Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

[JonNC]

And yet the money spent for this wall in my opinion is a complete and total waste of money. Period. And how did amnesty creep into this?

You’re welcome to your opinion. I just don’t see it as responding to the facts.
I think we’re well beyond discussions of amnesty. Amnesty assumes a dedication to national sovereignty. I think that’s the issue now.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry for your Nephew. I do know the VA is a joke for most. I never had to use the VA but some day I might. We have to do better at all levels. I am just going to leave it at that…

We come from different views of the role of government, not the obligation to help the least of us. I respect your views and do not question your motives.
Thanks for the dialogue and God bless you and your family.

 

[Stephen_C]

And God bless you and your family as well Jon.

 

[dvdjs]

The hypocrisy here is claiming to want to help the poor, but insisting on forcing others to spend their money to do it.

1. That is not hypocricy.
2. Is the insistence on thers" ir does it also include Stephen_C.
3. Is is really “insistence” or an call to action among self-governing people?
4. If not this, why taxation to build the wall?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The hypocrisy here is claiming to want to help the poor, but insisting on forcing others to spend their money to do it.

1. That is not hypocricy.
2. Is the insistence on thers" ir does it also include Stephen_C.
3. Is is really “insistence” or an call to action among self-governing people?
4. If not this, why taxation to build the wall?

Border security and sovereignty are theconstitutional responsibility of the federal government.

 

[pnewton]

In fact, I’m rather precise. @Stephen_C seems to express an almost disdain for individual rights, and that reflects a significant body of political thought on the left.

I reject the idea that only government can solve problems, healthcare or otherwise. It’s track record is, in many ways abysmal.
I also reject the implication that unless one believes in government healthcare, one doesn’t care about the poor.

You have a valid point that we do tend to judge the hearts of others too much. It is up to each one do determine if they reject the government helping the poor in one way or another for prudent reasons, while personally doing all he can to help the poor? Or, do the reject such proposals because of their own economic ease? But there is nothing wrong with asking the question.

However, I note that you did the same thing, seeing a disdain for individual rights that may or may not be true. It may simply be that he sees the need to be that great. In light of what the Church has said on the subject, you simply cannot condemn an opinion that is the opinion the Church is teaching. He may simply be Catholic and follow what the Church is teaching.

 

[pnewton]

Border security and sovereignty are theconstitutional responsibility of the federal government.

The welfare of citizens is also the Constitutional responsibility of the government. Healthcare is not specified, but neither is wall building.

 

[dvdjs]

Border security and sovereignty are theconstitutional responsibility of the federal government.

I suppose that this addresses one of the points that I raised, except that the fact that the actions are the responsibility of the federal government does not change the coercive nature of taxation one whit.

Moreover, the argument is interesting, inasmuch as it is the same argument used by local authorities to justify their objections to allocating their own resources to this effort.

 

[Thorolfr]

The allure of open borders encourages people to to try to make the long trip, leaving them vulnerable to coyotes and drug cartels. Women and girls are sexually assaulted in large numbers, and we’ve recently seen two children die because they weren’t properly cared for on the trip.
That’s not compassion, either.

The people you’re talking about are not trying to come and sneak over our borders. They’re coming as refugees and even if we had a wall, they would still come and present themselves at the border in the hope of gaining refugee status and being allowed to enter the US.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Border security and sovereignty are theconstitutional responsibility of the federal government.

The welfare of citizens is also the Constitutional responsibility of the government. Healthcare is not specified, but neither is wall building.

Correct, within the restrictions of the enumerated powers, healthcare is not. In fact, government interference in healthcare has proven to be detrimental.

 

[Thorolfr]

In fact, government interference in healthcare has proven to be detrimental.

It hasn’t been detrimental to the millions of people with pre-existing conditions who couldn’t even get individual insurance policies before the ACA. A lot of those people were trapped in jobs that they didn’t dare leave for fear of losing their insurance and being self-employed or perhaps retiring early before they could get Medicare would have been out of the question for them. Unregulated insurance companies would not have been interested in selling individual insurance to people that they would lose money on.

 

[pnewton]

Correct, within the restrictions of the enumerated powers, healthcare is not.

I did not say that. I said, like building a wall, it is not specified. Do you understand the difference in those two words? If not, use a dictionary. If you do, your interchange of them is intellectual dishonest.
“Enumerated” and “specified” have different words.

Is there some pundit that has been saying this stuff? It sounds like Alex Jones.

 

[JonNC]

It hasn’t been detrimental to the millions of people with pre-existing conditions who couldn’t even get individual insurance policies before the ACA

Had governments not blocked large free associations of citizens across state lines, maybe those folks could have found insurance. Government interference creates problems it then says only it can solve.

A lot of those people were trapped in jobs that they didn’t dare leave for fear of losing their insurance and being self-employed or perhaps retiring early before they could get Medicare would have been out of the question for them.

See above. Government creates the problem by not allowing free markets to operate.

Unregulated insurance companies would not have been interested in selling individual insurance to people that they would lose money on.

And that’s why large associations are needed in a market based system, in a way similar to how labor unions have operated.

 

[JonNC]

I did not say that. I said, like building a wall, it is not specified.

I know. I said that, because that is what was intended. The constitution grants powers to the general government, one of the most important is to provide the general defense. The methods used to provide that defense is decided on by the executive, in conjunction with the legislative.

Is there some pundit that has been saying this stuff? It sounds like Alex Jones.

I’ve never listened to Alex Jones, so I couldn’t tell you what he says.

 

[JonNC]

The people you’re talking about are not trying to come and sneak over our borders.

That’s factually incorrect. There are millions here who have crossed the border illegally.

They’re coming as refugees and even if we had a wall, they would still come and present themselves at the border in the hope of gaining refugee status and being allowed to enter the US.

If they are interested in legal entry, I’m all in favor of seeking legal entry. In fact, im in favor of expanding immigration. I am only opposed to foreign nationals crossing the border illegally. Those who do, those who overstay their visas, etc, should be sent home.
I also favor a physical barrier on those parts of the border that are consistently crossed illegally, as much of the border as necessary to prevent foreign nationals from entering our country illegally.

 

[Thorolfr]

Give me some example of the kind of “large associations” you’re thinking about where some guy in his 50s with expensive, chronic health conditions could get affordable insurance and where he wouldn’t be charged a lot more than younger, healthier people. What would the basis of these associations be? And could someone just go without insurance until they get sick with cancer or some other expensive to treat illness and only then join one of these associations?

 

[JonNC]

Give me some example of the kind of “large associations” you’re thinking about where some guy in his 50s with expensive, chronic health conditions could get affordable insurance and where he wouldn’t be charged a lot more than younger, healthier people. What would the basis of these associations be? And could someone just go without insurance until they get sick with cancer or some other expensive to treat illness and only then join one of these associations?

Go look up the Rand Paul Plan.

 

[Thorolfr]

Go look up the Rand Paul Plan.

Here’s some of what I found about Paul’s plan:

Paul’s plan would do away with the essential health benefit requirements of the ACA…This would allow insurance companies to offer cheaper plans, albeit ones with inferior coverage than what is currently mandated.

and this:

Paul would eliminate the pre-existing-condition regulations altogether (after a transition period)…For those who still need help, Paul envisions responsibility for covering them being shifted to the states, possibly in conjunction with proposals to block-grant Medicaid.

The problem with block grants, however, is that this would force states to cut services if they were running out of money. Here is some of what people think would happen if Medicaid was no longer an entitlement and was based on block grants instead:

States may eliminate or reduce the availability of critical services such as personal care, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, or home and community based waiver programs . All of these services are “optional” under Medicaid meaning that states may choose to provide them under their Medicaid plans or not. If funds become scarcer, states may decide to stop providing these optional services.

States may reduce eligibility by making it more difficult to meet financial or other criteria . To be eligible for Medicaid, people have to be poor. States could restrict health care services to only the very, very poor.

States may slash the amounts they pay to doctors and other providers . It is already very difficult for people using Medicaid to find doctors and other health care providers. Finding a dentist or a specialist, such as a neurologist, is impossible in some communities. If states cut the amount they pay doctors and other providers, those professionals may quit serving people under Medicaid making the problem even worse.

Overall, Paul’s plan doesn’t look too good for people with pre-existing conditions.

 

[JonNC]

If large voluntary associations are formed, including families, people with pre-existing would be covered along with the rest of the family, just like with corporate plans.
But us the concern is only those with pre-existings, set up a plan for them. Their issue is not an excuse for forcing others into a government plan. And block grants are better than a federal control because it brings the care closer to the patient.
The reason ACA forced healthcare prices to skyrocket is because it limits the market.

 

[Theo520]

And just one more little thing. How a society treats the least of its people. Speaks volumes about that society. There are some that have bent over backwards characterizing such as no more then bloodsucking leaches

We’ve had medicaid for quite some time for the least of our people.

You seem to be taking issue with how much free stuff is funded for the lower quartile of the middle class.