News You hate Obama's health care penalty for the uninsured?

[russ_watters]

The "typical package" CBO analyzed for Hatch contained:

Certainly there are alternative proposals like special medical courts...

That helps limit the lawsuits a little, but doesn't directly address the problem of defensive medicine. What I think would help more is specific guidelines protecting doctors against the need for defensive medicine, such as not being able to sue for a misdiangosis of an unusal malady. If there is a 99% chance that based on your symptoms you have a certain problem, it doesn't make sense to immediately test for the malady that is the other 1% and a doctor should not be held responsible for making that call. Heck, even take the decision out of the doctor's hands: for the most common maladies, you can put together a matrix of diagnoses and so just by following procedures, a doctor is protected against being sued for not making that 1 - in - 100 diagnosis.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wow if my point was the broad side of a barn, I'd be feeling like Dick Cheney's duck hunting partner right now. Did you even bother looking at the link I provided? My point was that the federal government needs to jump up the AMAs rear end about this artificial limiting of the supply of doctors here in the USA.

I've been looking and can not find a nonpartisan or official AMA source on this policy of limiting the number of physicians. There are apparently a limited number of medical schools which is maintained by the AMA but this does not necessarily seem unreasonable as it ought to help maintain a proper standard in the field. Your link also cites high rejection rates for applicants to medical school but does not seem to include any idea of whether or not those rejected were at all qualified.

 

[Shackleford]

So, in order to eliminate or greatly reduce taxpayer subsidy for uncompensated health care services ($40 billion/year), we're going to subsidize millions of people who cannot afford their health care insurance.

Hm.

Also, premiums for health care insurance will invariably rise thus making it less affordable for people and requiring a greater government subsidy for the poor so they can get health care insurance.

This corporate fascism is simply the first step toward a single-payer system. The next step is price controls and such. This unconstitutional bill will do nothing to increase access to health care insurance. There are a myriad things to do that would through the market-driven system reduce cost to both the health care providers and the health care insurers. The DemonCats of course didn't do any of this.

Remember, health care service and health care insurance (a privately-offered product) are privileges, not rights. There's a big difference between social safety nets that we want (e.g. emergency service, fire, etc.) and socialism/fascism. We are very fortunate to have built a nation and an economic system that give us near-instantaneous life-giving aid. This was done through capitalism and the free market. Health care service is very valuable. The training involved requires years of commitment and a lot of money. You are paid by the problem you solve. People in health care solve problems we all have.

 

[calculusrocks]

Okay, fine. So what is your answer to my question? Are you willing to sign a waiver or accept the terms that allow medical workers to refuse treatment based on credit ratings or credit card limits?

I don't condone the government's efforts in the health insurance at all, except for laws and enforcement that prevent fraud. I don't expect government to steal treatment for me any more than I expect to steal treatment from the doctor himself. The government is completely in bed with the corporations (and the lawyers) as far as I'm concerned. Did the health insurance industry take losses in the stock market after the bill signed? No. It carried the DOW because now the health insurance industry knows that they can force people to buy their product, thanks to government. We already have limited choice because I'm not allowed to buy insurance across state lines.

More entitlements, more taxes, more spending, more laws. No matter what the problem is, the solutions presented by the politician is more entitlements, more taxes, more spending more laws. It doesn't matter if it spawns more and more problems. The solution presented is more entitlements, more taxes, more spending, more laws. If it worked, wouldn't we see the positive results of this approach by now? To what success?

All I see is my choice, my freedom, being offloaded into Washington because they think they somehow know (because their own narcissism prevents them from seeing their own track record) what is best for me. I won't willingly sign anything that gives the impression that I condone any of this.

As far as this contract with the government goes, yeah that's a bunch of nonsense since they are able to erase the contract and make changes as they go along meanwhile they hold my signature in ink.

 

[mheslep]

As soon as you get into an ambulance, you are outside of the tax-based emergency services. What seems strange to me is that you apparently have no problem with the tax-based emergency services.

Hard to do privately without a monopoly.

Since you already have insurance and this doesn't affect you, what is the problem?

You seemed to be addressing everyone above when you stated:

There is an implicit contract between you and the government in which you demand that emergency and extended medical treatment be made available if you are sick or seriously injured.

but I see you were referring only to the uninsured. Even so, I challenge several assertions made in that first post: that there is any 'implicit contract' between the individual and the federal government for any 'extended' medical service. The mandate at hand is federal law. After some limited emergency care enforced by EMTALA, medical providers do have the right to deny service. Often one is not 'all alone'. There are numerous charitable organizations that help pick up the tab for the unfortunate.

Or is it a matter of saying that you're covered so screw everyone else?

Well in response I won't get into my charitable habits here. However, given that the US spends $500B/year in taxpayer based Medicare and Medicaid services, which I pay into handsomely via taxes, I find that a silly proposition.

 

[mheslep]

Mandated health-insurance coverage is an idea that has been around for decades - among Republicans, primarily. Now that it is written into law, Republicans hate the idea.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100327/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_requiring_insurance;_ylt=AgJjGhf_NFkaLm.Yb2umQzCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM3NWp1YjFnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI3L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bF9yZXF1aXJpbmdfaW5zdXJhbmNlBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDOARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNuZXdoZWFsdGhpbnM-

For individual mandates, that's in the STATES, where the US constitution has nothing to say on the matter. There was one Republican co-sponsored bill - Wyden-Bennett - that called for federal mandates. I don't see a reversal of Republican opinion anywhere.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would like to see nationalized health care. This though just seems like some ridiculous bastard hybrid. It would appear as though the idea is for people to get a taste of better access to health care but not appreciate the aftertaste the system leaves leading to more and more reforms that will eventually lead to nationalized healthcare. A foot-in-the-door bill.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that it is a "foot-in-the-door bill", but I'm glad the "public option"/fully nationalized healthcare piece was defeated by the Republicans (I consider the republicans more winners here than democrats). I simply can't believe that the government can do something like health care more efficiently than the priate market. Further, I went to college, work hard, and make good money. In a free society, people are supposed to be allowed to enjoy the benefits of their success. It is therefore against the principles of a free society to take those benefits away.

Caveat: Right now, the super-rich in those countries with nationalized healthcare still do somewhat have the right to use their success to improve their medical care: they can just fly to the US for treatment! (And many do!)

 

[mheslep]

I would like to see nationalized health care.

Since the current bill is a form of nationalized health care, I assume you mean you want either single payer by the government (Canada), or you want the government to actually run the medical system, docs, hospitals and all (UK). Why?

 

[mheslep]

[...]When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts

[...]So there's good reason to be skeptical of the utility of a statement like "If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year."

Last I looked at the Texas malpractice reforms, one finds the results reflected in the malpractice premiums charged to physicians, and it was overwhelmingly clear they had dropped dramatically post reform. If we believe that is true, as well as the CBO report above, then possibly that means that hospitals and doctors have not been passing on the cost reductions, i.e., prices are 'sticky' as they say in economics.

 

[edward]

For individual mandates, that's in the STATES, where the US constitution has nothing to say on the matter. There was one Republican co-sponsored bill - Wyden-Bennett - that called for federal mandates. I don't see a reversal of Republican opinion anywhere.

Republicans were for mandatory health insurance care before they were against it.

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612

http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2010/03/wow-mandatory-health-care-insurance-is.html

 

[mheslep]

Republicans were for mandatory health insurance care before they were against it.

Some supported it, maybe they still do. So? Nixon supported wage and price controls. Does that mean 'Republicans' support wage and price controls? The thesis proposed in this thread is that 'Republicans' have reversed themselves on individual health mandates at the federal level. Yeah? Who? Hatch?

 

[BoomBoom]

My problem with the mandate is that you are required to purchase a product from a private company that will make a profit from it. It would be OK I think if there were a public option or some other non-profit provider, but I am not a fan of making insurance companies richer than they already are as mandated by government.

I suspect the insurance companies will make bank on this and after reaping the benefits for awhile and posting record profits, we may have to revisit the public option idea in the future.

 

[turbo]

I suspect the insurance companies will make bank on this and after reaping the benefits for awhile and posting record profits, we may have to revisit the public option idea in the future.

Probably sooner than later, too. The insurance companies will take all they can get until the more restrictive (read "fair") regulations regarding coverage for adults begins in 2014, and then who knows what they can pull off? Barring a wholesale takeover by the GOP in 2012, we will be fighting the public option fight all over again.

If the GOP takes the WH in 2012, the public option is dead. Possibly for a very long time.

 

[mheslep]

BTW, the individual federal insurance mandate is not high on my list of objections to this new Obamacare law, per se. I'm mainly concerned that it sets a precedent for federal the government mandating anything, like mandating that I buy a Government Motors automobile. If I could find a good legal argument, I'd have much less objection, though I still not favor it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Some supported it, maybe they still do. So? Nixon supported wage and price controls. Does that mean 'Republicans' support wage and price controls? The thesis proposed in this thread is that 'Republicans' have reversed themselves on individual health mandates at the federal level. Yeah? Who? Hatch?

Obama's plan has been called "right of Nixon". I would expect that you are too young to fully appreciate the siginficance of that statement. It is yet another example that America's right has gone right over a cliff.

Here was Nixon's proposal

President Richard Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan

February 6, 1974...

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

...The flat truth is that in February 1974, with the hounds of hell baying at him about Watergate, with a national trial by shortage under way after the Arab Oil Embargo, with the economy in extremely rocky shape, and with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Republican Richard M. Nixon submitted to Congress a national health care bill in many ways more comprehensive than what Mr. Obama achieved.

Mr. Nixon's health care plan would have covered all employed people by giving combined state and federal subsidies to employers. It would have covered the poor and the unemployed by much larger subsidies. It would have encouraged health maintenance organizations. It would have banned exclusions for pre-existing conditions and not allowed limits on spending for each insured.

I know a bit about this because I, your humble servant, as a 29-year-old speech writer, wrote the message to Congress sending up the bill.

In many ways, the bill was far more "socialist" than what Mr. Obama has proposed...

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-giving-nixon-his-due-on-health-care-reform/19414702

 

[calculusrocks]

BTW, the individual federal insurance mandate is not high on my list of objections to this new Obamacare law, per se. I'm mainly concerned that it sets a precedent for federal the government mandating anything, like mandating that I buy a Government Motors automobile. If I could find a good legal argument, I'd have much less objection, though I still not favor it.

Or government bonds, perhaps?

 

[calculusrocks]

Ivan, if by "to the right" you mean nationalizing Amtrak and central planning, then yeah? But that doesn't make very much sense. If we're going to use this left-right paradigm, we might as well start with some definitions. Otherwise it just becomes a food fight between partisans who want to paint every control freak as a member of the other team.

Right - smaller gov't
Left - bigger gov't

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, if by "to the right" you mean nationalizing Amtrak and central planning, then yeah? But that doesn't make very much sense. If we're going to use this left-right paradigm, we might as well start with some definitions. Otherwise it just becomes a food fight between partisans who want to paint every control freak as a member of the other team.

Right - smaller gov't
Left - bigger gov't

I don't think you can break down "left" and "right" that simply, but I tend to agree with the notion that the role of government in solving problems is a key element of the distinction between the two views. My point is that the "right" has not always been driven entirely by ideology. Amtrak is another example of this. One cannot run a nation while wearing ideological blinders.

If your point is that Nixon was a liberal, good luck in defending that one!

 

[edpell]

right - higher taxes
left - higher taxes

right - foreign wars for resources
left - foreign wars for resources

right - amnesty for 30 million illegal immigrants
left - amnesty for 30 million illegal immigrants

right - annual federal debt >1 trillion dollars
left - annual federal debt >1 trillion dollars

I fail to see the difference.

 

[mheslep]

Nixon was a creature of the big government 60s and 70s, instituted wage and price controls, vastly increased the power of government and its regulation in numerous ways (e.g. EPA). He had almost nothing in common with what's considered a Reagan conservative of today.

 

[calculusrocks]

If your point is that Nixon was a liberal, good luck in defending that one!

Nixon wasn't a liberal. He was a socialist. He's not the first socialist to reside in the Republican party, and he won't be the last. This whole notion that is repeated ad nausium that if X is a republican, and X supports socialist proposition Q, then all republicans are therefore hypocrites is really quite bizarre, especially considering Obama was the one saying that it was "guilt by association" when his ties to the radical terrorist Bill Ayers and the Woods foundation were revealed.

 

[BoomBoom]

Nixon was a creature of the big government 60s and 70s, instituted wage and price controls, vastly increased the power of government and its regulation in numerous ways (e.g. EPA). He had almost nothing in common with what's considered a Reagan conservative of today.

Reagan, who re-wrote the book on extravagant deficit spending...and Bush followed suit perfectly. That must be 'Reagan conservatism'...as long as the spending is on the military, it doesn't count?

 

[mheslep]

Nixon wasn't a liberal. He was a socialist.

He had some awful socialist policies.

 

[turbo]

He had some awful socialist policies.

Including that nasty Head-Start program. What a Commie! Johnson started it, and Nixon expanded it. What a traitor.

When I was a kid in grade school in the 50s, we were heavily tracked because the federal government had figured out that we would lose our technological edge to the Soviets if we continued to allow children to be under-educated, and not allowed to track into harder science courses. My parents must have struggled awfully, financially, but they managed to buy me a Sears Newtonian one year, and an Edmund microscope the year after. I had been scoring off the charts in sciences and math and my teachers gave me LOTS of extra work, and must have urged them to get me some more "tools" at home.

 

[mheslep]

Reagan, who re-wrote the book on extravagant deficit spending...and Bush followed suit perfectly.

Wrote the book? What do you call what's going on now?

1. Spending is also a function of the Congress, so include, say, Tip O'neil in the 1980s calculus.
2. Entitlements are the real problem, not military spending which can be and was dramatically reduced after the cold war. Reagan didn't sign any new entitlements.
3. The deficits in the Reagan era peaked in '86 at 5% of GDP; today's deficit http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s" that figure.

 

[calculusrocks]

The food fighters just don't get it. The CBO, the government's own self-serving measurements, projects that it's going to take 90% of GDP to service the debt by 2020. The goal now is to convince as many stupid countries as possible to invest in our economy to serve our addiction to spending.

ADD: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

 

[calculusrocks]

1) Deficits != Spending
2) LOL @ comparing nonsense programs like "Cash for Clunkers" to spending on military for the Cold War.

 

[BoomBoom]

1) Deficits != Spending
2) LOL @ comparing nonsense programs like "Cash for Clunkers" to spending on military for the Cold War.

Umm, not quite sure if this comment was directed towards me or not? (I'll respond anyway)

Personally, I would much rather my tax dollars go towards providing all with health coverage, than fund a useless war for no other reason than, "we're afraid of them", or building bombs to make others afraid of us...etc.
It's just a matter of allocation of 'values'. So if you are really sincere in your 'disgust' of deficit spending, you should be equally against it when it comes to military spending by republican presidents. But you do not seem to be, which makes your argument seem a bit disingenuous.

 

[edward]

Some supported it, maybe they still do. So? Nixon supported wage and price controls. Does that mean 'Republicans' support wage and price controls? The thesis proposed in this thread is that 'Republicans' have reversed themselves on individual health mandates at the federal level. Yeah? Who? Hatch?

You can add Romney to that list, also Scottt Brown.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011431814_healthmandate25.html?prmid=obnetwork

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/13/r...-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-health-care-plan/

 

[calculusrocks]

Umm, not quite sure if this comment was directed towards me or not? (I'll respond anyway)

Personally, I would much rather my tax dollars go towards providing all with health coverage, than fund a useless war for no other reason than, "we're afraid of them", or building bombs to make others afraid of us...etc.
It's just a matter of allocation of 'values'. So if you are really sincere in your 'disgust' of deficit spending, you should be equally against it when it comes to military spending by republican presidents. But you do not seem to be, which makes your argument seem a bit disingenuous.

First, the tax dollars don't go directly to health coverage. Money changes hands between many bureaucrats in between. If you wanted a more direct approach, try private charity.

Second, I don't like war, and I don't think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan. But, the Cold War, you must admit that was a good result. The problem is that you're confusing "war" and "military spending". We spent money on the military to avoid war. If you don't like war, then why would you oppose a course of action that avoided a real war? Because it costs too much money?

Third, Reagan ran deficits. BUT, he ran deficits on a budget that actually made sense! We have to look how much we actually spend in total, not just whether or not we're over budget.

Forth, I think Reagan had a great idea with a missile defense system. That's something the gov't should do, defend us from our enemies. Instead we have tons of military bases all over the globe, and I don't think that's helpful. I think we need to cut-out a more modest foreign policy.

Fifth, how did we get into a war debate anyway? I thought you wanted to discuss health care?

 

[mheslep]

You can add Romney to that list, also Scottt Brown.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011431814_healthmandate25.html?prmid=obnetwork

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/13/r...-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-health-care-plan/

No, no, no. They supported STATE mandates. I don't have any a priori problem with state mandates either, as the US constitution is not material.

 

[mheslep]

It's just a matter of allocation of 'values'. So if you are really sincere in your 'disgust' of deficit spending, you should be equally against it when it comes to military spending by republican presidents. But you do not seem to be, which makes your argument seem a bit disingenuous.

I pointed out above that are no comparisons for the current deficit spending under any President/Congress unless one goes back to WWII. Second, given the position of the current administration on Afghanistan, I think it is unfair to point to only Republican presidents for deficit military spending.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The topic of this thread is the mandate for health insurance for all who are not eligible for medicare or medicaid. This is clearly not a redistribution of wealth as it penalizes those who, in the event of a serious injury or illness, would require medical care that they cannot afford. Please keep all other health care debates in the appropriate thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387789

Has anyone indicated that they would accept the terms suggested in the op?

 

[calculusrocks]

The topic of this thread is the mandate for health insurance for all who are not eligible for medicare or medicaid. This is clearly not a redistribution of wealth as it penalizes those who, in the event of a serious injury or illness, would require medical care that they cannot afford. Please keep all other health care debates in the appropriate thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387789

Has anyone indicated that they would accept the terms suggested in the op?

Sen. Max Caucus and Sen. Howard Dean both say that it is about Redistribution of Wealth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo&feature


Rep. Dingell says it's going to take a while before the law controls the people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI

 

[Al68]

Okay, fine. So what is your answer to my question? Are you willing to sign a waiver or accept the terms that allow medical workers to refuse treatment based on credit ratings or credit card limits?

What possible reason would he need to sign a waiver releasing someone else from an obligation he never suggested they had to begin with?

There is an implicit contract between you and the government in which you demand that emergency and extended medical treatment be made available if you are sick or seriously injured.

I've made no such demand or agreement (contract).

The words "implied contract" contradict each other. A contract is an agreement between people by definition, which logically precludes the use of the word to describe an involuntary obligation.

How about this: Nobody needs to sign such a waiver because we all have implied waivers.

 

[edpell]

I have medical insurance even before this all started. So my credit rating is irrelevant and I have no reason to sign any waivers.

Would I let others die in the gutter? No and yes. I would like a LIMITED universal health coverage at say 1% of GDP and then after that you are on your own or on the charity of others and when those both run out you die.

 

[edpell]

I am often a Libertarian so that would be 1% GDP for all federal government provided health care to all Americans and visitors. Clearly many things now paid for by the federal government would no longer be covered by the federal government. I favor a greatly reduced federal government.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What possible reason would he need to sign a waiver releasing someone else from an obligation he never suggested they had to begin with?I've made no such demand or agreement (contract).

The words "implied contract" contradict each other. A contract is an agreement between people by definition, which logically precludes the use of the word to describe an involuntary obligation.

How about this: Nobody needs to sign such a waiver because we all have implied waivers.

Okay, so you would not agree to sign a waiver but you expect to be treated even if you can't afford it and have no insurance; or at the least, you believe that other people should have this right, for free? If not, then do you believe that anyone who can't pay for medical treatment on the spot, and who has no insurance, should be refused treatment and sent home, or left on the highway to die [as in the example used earlier]?

There are only two choices here: Either you or others get something for nothing, or you don't. Which is it?

How about it we call it a waiver of liability? That is easily justified. One can be excluded from the insurance mandate if they sign a waiver of liability in the event that medical treatment is ever refused due to a lack of insurance or the means to pay.

Also, I take it that you don't recognize that Congress has the right to make laws; nor that we have a representitive democracy? If you don't recognize the mandate that emergency treatment cannot be refused, then you must not recognize the power of Congress as defined under the US Constitution, or that this was done in your name as well as mine.

If you don't believe in our system of government, then your objections are outside of the bounds of this discussion. We are discussing the limits of power of the government as it stands now - according to Constitutional law.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We are discussing the limits of power of the government as it stands now - according to Constitutional law.

Passage of a Bill of Attainder is prohibited by the constitution. Can you demonstrate how this is not a Bill of Attainder?

 

[calculusrocks]

Ivan, what I'm saying is that the government should abide by its own laws. If the government's own laws mandate that they treat me every time I get small fever, then I'll seek treatment for the small fever (provided the line is not too long, then I'll just tough it out).

No where in the Constitution does it grant authority to Congress to do this. Rights in this country are retained by the People, not the State. We the people tell government what it can do, not vice-versa. The Constitution is the law in the land, and this bill might as well be a defacto 28th Amendment it is so patently unconstitutional.

Why should I sign waivers denying myself treatment simply because I do not appreciate your malicious interpretation of the law?

 

[calculusrocks]

I am often a Libertarian so that would be 1% GDP for all federal government provided health care to all Americans and visitors. Clearly many things now paid for by the federal government would no longer be covered by the federal government. I favor a greatly reduced federal government.

That I'd support, and I'd hope the citizenry would appreciate such a system as to not to abuse it.

 

[Al68]

Okay, so you would not agree to sign a waiver but you expect to be treated even if you can't afford it and have no insurance; or at the least, you believe that other people should have this right, for free?

No and no.

If not, then do you believe that anyone who can't pay for medical treatment on the spot, and who has no insurance, should be refused treatment and sent home, or left on the highway to die [as in the example used earlier]?

Nope.

There are only two choices here: Either you or others get something for nothing, or you don't. Which is it?

Those are obviously not the only choices, and I won't bother elaborating further, since you already know this.

How about it we call it a waiver of liability?

Since I am not a party to any contract containing any such liability, that makes no sense. If I were, I would need a reason to sign the waiver, such as compensation for waiving my entitlements in such a contract.

That is easily justified. One can be excluded from the insurance mandate if they sign a waiver of liability in the event that medical treatment is ever refused due to a lack of insurance or the means to pay.

Again, since I'm not a party to any such contract, no need for a waiver. How about having anyone interested in being part of this system sign a contract, and leave the rest of us alone. The idea that people who don't want to participate should be the ones signing anything is absurd.

Also, I take it that you don't recognize that Congress has the right to make laws;

Obviously false. Congress does have limited delegated power to make laws.

If you don't recognize the mandate that emergency treatment cannot be refused, then you must not recognize the power of Congress as defined under the US Constitution, or that this was done in your name as well as mine.

The current US Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude.

If you don't believe in our system of government, then your objections are outside of the bounds of this discussion. We are discussing the limits of power of the government as it stands now - according to Constitutional law.

My objections are based on the US Constitution, as should be obvious. As StatutoryApe pointed out, Bills of Attainer are prohibited, as is involuntary servitude. Not to mention the ninth and tenth amendments. This law clearly violates the constitution many times over.

The only question is, are you knowingly an enemy of the US Constitution, or do you simply not know what it says like most Americans?

 

[mheslep]

No where in the Constitution does it grant authority to Congress to do this. Rights in this country are retained by the People, not the State.

It is not at all clear that holds up. Some would say the Supreme Court wiped out the 10th amendment in the new deal decisions National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 1937, and US v Darby Lumber Co 1941:
(I'm am not one of the some.)

[...]in United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), the Court said the 10th Amendment "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.

http://www.answers.com/topic/national-labor-relations-board-v-jones-laughlin-steel-corporation
http://www.answers.com/topic/commerce-clause
For a real case of tossing out 100 years of precedent, those cases dam sure qualified.

 

[calculusrocks]

Well, I'm not getting my hopes up on the Supreme Court.

 

[Al68]

Some would say the Supreme Court wiped out the 10th amendment in the new deal decisions National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 1937, and US v Darby Lumber Co 1941:
(I'm am not one of the some.)

Yeah, that was the beginnings of a corrupt politicized Supreme Court. But the fact still remains that nothing the courts do ever actually change what the constitution says.

There are two ways to legitimately amend the constitution, and that isn't one of them.

 

[Kerrie]

Stepping back from emergency services, I went about 3 years without health insurance when I was in my 20s, then had individual insurance (I was self-employed) for another 5. In that time, I went to the dentist once, had my wisdom teeth out and had a hernia operation. Both surgeries were payed for mostly out of pocket because I had a high deductable, so while I paid $8000 or so for insurance over that time, I still payed about $6000 out of pocket for the services I got. I'm glad I went without insurance for a few years, but I would have been better off going without insurance another few years. Regardless, as a person living in a supposedly free society, I should have the right to make such choices for myself.

Russ, you were one of the lucky ones who had the disposable income to pay for your medical bills-whether it came in the form of premiums or a direct bill. Not only did you have the disposable income to pay for it, but you also chose to pay it. Many people can't or simply won't pay for medical costs incurred, therefore you (and everyone else with the ability and choice to fork out their hard earned cash) end up paying more than you should.

Just 3 years ago I was denied individual coverage for a minor and common condition that many doctors told me was nothing to worry about. The denial letter was signed by a nurse-not a doctor. I am personally glad the government is stepping into stop insurance companies from denying coverage. Also in the letter was an offer to apply for the state's high risk medical insurance pool, and of course, that insurance company was the carrier for the high risk pool and more expensive. So in these instances, insurance companies have too much power over who they accept and don't accept, and this is where big brother government can help the people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Kerrie! Why don't you post in GD and tell us what you've been doing.

 

[Kerrie]

I sure will Ivan.

And I am in 100% agreement with our government stepping in for the people who are slipping off the cliff of health insurance coverage. Those who have coverage today may not have it tomorrow because of rising costs.

The law mandates that we have liability coverage for driving and in general, we just pay it and carry on. As long as we avoid tickets and accidents, we pay the lowest rate possible and have a choice of our carrier. Our rates stay competitive because the law requires everyone who chooses to drive to have liability insurance (and of course full coverage if financing the car).

Could it be that the government is stimulating a new market for health insurance policies that will-over time of course-drive down outrageous costs and give this market a healthy competitive drive? Currently, costs are so vague that Americans have no idea how much they are overpaying; would an awareness of these costs by Americans help the competition so that everyone can have access to our fantastic health care?

I don't know if there has been any mention in this reform about the health habits of Americans (obesity as an example), but I would welcome any sort of incentive plan that kept my rates down for making healthy choices.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The law mandates that we have liability coverage for driving and in general, we just pay it and carry on. As long as we avoid tickets and accidents, we pay the lowest rate possible and have a choice of our carrier. Our rates stay competitive because the law requires everyone who chooses to drive to have liability insurance (and of course full coverage if financing the car).

Could it be that the government is stimulating a new market for health insurance policies that will-over time of course-drive down outrageous costs and give this market a healthy competitive drive? Currently, costs are so vague that Americans have no idea how much they are overpaying; would an awareness of these costs by Americans help the competition so that everyone can have access to our fantastic health care?

I don't know if there has been any mention in this reform about the health habits of Americans (obesity as an example), but I would welcome any sort of incentive plan that kept my rates down for making healthy choices.

Yes, while naysayers point and accuse Obama of cutting dirty deals with the insurance industry, the reality is that by expanding the base significantly, companies can reduce rates for everyone. There is no way for insurance companies to survive if a good percentage of Americans only get insurance when they get sick or old. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

There are of course limits on what we can hope to gain or save, but the goal was to contain the runaway costs. Broadly expanding the base of the insured was one strategy needed to achieve containment.