about it.) I have no problem debating with people that have an opposite viewpoint, but I really don't like it when people descend into using near-apocalyptic language for their views, or compare the US to a socialist state, for example.

 

Republicans seem far more guilty of doing this than Democrats, (and I say that as a conservative). It's preying on people's fears and emotions rather than addressing the issue logically, as should be done so much more in this country than it is.

 

We already hear enough hyperbole and fear-mongering from our politicians. We don't need to have it here as well. If you can only make your point by trying to bring in people's fears of what might happen, then it probably isn't a good point to make.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Maverick 791]

I've posted educated arguments earlier in the thread. I'm sorry I wasn't aware that if I didn't have time to put a lot of thought into every post, I'm not allowed to make a comment at all.

 

From a healthcare quality standpoint, I chuckle every time I read or hear someone say it will improve. History has shown that those countries who have adopted socialized medicine have had to eventually rationed care of a lower quality. You need a hip replacement? Sorry, we have already spent our hip replacement budget for the year. The waiting list is now 4 years long. See you in 2017 if you can still walk in here!

 

From a political point of view, this ruling just set a dangerous precedent. It has affirmed that the US Government can force you to do whatever they want by imposing financial fines and calling it a tax. Join a union or pay a tax, buy a hybrid car or pay a tax, buy carbon credits or pay a tax... Before they could tax economic activity at will, now they can tax your behavior if they disagree with it.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

From a healthcare quality standpoint, I chuckle every time I read or hear someone say it will improve. History has shown that those countries who have adopted socialized medicine have had to eventually rationed care of a lower quality. You need a hip replacement? Sorry, we have already spent our hip replacement budget for the year. The waiting list is now 4 years long. See you in 2017 if you can still walk in here!

.

 

That's one of the biggest myths about health care. The US does not rank highly relative to other OECD countries in terms of care. We have slightly better specialists, but those are getting to be so expensive that there is a MUCH higher number of people leaving the country for special treatments than foreigners entering the US for specialized treatment.

 

What you describe may be true of *some* countries with socialized single-payer medicine, but that's not what we've implemented here. I fear too many people associate "universal" with "socialized" when discussing this topic.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Maverick 791]

That's one of the biggest myths about health care. The US does not rank highly relative to other OECD countries in terms of care. We have slightly better specialists, but those are getting to be so expensive that there is a MUCH higher number of people leaving the country for special treatments than foreigners entering the US for specialized treatment.

 

What you describe may be true of *some* countries with socialized single-payer medicine, but that's not what we've implemented here. I fear too many people associate "universal" with "socialized" when discussing this topic.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see then which direction this goes..

Edited July 1, 2012 by Maverick

[Brownage 7]

That's one of the biggest myths about health care. The US does not rank highly relative to other OECD countries in terms of care. We have slightly better specialists, but those are getting to be so expensive that there is a MUCH higher number of people leaving the country for special treatments than foreigners entering the US for specialized treatment.

 

What you describe may be true of *some* countries with socialized single-payer medicine, but that's not what we've implemented here. I fear too many people associate "universal" with "socialized" when discussing this topic.

 

Because there is not all that much difference between the two of them.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Because there is not all that much difference between the two of them.

 

Thank you for proving to me just how out of touch with this subject you are.

 

Switzerland covers 99.9% of their citizens. And they do it ALL through private insurance. That's universal health care. It's not socialized health care.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I've posted educated arguments earlier in the thread. I'm sorry I wasn't aware that if I didn't have time to put a lot of thought into every post, I'm not allowed to make a comment at all.

 

Not the point at all. The point was not to use such over-the-top language in attempting to make your point, as we hear enough of that from the politicians.

 

From a political point of view, this ruling just set a dangerous precedent. It has affirmed that the US Government can force you to do whatever they want by imposing financial fines and calling it a tax. Join a union or pay a tax, buy a hybrid car or pay a tax, buy carbon credits or pay a tax... Before they could tax economic activity at will, now they can tax your behavior if they disagree with it.

 

I'd love to have a wager on how long they would stay in office if they tried that to expand their powers using this. No one likes having a new tax, and I'd bet whichever party tried to pull something like that would lose all three elected offices the next time re-election rolls around. It would be political suicide.

 

I'd honestly love for the Dems to try it, but unfortunately, I don't think they're that stupid.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Thanatos19

[blotsfan 2,112]

Switzerland covers 99.9% of their citizens. And they do it ALL through private insurance. That's universal health care. It's not socialized health care.

Then wouldn't that just mean 99.9% of citizens cover themselves?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Then wouldn't that just mean 99.9% of citizens cover themselves?

 

Yes. My word choice was poor. Switzerland does employ an individual mandate like the USA does.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Roberts has taken soooo much shit from the right on this....but as far as the actual law goes on this issue...I kinda have to agree with Roberts. If the IRS collects money from you, regardless of how they do it, how can you not call it a tax? This will be brought up in court again in 2015 when the first American is penalized.