Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To be fair, at least the VA does provide a baseline of coverage. Better than nothing
Is that the standard for government healthcare? Better than nothing?
Hypothetically, even if socialized medicine has its issues like inconvenience such as waiting lists, those who are possibly desperate like the uninsured and the under-insured may be willing to take their chances.
Why should they be permitted to force others to “take their chances”, too?
Would it not be better to permit the vast majority of Americans to keep their healthcare independent of government, then return the care of the poor to churches, charities, and local government? I think that would be better than “better than nothing”.
 
40.png
JonNC:
Is that the standard for government healthcare? Better than nothing?
Well, yes.
I think the combination of the market and charities can do far better than that.
 
They have even acknowledge the idea of ending ACA, but have said it shouldn’t be done without a better solution in place immediately.
Why on Earth would they think that any government plan would be better in terms of religious free exercise?
If they want to protect religious liberty, they should seek to take back the role of the charity.
 
So, you are proposing what? That the government drop Medicaid and Medicare. Along with ACA? Then somehow charities will pick up the slack? How will that work?
 
Again it comes down to if you believe access to healthcare is a privilege or a right. There are a lot of folk right now who do not have any sort of medical insurance. Or do not have the funds needed for a organ transplant. So they are not able to be placed on the transplant list. I do not see charities picking up the slack for that. So if the Government pulls out. These charities will automatically pick up the slack? Or maybe GoFundMe. And hope for the best.
 
So, you are proposing what? That the government drop Medicaid and Medicare. Along with ACA? Then somehow charities will pick up the slack? How will that work?
First, you can’t drop Medicare. People have had their income taken from them for decades in return for a government promise of benefits. I myself would rather have the money back with interest to continue to buy my own plan, but others might not. Perhaps opening up choices for people. Imagine that: a free people getting to choose how to spend their healthcare dollars. How novel!
None of that disputes the fact that some parts of Medicare are also welfare-type programs, benefits not tied to contributions.

Medicaid is different. None of it is a benefit tied to a contribution. It is a welfare program, a wealth transfer. Billions are spent on it at the state and federal levels. One of the excuses used for ACA was that Medicaid is expensive and inefficient. Well, if that’s the case, perhaps moving toward charities and local governments is the answer. Block grants, etc.

No one is calling for denying people healthcare. Certainly not me. And it is, frankly, a false accusation when someone says that if you don’t support government healthcare then you want to deny people care.
I want better care for people than what government has brought about. I think Americans are capable of making their own care decisions without government. I think Americans care enough about their neighbors without government coercion.
I also think there is a role for government- the more local the better.
 
Again it comes down to if you believe access to healthcare is a privilege or a right.
I believe it is a right, and just like every other right, government has no part in it.
I have a right to speech. Government doesn’t provide me a microphone.
I have a right to religious free exercise. Government doesn’t build churches.
I have a right to firearms. Government doesn’t give me guns.
I have a right to free press. Government doesn’t provide printing presses.

If government controls healthcare, it becomes a privilege, because government can deny it as easily as provide it.
There are a lot of folk right now who do not have any sort of medical insurance. Or do not have the funds needed for a organ transplant. So they are not able to be placed on the transplant list. I do not see charities picking up the slack for that.
Government sucks all of the money up. Government puts barriers in the way of charities. A good example is how some states have made it impossible for Catholic charities to be involved in adoption.
So if the Government pulls out. These charities will automatically pick up the slack? Or maybe GoFundMe. And hope for the best.
What I infer from this is a belief that the only way Americans will help their neighbors, help the poor is if government forces them to. What is more, that those who believe in government healthcare will turn their backs, as if to say, “if government won’t do it, neither will we”!
I don’t believe that to be the case at all.
 
Again it comes down to if you believe access to healthcare is a privilege or a right. There are a lot of folk right now who do not have any sort of medical insurance. Or do not have the funds needed for a organ transplant. So they are not able to be placed on the transplant list. I do not see charities picking up the slack for that. So if the Government pulls out. These charities will automatically pick up the slack? Or maybe GoFundMe. And hope for the best.
You’ll fight a never ending battle attempting to persuade some persons on here to see it from your perspective. Some believe the government is just plain bad all the way around. I see the list of “rights” claimed and not one of them is considered an inalienable right other than healthcare. It’s up there with shelter, food, and clothing. I can live without a gun, a microphone, and I am restricted in certain forms of speech and could be brought up on charges of slander if not honest, but healthcare? No one should be without it, it’s essential. One catastrophic accident, you know the rest. They don’t, and further more they don’t care.

Child labor laws took forever to obtain, it was a long fight. Everyone thought they had a “right” to work a child especially if it was theirs, no government was going to tell them what to do.

It took the government to abolish slavery as well as a civil war with bloodshed.

OSHA laws. Now the lawyers can get rich from asbestos claims, how bout that?

Mandated guidelines from the CDC when you have a surgery, the instruments are sterilized, polio is all but eradicated.

On and on………….You are talking to persons that have no intentions of seeing any benefit to anything the government has needed to step in and clean up unless it benefits them directly. Funny thing is it would. ciao’
 
In all the talk about universal healthcare, I have never seen a serious explanation of how that would work, what it would cost and how it would be paid for. Never have I seen a proposal that deals with illegal immigrants, of whom there are what, some 20 million now? Do they get the same healthcare as citizens?
Who’s going to administer it? The same insurance companies that administer government programs now?

It definitely isn’t Obamacare. Nobody really knows how many people were uninsured before Obamacare. Estimates run as high as 50 million, but some were less. The CBO last said about 30 million have no coverage now. There really could be a “net zero” in coverage. Seems like Obamacare just shifted who gets insured and who pays for whom.
 
In all the talk about universal healthcare, I have never seen a serious explanation of how that would work, what it would cost and how it would be paid for. Never have I seen a proposal that deals with illegal immigrants, of whom there are what, some 20 million now? Do they get the same healthcare as citizens?
Who’s going to administer it? The same insurance companies that administer government programs now?
typical of pie in the sky proposals. sounds good unless you start to dig deeper so they just don’t dig deeper.
 
To be fair, Sanders has written up a possible (though very ambitious plan) on how to enact Medicare for All. I believe Clinton while not as ambitious may have wanted to bolster Obamacare which did seem to reduce the numbers of some insured (with your point on the coverage shifting standing). That said, I could understand why you could be skeptical of those plans (ACA didn’t cause universal insurance in the first instance even if numbers did fall and taxes are a political football).
In all the talk about universal healthcare, I have never seen a serious explanation of how that would work, what it would cost and how it would be paid for.
Some ideas I know would including possibly ending the tax-exclusion on medical care and/or employer-sponsored heath insurance plans which delink the need of health insurance from work in favor of a public system while shoring up possible revenue sources to pay for public coverage. Additionally, we would also match the FICA tax rate with the payroll tax rate to help pay for a baseline or floor of universal coverage/care though I know this would have substantial circumstances (while being significantly unpopular and considered quite regressive). Meanwhile this could be augmented by providing a surcharge on the incomes of the upper middle class and wealthy. Finally sin taxes while small could also help.

Granted it may just be cheaper and simpler to create a stopgap and try to enroll all the uninsured into Medicaid for some barebones plan while trying to fund for that (i.e calculate the average medicaid costs per person and use that to fund another medicaid expansion). That said, I know that could incentivize some employers especially at the margins to consider dropping their workers since there is now a fall-back but perhaps when that is happening, people can begin debating on shifting towards a universal plan.
Never have I seen a proposal that deals with illegal immigrants, of whom there are what, some 20 million now?
If they paid into the FICA tax and possibly income taxes, wouldn’t they already be helping fund the system. Additionally, couldn’t one argue that although they are here illegally, illegal immigrants have as much a right to health care on humanitarian grounds as well as practical issues like public health concerns (if they stay underground and go without care, it could jeopardize public health).
Who’s going to administer it? The same insurance companies that administer government programs now?
In this respect, I could see one cost or trade off of the universal plan being the quality meaning those on premium plans might end up opting for a medicaid-style plan with some inconvenience like waiting lists but for others, particularly let’s say a desperate soul with little to no options (think working class folks who are barely making it paycheck to paycheck), it’s some sort of recourse. Additionally, some may prefer to deal with government or have government take care of it rather than have the hassle of working with insurance while others may see it as simply trading in insurance premiums and deductibles for a moderate rise in taxes and hopefully less anxiety.
 
No more “dictated” than insurance is now.
Exactly, as everyone familiar with the system well knows that it is the insurance companies who are “driving the bus” with most of them amassing substantial profits.
 
I understand your good intentions here, but you still haven’t addressed cost in a tangible way. I don’t fault you for that. The “experts” were extremely wrong about the costs of Obamacare, despite it still leaving 30 million uninsured, and I question whether any “experts” are likely to really button the cost.

I do think once the country adopts the concept of “healthcare as a matter of right” it will eventually consume an enormous part of the budget, crowding out other programs. That was the experience with Medicare and Medicaid, even though the participants are limited.

One can argue the morality of failing to do it all day long, but what remains uncertain is whether and to what extent the polity can underwrite a limited resource, particularly when the same society allows massive additions to the population without necessarily having a corresponding addition to the contributions.

We’re a long way from having people burn cars in the street over high taxes, as in French cities, but we could get there unless extreme care is taken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top