If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Three reasons to overturn Obamacare   (forbes.com) divider line 34
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

2657 clicks; posted to Business » on 26 Mar 2012 at 10:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-03-26 11:03:44 AM
Scumbama care has a lot more than three reasons to be overturned.
 
2012-03-26 11:04:52 AM
The whole debate is rather pointless. Why don't you all just get health insurance the way I did: By holding down a job that wasn't intended for high school students or the mentally infirm to do.
 
2012-03-26 11:06:02 AM
Down with Obamacare!
 
2012-03-26 11:07:18 AM
Once again - how would medicare not be unconstitutional if the ACA is? It requires payment from everyone. I think George Will is right that the word "tax" is the only difference.
 
2012-03-26 11:08:30 AM
I'd like to point out that none of these three are Constitutional issues. And I don't see how the third one has anything to do with Obamacare at all -- can't states already make laws on what insurance can and cannot cover?
 
2012-03-26 11:11:07 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Scumbama care has a lot more than three reasons to be overturned.


Well now I'm convinced.
 
2012-03-26 11:13:25 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Once again - how would medicare not be unconstitutional if the ACA is? It requires payment from everyone. I think George Will is right that the word "tax" is the only difference.


Wouldn't it be a clusterfark if the effort to expand medical coverage to everyone is ruled unconstitutional and in the process brings down the program that provides medical coverage to seniors?
 
2012-03-26 11:14:28 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Scumbama care has a lot more than three reasons to be overturned.


And those are?
 
2012-03-26 11:15:24 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: fark i


This is part of the goal of the right. They'd love to see medicare get destroyed through no direct effort of their own.
 
2012-03-26 11:19:10 AM
Yeah, the individual mandate pisses me off. I bet the insurance companies must love it, though!

Gee... $700 a year penalty... or $bazillion a year for insurance premiums. Guess which I'll pick.
 
2012-03-26 11:21:34 AM

xanadian: es


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/26/451406/rmc/
 
2012-03-26 11:23:43 AM

CPT Ethanolic: Once again - how would medicare not be unconstitutional if the ACA is? It requires payment from everyone. I think George Will is right that the word "tax" is the only difference.


Taxation versus penalty. Please keep up. Obama intentionally attempted to call the Mandate not a tax so he wouldn't have his George HW Bush moment of "no new taxes". The 16th explicitly states what taxes the Feds can use, the mandate penalty was not so. You will see very person against ACA has made it clear that if it was a tax/credit scheme there would not be an issue. Tax/credit does not impose a mandate. Mandate/penalty does.
 
2012-03-26 11:24:26 AM

Arkanaut: I'd like to point out that none of these three are Constitutional issues. And I don't see how the third one has anything to do with Obamacare at all -- can't states already make laws on what insurance can and cannot cover?


States have more regulatory power than the federal government does. Welcome to civics 101.
 
2012-03-26 11:25:04 AM

GWLush: jehovahs witness protection: Scumbama care has a lot more than three reasons to be overturned.

And those are?


well, "scumbama" for a start. that just sounds gross. plus, you know, he's black 'n' all.
 
2012-03-26 11:28:22 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Scumbama care has a lot more than three reasons to be overturned.


when you start your sentence with "Scumbama" it doesn't make me want to pay attention to the rest of your argument.
 
2012-03-26 11:33:42 AM

FlashHarry: GWLush: jehovahs witness protection: Scumbama care has a lot more than three reasons to be overturned.

And those are?

well, "scumbama" for a start. that just sounds gross. plus, you know, he's blackh 'n' all.

 
2012-03-26 11:51:47 AM

jehovahs witness protection: Scumbama care has a lot more than three reasons to be overturned.


Agreed. As it was once the Republican plan, it has to be fundamentally flawed.
 
2012-03-26 11:57:05 AM

MyRandomName: Taxation versus penalty. Please keep up. Obama intentionally attempted to call the Mandate not a tax so he wouldn't have his George HW Bush moment of "no new taxes". The 16th explicitly states what taxes the Feds can use, the mandate penalty was not so. You will see very person against ACA has made it clear that if it was a tax/credit scheme there would not be an issue. Tax/credit does not impose a mandate. Mandate/penalty does.


There's exactly no difference at all. If it's on the ropes, the administration will admit that it is a tax.

And what's 'explicit' about the 16th? Here's the whole thing.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

I don't see where the PPACA violates the 16th. It's a tax on income. If you don't have taxable income, you're below the line where there are any tax implications under PPACA (i.e., there's never a tax burden in excess of your income). The 16th says it doesn't have to be equitable by population or anything else.
 
2012-03-26 11:58:17 AM
This mandate is based on two important principles. (new window) First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.
--Stuart M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans. The Heritage Foundation (1989).

It should be noted that Stuart Butler, like every other conservative, came to oppose the healthcare mandate right around 2009.

Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (PDF) Introduced 1993, sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R). Sec. 1501, Subtitle F - Universal Coverage:
(a) IN GENERAL.-Effective January 1, 2005, each
individual who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident
of the United States shall be covered under-
(1) a qualified health plan, or
(2) an equivalent health care program (as de-
fined in section 1601(7)).
(b) EXCEPTION.-Subsection (a) shall not apply in
the case of an individual who is opposed for religious rea-
sons to health plan coverage, including an individual who
declines health plan coverage due to a reliance on healing
using spiritual means through prayer alone.

Also -- and here's the fun part:
'SEC. 5000A. FAILURE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH RESPECT TO
HEALTH INSURANCE.
''(a) GENERAL RULE.-There is hereby imposed a
tax on the failure of any individual to comply with the
requirements of section 1501 of the Health Equity and
Access Reform Today Act of 1993.
•S 1770 PCS1S
216
''(b) AMOUNT TAX.-The amount of tax imposed
OF
by subsection (a) with respect to any calendar year shall
be equal to 120 percent of the applicable dollar limit for
such year for such individual (within the meaning of sec-
tion 91(b)(2) and determined on an annual basis).


Lots more here. (new window)
 
2012-03-26 12:04:05 PM
But I'm not a lawyer so I'm reluctant to make legal arguments against the bill.

Well, gee, thanks for wasting our time, Forbes.
 
2012-03-26 12:16:23 PM
1) He's black
2) He's black
3) He's an evil commie socialist marxist atheist muslin democrat (who is also black)
 
2012-03-26 12:20:15 PM

MyRandomName: CPT Ethanolic: Once again - how would medicare not be unconstitutional if the ACA is? It requires payment from everyone. I think George Will is right that the word "tax" is the only difference.

Taxation versus penalty. Please keep up. Obama intentionally attempted to call the Mandate not a tax so he wouldn't have his George HW Bush moment of "no new taxes". The 16th explicitly states what taxes the Feds can use, the mandate penalty was not so. You will see very person against ACA has made it clear that if it was a tax/credit scheme there would not be an issue. Tax/credit does not impose a mandate. Mandate/penalty does.


Commerce clause allows congress to regulate economic activity - not just taxes. Ruling have gone as far as blocking medicinal marijuana.
 
2012-03-26 12:25:23 PM

CPT Ethanolic: Once again - how would medicare not be unconstitutional if the ACA is? It requires payment from everyone. I think George Will is right that the word "tax" is the only difference.


Then why not cover everyone under the "presidential, vice presidential, congressional, and (surpreme court) judicial" health care plan? OR (even better), scrap the "presidential, vice presidential, congressional, and (surpreme court) judicial" health care plan, and put everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) under the same national healthcare plan.

If Medicare is good enough for the average citizens, why isn't it good enough for 0bama and botox? How many times during the debate did Republican congressmen and Republican senators ask that the "presidential, vice presidential, congressional, and (surpreme court) judicial" health care plan be scrapped and have one plan for all? IIRC, it was at least 10. If the democrats denied that request, then there must be something wrong 0bamacare.
 
2012-03-26 12:31:31 PM
That was dumb.

"Obamacare will tell you what to do! But you also might have to fend for yourself!"
 
2012-03-26 04:29:17 PM
No reason to worry about those roving bands of government death-squads yet, they're still too busy in Afghanistan to go around putting down terminally ill Americans.
 
2012-03-26 05:43:23 PM
In my idealized, completely unrealistic world:

- PPACA would be overturned by the court as unconstitutional
- Congress would reinact it as a tax instead of a penalty
- Since health care is partially paid for by taxes, they go all the way, and...
- Basic premiums would be paid for by the government instead of employers
- Employers have the option of contributing additional premiums

As a result:

- Funding becomes far simplier
- Small businesses benefit
- The unemployed are protected
- Benefits begin to standardize
- Price controls begin to be introduced

That's a dream world though. PPACA either passes constitutional muster when it probably shouldn't, or we get nothing in the way of reform as the House and the Senate can't agree on the time of day.
 
2012-03-26 06:37:34 PM
From the article: "But I'm not a lawyer so I'm reluctant to make legal arguments against the bill. Instead here are three practical reasons why the Supreme Court should join lower courts in overturning the law."

Translated:
1) I have no idea what I'm talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head

Commentary:
What the fark? Like the supreme court is going to look at practical considerations to decide the case!
farking waste of time
 
2012-03-26 07:52:44 PM
ObamaCare Will Politicize The Doctor-Patient Relationship

Better that than the current system where insurance companies monetize the doctor-patient relationship.

And I have a marginally greater chance of changing a pol's mind for fear of being voted out of office than convincing insurance companies that my life is worth more than a fraction of a cent's worth of stock dividends.
 
2012-03-26 10:27:01 PM

CPT Ethanolic: MyRandomName: CPT Ethanolic: Once again - how would medicare not be unconstitutional if the ACA is? It requires payment from everyone. I think George Will is right that the word "tax" is the only difference.

Taxation versus penalty. Please keep up. Obama intentionally attempted to call the Mandate not a tax so he wouldn't have his George HW Bush moment of "no new taxes". The 16th explicitly states what taxes the Feds can use, the mandate penalty was not so. You will see very person against ACA has made it clear that if it was a tax/credit scheme there would not be an issue. Tax/credit does not impose a mandate. Mandate/penalty does.

Commerce clause allows congress to regulate economic activity - not just taxes. Ruling have gone as far as blocking medicinal marijuana.


The ruling has gone as far as telling someone they cant grow their own food.

Have health insurance the same way auto insurance is run. I cant tow my totaled car into the Geico parking lot and ask them to insure it, then put in a claim to return it to new so why should a company be forced to cover someone with a pre-existing condition? You are basically asking a company to protect against something that has already happened.

Rather than have my employer contribute to my policy, I should simply receive that extra money as part of my salary. This way i can go purchase my own healthcare plan and when i switch jobs, I can still retain my health insurance just as I might maintain my car insurance if I moved across the state. This way if i did experience a major medical event and then had to switch jobs, I would not be uninsurable
 
2012-03-26 11:30:41 PM

o5iiawah: Have health insurance the same way auto insurance is run. I cant tow my totaled car into the Geico parking lot and ask them to insure it, then put in a claim to return it to new so why should a company be forced to cover someone with a pre-existing condition? You are basically asking a company to protect against something that has already happened.


And *you* are basically asking someone to never change insurers once you develop a medical condition. You wouldn't be able to get any other insurance at that point. And your insurer would really prefer that you just go and die (it'd save them a lot of money) and will treat you like someone they prefer were dead.

Car insurance (discrete, largely uncorrelated events) has nothing whatsoever to do with health care or health insurance (largely systemic events with extremely high correlations between costs, age, history of individual participants, etc). Not even comparable fields.
 
2012-03-27 01:42:59 AM
Have health insurance the same way auto insurance is run. I cant tow my totaled car into the Geico parking lot and ask them to insure it, then put in a claim to return it to new so why should a company be forced to cover someone with a pre-existing condition? You are basically asking a company to protect against something that has already happened.

You have no idea how much insulin costs do you?
 
2012-03-27 02:41:17 AM

o5iiawah: Rather than have my employer contribute to my policy, I should simply receive that extra money as part of my salary. This way i can go purchase my own healthcare plan and when i switch jobs, I can still retain my health insurance just as I might maintain my car insurance if I moved across the state.


And your insurance company can drop you if you become too costly for them, or double or triple (or duodecatuple) your rates if you have an "incident", just like car insurance. What's the heath insurance equivalent of a liability-only plan?

All you've shown is that health insurance is not the same thing as car insurance because people are not cars.
 
2012-03-27 04:12:34 AM

usernameguy: o5iiawah: Rather than have my employer contribute to my policy, I should simply receive that extra money as part of my salary. This way i can go purchase my own healthcare plan and when i switch jobs, I can still retain my health insurance just as I might maintain my car insurance if I moved across the state.

And your insurance company can drop you if you become too costly for them, or double or triple (or duodecatuple) your rates if you have an "incident", just like car insurance. What's the heath insurance equivalent of a liability-only plan?

All you've shown is that health insurance is not the same thing as car insurance because people are not cars.


And there is no "walk, ride a bicycle or take public transportation" equivalent when it comes to healthcare. You can live without a car. Can't really live without. . .life.
 
2012-03-27 01:35:42 PM

usernameguy: o5iiawah: Rather than have my employer contribute to my policy, I should simply receive that extra money as part of my salary. This way i can go purchase my own healthcare plan and when i switch jobs, I can still retain my health insurance just as I might maintain my car insurance if I moved across the state.

And your insurance company can drop you if you become too costly for them, or double or triple (or duodecatuple) your rates if you have an "incident", just like car insurance. What's the heath insurance equivalent of a liability-only plan?

All you've shown is that health insurance is not the same thing as car insurance because people are not cars.


What exactly do you expect a company to do when a life-long heart patient and diabetic walks in, a $300,000 operation waiting to happen and asks to be put on a policy? Obviously, healthy people are going to have unfortunate health events and that is what insurance guards against but when the chronically unhealthy demand that Hundred Thousand dollar operation after Hundred Thousand dollar operation be paid for, how is that sustained?

Take emotion out of it and just try to understand how you expect a company to provide medical coverage for someone who is on the doorstep of a major medical event
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report