Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: Not Florida Thread: Obamacare and the Individual Mandate

  1. #21
    Looking at the penalty and the cost of health care I don't see how this will amount to a mandate?

    Since it's likely to have no real impact as a mandate the Obama administration should argue that the President is being true to his campaign and intentionally set the penalty so low that it won't act as a Mandate it's really a small payment to opt out.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4420207]I know you are on the record supporting the Constitutionality of (Specificly) the mandate, counselor. [/quote]

    Yes and no. Although some further reading has me on the fence, I do think the prior grain precedent is right on point - which is why I said I thought the DC Circuit's decision was well reasoned. But at the Supreme Court, all bets are off, since the Supreme Court can overrule past precedent in appropriate cases.


    [QUOTE]What I'd like to ask you, as a subject matter expert, are two things:

    -The mandate goes beyond regulating commerce, by mandating that someone not engaged in commerce must (even against their will) engage in commerce with a private (non-Govt) entity, or pay a penalty. Are there any other Laws that you are aware of that force an individual to engage in commerce against their will with another private business?[/QUOTE]

    No. And I think part of the problem is that it was poorly drafted. They could have accomplished the same thing by raising taxes on everyone by that set amount and then offering an offsetting tax credit to everyone who had medical insurance - effectively imposing the same penalty, but expressly doing it as a tax increase. It wouldn't have played politically, but it would have passed constitutional muster much easier (since there would be no issue of regulating commerce)

    [QUOTE]-If teh mandate is found to be constitutional, what specific piece of the Constitution would bar the Govt. for implementing future mandates on other issues they (at that moment) might decide is "unique" and "vital" and the other descriptors teh State has used to describe Healthcar? For example, what specific section fo the commerce clause (the basis for the mandate from what I've read0 would stop the Governemnt from writing a Law down the road, using the healthcar mandate as precedent, that requires all Americans to own a firearm for self-protection? Or to own a certain design of electric car for thier own transportation needs (as every person at one time or another will engage in the act of transporting themseleves somewhere).[/QUOTE]

    Depends on the language of the particular enactment, but as Justice Kennedy pointed out, this is scary stuff, because the argument being made is there really is no limiting principle on any of that. This is one of the few issues that I think really cry out for a constitutional amendment to correct.

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4420218]Looking at the penalty and the cost of health care I don't see how this will amount to a mandate?

    Since it's likely to have no real impact as a mandate the Obama administration should argue that the President is being true to his campaign and intentionally set the penalty so low that it won't act as a Mandate it's really a small payment to opt out.[/QUOTE]

    I thought we were already told that the initial penalty will be changed to something more than the average cost of buying insurance?

    Otherwise, why would any healthy person ever purchase an insurance policy, at least until they got sick and needed care (since insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition)?

    There is simply no way the insurance industry will even continue to exist under the "low penalty" structure. Their business quickly becomes unsustainable.

  4. #24
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4420236]Yes and no. Although some further reading has me on the fence, I do think the prior grain precedent is right on point - which is why I said I thought the DC Circuit's decision was well reasoned. But at the Supreme Court, all bets are off, since the Supreme Court can overrule past precedent in appropriate cases.




    No. And I think part of the problem is that it was poorly drafted. They could have accomplished the same thing by raising taxes on everyone by that set amount and then offering an offsetting tax credit to everyone who had medical insurance - effectively imposing the same penalty, but expressly doing it as a tax increase. It wouldn't have played politically, but it would have passed constitutional muster much easier (since there would be no issue of regulating commerce)



    Depends on the language of the particular enactment, but as Justice Kennedy pointed out, this is scary stuff, because the argument being made is there really is no limiting principle on any of that. This is one of the few issues that I think really cry out for a constitutional amendment to correct.[/QUOTE]

    Appreciate the thoughful reply sir. I'm generally in agreement, layman though I am.

    Had the Healthcare Law been pure tax-um'-all-cover-um'all-based, a la Social Security, I agree it would be constiutional, and while it's not something I'd support, it would not (IMO) be possible to call it's legality into question i.e. the mandate now.

    I don't like the mandate primarily. Not for this, and not (especially) what I think future geenrations of politicials would use this precedence to do.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4419954]I don't give two ****s about a mantra. I think for myself. You should give it a try once in a while instead of spewing talking points and snide comments.[/QUOTE]

    Bravo. I'm so tired of people being against ideas or solutions just because it comes from one side or the other. I am a registered republican and do believe that providing a healthcare safety net for citizens who either can not afford or choose not to have insurance is ONE of the few things the federal government should do. I just wish they'd stop doing all the other crap they do, so we'd have the resources to provide it without busting the budget.

    IMO we should shut down the Dept of Education and the EPA, both of which are an unnecessary redundancy because their roles are repeated on the state level, and provide healthcare. It's always shocked me that the Feds provide so many unnecessary and redundant services rather than concentrating these resources to provide a meaningful system of guaranteed basic minimum and catastrophic healthcare for people who are not already either rich or covered by insurance. Years ago the Feds passed a law that said hospitals were required to treat the gravely injured (believe it or not it's named The Anti-Dumping Act) but included no provision for how the hospital of doctors would be paid. It's always easy to pass a law that makes you feel good about yourself when the "good deed" is not being performed on your dime.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4420303]I thought we were already told that the initial penalty will be changed to something more than the average cost of buying insurance?

    Otherwise, why would any healthy person ever purchase an insurance policy, at least until they got sick and needed care (since insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition)?

    There is simply no way the insurance industry will even continue to exist under the "low penalty" structure. Their business quickly becomes unsustainable.[/QUOTE]

    IMO, the real problem is telling a young person who on average consumes $584/year in healthcare that they have to buy a policy for $3,000 or more.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4420303]I thought we were already told that the initial penalty will be changed to something more than the average cost of buying insurance?

    Otherwise, why would any healthy person ever purchase an insurance policy, at least until they got sick and needed care (since insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition)?

    There is simply no way the insurance industry will even continue to exist under the "low penalty" structure. Their business quickly becomes unsustainable.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. I think lost in the Constitutional issue is how bad the mandate as currently constructed is. The argument that the mandate as currently constructed will increase the healthy in the pool and make insurance more affordable seems like a huge reach. I would like to see the liberal judges on the Court actually address this.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4420333]Agreed. I think lost in the Constitutional issue is how bad the mandate as currently constructed is. The argument that the mandate as currently constructed will increase the healthy in the pool and make insurance more affordable seems like a huge reach. I would like to see the liberal judges on the Court actually address this.[/QUOTE]

    Ginsburg touched on it yesterday by just repeating the lies of the left that the bill decreases the costs of health insurance in this country.

    Regardless though, the outcome of the bill is not and should not be factored into the decision. The constitutionality of the law is. Congress could pass a myriad of laws that have a perceived net positive result to the majority of people in this country. But if the method to doing it is in direct conflict with constitutional law, it should be tossed.

    In simple terms: What if Congress banned the ownership of guns for all citizens? Should Justices conclude that it's ok because we're all safer now? Or that the law is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment?

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4420218]Looking at the penalty and the cost of health care I don't see how this will amount to a mandate?

    Since it's likely to have no real impact as a mandate the Obama administration should argue that the President is being true to his campaign and intentionally set the penalty so low that it won't act as a Mandate it's really a small payment to opt out.[/QUOTE]

    Two issues with this. Once the law is legal there is nothing to stop them from raising those penalties to a level punishing enough that everyone has to buy in. And they will because in the scenario you mentioned most people would opt to pay the penalty rather then carry 20K + per year insurance. As I have said before when you allow people to jump on the rolls after they get sick they will not choose to buy the insurance in advance. Doesn't make financial sense. I would put the 20K in a savings account and if I got sick 10 years later I'd have 200K +interest less the penalties in my pocket. Then I'd jump on the insurance after getting sick. The logic doesn't hold.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4420315]Bravo. I'm so tired of people being against ideas or solutions just because it comes from one side or the other. I am a registered republican and do believe that providing a healthcare safety net for citizens who either can not afford or choose not to have insurance is ONE of the few things the federal government should do. I just wish they'd stop doing all the other crap they do, so we'd have the resources to provide it without busting the budget.

    IMO we should shut down the Dept of Education and the EPA, both of which are an unnecessary redundancy because their roles are repeated on the state level, and provide healthcare. It's always shocked me that the Feds provide so many unnecessary and redundant services rather than concentrating these resources to provide a meaningful system of guaranteed basic minimum and catastrophic healthcare for people who are not already either rich or covered by insurance. Years ago the Feds passed a law that said hospitals were required to treat the gravely injured (believe it or not it's named The Anti-Dumping Act) but included no provision for how the hospital of doctors would be paid. It's always easy to pass a law that makes you feel good about yourself when the "good deed" is not being performed on your dime.[/QUOTE]

    Even as a Libertarian/Conservative, I can see the value in a true safety net for health care but not this all encompassing 1000+ page garbage bill we were force fed.

    If we had universal catastrophic coverage for everyone I would back it. as long as it was affordable. Then again we pretty much have that today since hospitals aren't allowed to refuse care for people.

    Sadly cutting useless and redundant programs is a pipe dream in today's government otherwise I could see your other idea working to pay for it.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,367
    [QUOTE=Trades;4420431]Even as a Libertarian/Conservative, I can see the value in a true safety net for health care but not this all encompassing 1000+ page garbage bill we were force fed.

    If we had universal catastrophic coverage for everyone I would back it. as long as it was affordable. Then again we pretty much have that today since hospitals aren't allowed to refuse care for people.

    Sadly cutting useless and redundant programs is a pipe dream in today's government otherwise I could see your other idea working to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed mostly. EXCEPT...me being self employed, If I get cancer I could go bankrupt because my carrier could drop me. That I see as a REAL issue.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=cr726;4420005]Seriously? You're a trendsetter? Commenting on politics and what actually occurred in the past is a bad thing? single payer was viewed a pure socialism by the GOP, true or false? Maybe you should try not being a revisionist. :yes:[/QUOTE]

    I am on record here many times saying that I don't have the problem with the concept of the mandate. It was the execution that went wrong in Obamacare. They mandated that everyone purchase Cadillac insurance from private companies which covers everything from free doctors visits to free pills to kids up to age 26. Those are expensive riders that people currently can choose to pay more for. If they were genuine about reducing healthcare costs they would not have put so many mandated coverages into the plan. A simple medicare run catastrophic illness plan that covers the 5% of "very sick" people would have made economic sense. Let the private companies handle the small and medium stuff. People still choose from an array of much cheaper plans. The government system handles the major items. If folks are worried that the government death panels will deny them coverage for certain experimental treatments they can buy a supplemental plan with more leeway for treatments.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4420437]Agreed mostly. EXCEPT...me being self employed, If I get cancer I could go bankrupt because my carrier could drop me. That I see as a REAL issue.[/QUOTE]

    I guess at that point it comes down to what is considered catastrophic. I am self employed as well and I totally understand you standpoint. Once of the few things I liked about Obamacare is the no prexisting conditions and the no dropping people clause. Needed to be 10 pages to cover that not 1000+ with 1200 entries of "This will determined a board later".

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4420438]I am on record here many times saying that I don't have the problem with the concept of the mandate. It was the execution that went wrong in Obamacare. They mandated that everyone purchase Cadillac insurance from private companies which covers everything from free doctors visits to free pills to kids up to age 26. Those are expensive riders that people currently can choose to pay more for. If they were genuine about reducing healthcare costs they would not have put so many mandated coverages into the plan. A simple medicare run catastrophic illness plan that covers the 5% of "very sick" people would have made economic sense. Let the private companies handle the small and medium stuff. People still choose from an array of much cheaper plans. The government system handles the major items. If folks are worried that the government death panels will deny them coverage for certain experimental treatments they can buy a supplemental plan with more leeway for treatments.[/QUOTE]

    I do have to add that if there was a "catastrophic" safety net I would have to think long and hard about paying for insurance coverage for things like doctors visits, prescriptions, etc unless the prices dropped dramatically. As it stands today I pay ~$16000/year for health insurance for a family of 4 with a $35 co-pay for Drs and $30 copay for prescriptions. I don't (thankfully) have medical costs that even come close to $16k/year even if I had to pay out of pocket at the rate the insurance company is paying for these services.

    If it wasn't for Medicare/Medicaid and insurance companies paying the bills there would have to be competition for healthcare and drug rates which would almost definitely reduce the costs of health care.

  15. #35
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    This is an interesting thread.

    Many conservatives here seem to be accepting of either a government mandate or a single payer - begrudgingly so, but accepting nonetheless.

    I can't decide whether I want to this to be struck down myself. I'm thinking is something better than nothing? How long would it take to pass another healthcare law? Politically, would this law being struck down sink Obama and guarantee a GOP in the oval office?

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,333
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4420482]This is an interesting thread.

    Many conservatives here seem to be accepting of either a government mandate or a single payer - begrudgingly so, but accepting nonetheless.

    I can't decide whether I want to this to be struck down myself. I'm thinking is something better than nothing? How long would it take to pass another healthcare law? Politically, would this law being struck down sink Obama and guarantee a GOP in the oval office?[/QUOTE]

    I don't think so. And whatever you think of healthcare and who should have it and with what options, this law needs to be struck down because of the danger of the individual mandate. Its abhorrent. :yes:

  17. #37
    I simply stated what the masses were yelling during the last Presidential election.



    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4420438]I am on record here many times saying that I don't have the problem with the concept of the mandate. It was the execution that went wrong in Obamacare. They mandated that everyone purchase Cadillac insurance from private companies which covers everything from free doctors visits to free pills to kids up to age 26. Those are expensive riders that people currently can choose to pay more for. If they were genuine about reducing healthcare costs they would not have put so many mandated coverages into the plan. A simple medicare run catastrophic illness plan that covers the 5% of "very sick" people would have made economic sense. Let the private companies handle the small and medium stuff. People still choose from an array of much cheaper plans. The government system handles the major items. If folks are worried that the government death panels will deny them coverage for certain experimental treatments they can buy a supplemental plan with more leeway for treatments.[/QUOTE]

  18. #38
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4420482]Many conservatives here seem to be accepting of either a government mandate or a single payer - begrudgingly so, but accepting nonetheless. [/QUOTE]

    I accept the inherant constitutional legallity of a Social-Security Style "Govt. Taxes, then Spends that Tax how It Chooses on What it Chooses" system.

    I do not support such a system outside of a limited and specific social safety net for the truly poor. I absolutely do not support it for everyone, a la a UK or other Euro-style Govt. run/Govt. dominated system.

    I also wonder, if teh problem is costs, why is the answer to change teh entire system, instead of changing the way the costs are handled and can be paid off?

    For example, if someone gets treatment, there should be no legal mechanic for them to simply ignore/avoid that debt. If they choose not to be insured, thats their mistake, they owe for the services rendered, period.

    But instead of the current system of "Strait to Bankruptcy", I could see a few dozen ways the Govt. could work to assist those in financial straits with paying their "fair share" for the life-saving services they recieved. From loans based on need, to specific rules for long-term, low-amount, interest-free repayment based on need level, to a wide variety of other "pay, even if it takes a while, and we'll make it as low pain as possible, oh, and now you might want to prioritize insurance over teh Cable TV bill for next time" rules.

    Some of the other things in the Obamacare rule, I do support, like the issues on Pre-Existing Conditions. While it can be abused, depending onw hat the system is and how it works, the sick should still have the option to get insurance, even if they pay a slightly higehr premium for it. So I can live with that part.

    I just don't see the fundamental change of teh Fed. Govt. being allowed the powert o make us buy a product from another private business being a good power to grant the State. Put simply, I don't trust them not to use it in manyw ays unintended, nor to use it again and again down the road on other issues they'll claim are equally vital/important. The individual's power and rights must be maintained with vigillence, as it's so very easy to lose those rights forever.

  19. #39
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4420685]I accept the inherant constitutional legallity of a Social-Security Style "Govt. Taxes, then Spends that Tax how It Chooses on What it Chooses" system.

    I do not support such a system outside of a limited and specific social safety net for the truly poor. I absolutely do not support it for everyone, a la a UK or other Euro-style Govt. run/Govt. dominated system.

    I also wonder, if teh problem is costs, why is the answer to change teh entire system, instead of changing the way the costs are handled and can be paid off?

    For example, if someone gets treatment, there should be no legal mechanic for them to simply ignore/avoid that debt. If they choose not to be insured, thats their mistake, they owe for the services rendered, period.

    But instead of the current system of "Strait to Bankruptcy", I could see a few dozen ways the Govt. could work to assist those in financial straits with paying their "fair share" for the life-saving services they recieved. From loans based on need, to specific rules for long-term, low-amount, interest-free repayment based on need level, to a wide variety of other "pay, even if it takes a while, and we'll make it as low pain as possible, oh, and now you might want to prioritize insurance over teh Cable TV bill for next time" rules.

    Some of the other things in the Obamacare rule, I do support, like the issues on Pre-Existing Conditions. While it can be abused, depending onw hat the system is and how it works, the sick should still have the option to get insurance, even if they pay a slightly higehr premium for it. So I can live with that part.

    I just don't see the fundamental change of teh Fed. Govt. being allowed the powert o make us buy a product from another private business being a good power to grant the State. Put simply, I don't trust them not to use it in manyw ays unintended, nor to use it again and again down the road on other issues they'll claim are equally vital/important. The individual's power and rights must be maintained with vigillence, as it's so very easy to lose those rights forever.[/QUOTE]

    I just heard on NPR, and I'm trying to find the sources and see if it's legitimate, that a study found European countries with single-payer or a form of universal healthcare have greater social mobility and more small businesses per capita than the United States. Let me find and make sure it was credible.

    But an overhaul and single-payer would allow Americans to separate employment from insurance, free business from healthcare completely and have it paid for through taxation.

    Let me find more on that study. I'll get back to this when I have some more time.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=Trades;4420431]Even as a Libertarian/Conservative, I can see the value in a true safety net for health care but not this all encompassing 1000+ page garbage bill we were force fed.

    If we had universal catastrophic coverage for everyone I would back it. as long as it was affordable. Then again we pretty much have that today since hospitals aren't allowed to refuse care for people.

    Sadly cutting useless and redundant programs is a pipe dream in today's government otherwise I could see your other idea working to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

    Sadly, our federal government needs a reset button, It spends far too many resources on wasteful, useless things and far too little on meaningful services.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us