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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Health
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the healthcare mandate that imposes fines on uninsured individuals, raising questions about the government's authority to enforce such penalties. It argues that there is an implicit contract between citizens and the government regarding access to emergency medical services, which justifies the insurance requirement. Critics express concerns about the fairness of the mandate, suggesting that individuals should not expect treatment without contributing to the system. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of uninsured individuals on healthcare costs and the sustainability of hospitals. Ultimately, the debate highlights the tension between personal responsibility and the collective need for accessible healthcare.
  • #61
mheslep said:
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
edward said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #63
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.
 
  • #64
BoomBoom said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
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.
 
  • #66
mheslep said:
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
 
  • #67
mheslep said:
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?
 
  • #68
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
 
  • #69
calculusrocks said:
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!
 
  • #70
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.
 
  • #71
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.
 
  • #72
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #73
mheslep said:
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?
 
  • #74
calculusrocks said:
Nixon wasn't a liberal. He was a socialist.
He had some awful socialist policies.
 
  • #75
mheslep said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
BoomBoom said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
1) Deficits != Spending
2) LOL @ comparing nonsense programs like "Cash for Clunkers" to spending on military for the Cold War.
 
  • #79
calculusrocks said:
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.
 
  • #80
mheslep said:
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/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
BoomBoom said:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
BoomBoom said:
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.
 
  • #84
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?
 
  • #85
Ivan Seeking said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
Ivan Seeking said:
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. :bugeye:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
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.
 
  • #88
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.
 
  • #89
Al68 said:
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. :bugeye:

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 

Similar threads

News Assuming Affordable Care Act Is Shot Down, Should There Be a Healthcare Hospital Tax?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
News Is Nevada Solving Its Mental Health Crisis by Busing Patients to Other States?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
News The US has the best health care in the world?
  • · Replies 895 ·
30
Replies
895
Views
98K
News VA System: Better Care with Less Profit Incentive
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
News Federal Insurance Office: Addressing Health Insurance Head On
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Checking Spending Habits: How Much for Health Care?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
News Should There Be a 28th Consitutional Amendment re Health Care Choices
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News RX For PMS, Pray To Jesus, FDA Approved
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K