Supreme Court Appears Ready to Throw Out Obamacare Law

[ProVobis]

That is NOT the job of government.

This is true.

But if you extend this argument a little, then the government shouldn’t mandate health care for everyone regardless of their ability to pay for it or not either.

An ideal system should be one where you’re able to shop around if you need life-saving measures but health doesn’t work that way.

 

[Leegal]

I prefer medical care for all! Europe seems to do ok and a friend in Canada says it works quite well there.

Glen

Europe – surgery that is non-emergency, but necessary – England waits nearly a year for cataract, knee or hip replacement surgery.

Deaths more than doubled between 2005 and 2007 in England and Wales.

Every Sunday on C-Span you can watch parliament debate the state of socialized medicine in the UK. 2/3 of doctors said they would not want their own family to be treated under the system.

The reason why the it works better in Canada is that Canada has a more homogenous population, unlike the U.S., with less alcholism than in the U.S., less drug abuse and less violence.

The average wait to see a doctor in Canada – 20 days. I called my family doctor today for an appointment tomorrow, though the claim is much longer in the U.S. I have lived here all my life and never had a problem getting a regular appointment with my primary care physician. Of course, specialists are another story.

Canada does indeed fare better under socialized medicine. England and Finland have the worst records for care and timliness, followed by Demark, Norway, Spain and Australia. I think Portugal and Italy is in there somewhere as some of the worst.

In Massachusetts, which has Romney care, the average wait to see a family doctor is 48-63 days with many not accepting new patients. Boston has the worst wait time to see a doctor – around 55 days.

Low expenditure = longer waiting time. Switzerland spends more and so does best in timeliness in Europe. The U.S. fares best but spends the most.

Don’t get sick in England or Finland.

 

[joclucsylv]

That’s easy to say if you’re completely healthy or on Medicare or have a decent employer.

They are going to make people pay for it, or suffer a fine. Will rates really go down enough for people to pay for it? If they can’t afford to pay for it now what makes you think that they will be able to pay for it once Obamacare is in effect.

I heard Tom Sullivan today on his talk show. He says that 90 percent of people are have health ins. and are happy with it. Why don’t we just do something to leave the 90 percent alone, but fix the 10 percent who don’t.

 

[joclucsylv]

I prefer medical care for all! Europe seems to do ok and a friend in Canada says it works quite well there.

Funny that the idea of fixing the system is never mentioned as if the system was not broken. The contraception issue has been worked out I thought in a compromise. The president at least tried but folks hate him so much anything he would have done is not good enough.

I’d be curious to know how many Catholics use birth control? Anyway, maybe this site is not the place for political banter because we are so opposed to each view vis-a-vis rith and left wing

Glen

The healthcare in Canada isn’t all that and a bag of chips. I live on the border of Canada and my sister is married to a Canadian. It takes months to see a specialist. People have time to die befor they see a doctor. The ERs are always full. My brother in law broke his leg once and waited 12 hrs in the ER before he even saw a doc and he was in major pain. Oh…and their taxes are ridiculous. 15 percent sales tax

 

[Georgia]

The Constitution sets up a limited government, one in which the powers were few and enumerated. Compelling people to purchase any product is a very fundamental change in the relationship of the people to the government.

 

[markomalley]

The pre-existing condition mandate is balanced by the individual mandate. The consumer cannot just wait until they are sick because it’s mandated that everyone must have some form of insurance. So the insurance companies would not be destroyed by the pre-existing condition mandate. This was the conservative, free-market solution to the health care crisis in the USA, and was once strongly endorsed by the Heritage Institute, the conservative think tank that has led conservative policies in the USA since the Reagan days. It is also the basis of the successful Massachusetts health care reform law, I believe, that the overwhelming majority of state citizens are satisfied with.

You are kidding me, right?

Do the math.

There is a 2.5% of adjusted gross income penalty to an individual who doesn’t have government-approved health insurance. People are subsidized on a sliding scale so that government-approved health insurance won’t exceed 3.5% of AGI (for 133% of poverty) through 9.5% of AGI (for 400% of poverty) – people making more than 400% of poverty are on their own and people making less than 133% of poverty go on medicaid. So, with the exception of those who can go on medicaid, in all cases, people will save a ton of money if they wait until they are really, really sick before getting that government-approved health insurance. Why in the world would they spend the money?

Likewise, why should any employer provide health insurance for their employees following 2014? They have a flat $2,000 per employee penalty for not providing insurance. Considering your average group policy costs an employer at least 4 times that much, they’d save a ton of money by dropping their employees (maybe pay them a bonus to help them get a healthcare exchange policy…and make it go down a little easier). Any employer who is concerned with the cost of fringe benefits would be crazy to continue to carry employees.

You are right on one thing, though. Insurance companies won’t lose money. They’ll just jack the premiums up to cover their additional costs. After all, the majority of consumers (except the eeeeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiiiilllllll rich who make over 400% of poverty) won’t notice the difference. The government subsidies will keep their premiums the same.

And as far as Romneycare working, well, you ought to read this 2009 article in the LA Times, this 2010 article in CNN/Money, or this article, yesterday, from the NY Times. I think the good people of Massachusetts might disagree with you just a bit.

 

[mary_bobo]

They are going to make people pay for it, or suffer a fine. Will rates really go down enough for people to pay for it? If they can’t afford to pay for it now what makes you think that they will be able to pay for it once Obamacare is in effect.

I heard Tom Sullivan today on his talk show. He says that 90 percent of people are have health ins. and are happy with it. Why don’t we just do something to leave the 90 percent alone, but fix the 10 percent who don’t.

That would be the sensiblething to do, but that would not be “fair”.

 

[mary_bobo]

The healthcare in Canada isn’t all that and a bag of chips. I live on the border of Canada and my sister is married to a Canadian. It takes months to see a specialist. Peo And their ple have time to die befor they see a doctor. The ERs are always full. My brother in law broke his leg once and waited 12 hrs in the ER before he even saw a doc and he was in major pain. Oh…and their taxes are ridiculous. 15 percent sales tax

We lived in Canada for three years. During that time I had a medical emergency, spent three weeks in the hospital and almost died. What happened to me would not have happened in the US. Additionally, my husband lost two branch managers while they waited for by-pass surgery. When my husband needed that surgery, he had it within two days of diagnosis. (US). Some say that Canadians like their system. They probably have not had a serious medical condition. Many come to the States when they do. As for their taxes, you are correct. Additionally they have no deduction for mortgage interest.

 

[TimothyH]

Deaths more than doubled between 2005 and 2007 in England and Wales.

This seems like an odd statistic.

Do you mean that the number of people who died in 2007 in England and Whales was 2x the number of people who died in those same places in 2005?

It seems rather odd to cite a statistic like this and infer that the health care system is the root cause.

-Tim-

 

[lynnvinc]

From a selfish perspective, I’m okay with the health care I have today…and will be eligible for Medicare in a few months, as well.

However, some 8 years ago I had a temporary full-time position and took the big leap to get off my husband’s policy and get my own (to save money). Now if my job had petered out and I would have to go back on my husband’s policy, I would need to get a medical exam to do so. No problem, unless I had cancer or some other expensive medical problem…then they would refuse me coverage. So I may have ended up without any insurance at all.

As a Carmelite, I threw the issue to the wind. I was prepared to suffer and die, if necessary. I’ve lived a long life, so it was okay with me if I got cancer and could not get coverages, and just had to die without adequate treatment (I had decided I would not dip into my husband’s retirement fund to pay for medical expenses, tho he probably would have insisted I do so).

I would just hope that the moral issues (abortion and birth control coverage) could be cleared up to the satisfaction of our Catholic moral requirements, and everyone could be covered with insurance. For one thing it would end the need for homosexuals to be married for the sake of getting on their partner’s health policy – and thus help to resolve that pressure and issue.

I have all faith that there is a solution to the problems that block Church acceptance of universal health care, and hope someone would come up with it…

I would love to pay more taxes to help bring about such universal coverage. I don’t really like paying taxes for unnecessary wars, killing, and unnecessary armaments that can destroy the world 5 times over. But I’d love to pay more to help people live. And in a democracy we people are the government, and it is our role and moral duty thru our gov to help each other…

 

[SamanthaT]

I think it’s funny that people keep throwing out how “it works so well in Canada” (when discussing “universal healthcare”) I did a paper in school about that very topic. During my research, I actually found quite a few reliable sources stating that the healthcare field was so lacking that patients were finding it necessary to come to the UNITED STATES inorder to pay cash for treatment. For example, a woman had to take a few hour bus ride to new york to get chemo treatments for cancer because the wait list for treatment in her town. I found quite a few disturbing stories such as this.

 

[lynnvinc]

I think it’s funny that people keep throwing out how “it works so well in Canada” (when discussing “universal healthcare”) I did a paper in school about that very topic. During my research, I actually found quite a few reliable sources stating that the healthcare field was so lacking that patients were finding it necessary to come to the UNITED STATES inorder to pay cash for treatment. For example, a woman had to take a few hour bus ride to new york to get chemo treatments for cancer because the wait list for treatment in her town. I found quite a few disturbing stories such as this.

I think the French model might be good, but I’m not sure.

I know our relatives there are very well taken care of, plus they have excellent pregancy and child birth paid leave, and extended leave for those with complications (as my niece had with her 3rd baby), plus quality childcare paid for by the gov & people’s taxes (not the expensive baby-sitter from hell, as we have).

And I’ve heard the French are really mad bec they are raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, or something, due to financial issues. I’d be great if we in the US had only those financial issues–and a citizenry that supported health care for all and many other benefits for those in need, esp child-bearing women and children!

 

[Linda_Marie]

The Constitution sets up a limited government, one in which the powers were few and enumerated. Compelling people to purchase any product is a very fundamental change in the relationship of the people to the government.

 

[ProVobis]

I think it’s funny that people keep throwing out how “it works so well in Canada” (when discussing “universal healthcare”) I did a paper in school about that very topic. During my research, I actually found quite a few reliable sources stating that the healthcare field was so lacking that patients were finding it necessary to come to the UNITED STATES inorder to pay cash for treatment. For example, a woman had to take a few hour bus ride to new york to get chemo treatments for cancer because the wait list for treatment in her town. I found quite a few disturbing stories such as this.

I don’t think there’s any question certain clinics in the U.S. have the best cancer treatment in the world. If they have enough money to pay for it, bring them in. And if bypass surgeries are cheaper in Thailand, go there. That’s the way a free market works.

 

[Viki63]

‘Sorry for your loss — here’s your bill’

By Robert Remington
Calgary Herald, January 20, 2012

With the family of deceased Canadian skier Sarah Burke facing a U.S. medical bill topping the value of an average Calgary home, I was reminded Friday of a quote by the late Justice Emmett Hall, a crusader for Canada’s public health-care system.
“We as a society are aware that the trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death are burdens enough for the human being to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability,” Hall wrote in a 1979 review of publicly funded health insurance.
To help Burke’s husband Rory Bushfield pay an expected $550,000 medical bill for nine days of intensive care in Utah, a website was set up by Burke’s agent asking for donations. …Morgan says Burke’s case should be a sobering reminder to Canadians of what could happen in a privately-insured market, rather than a public system where everyone is insured against a catastrophic event.
In 2000, the U.S. health policy journal Health Affairs wrote about the issue under the heading “Gouging the Medically Uninsured: A Tale of Two Bills.”
“Overcharging the uninsured is one of the many unintended and largely overlooked results of our decade-long obsession with curbing health-care costs,” it said. “Powerful interest groups — government, employers, insurers, hospitals, medical equipment vendors, and health care professionals — have fought vigorously to protect their interests. The uninsured, with no organized voice, emerge as losers.”

 

[mary_bobo]

I think the French model might be good, but I’m not sure.

I know our relatives there are very well taken care of, plus they have excellent pregancy and child birth paid leave, and extended leave for those with complications (as my niece had with her 3rd baby), plus quality childcare paid for by the gov & people’s taxes (not the expensive baby-sitter from hell, as we have).

And I’ve heard the French are really mad bec they are raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, or something, due to financial issues. I’d be great if we in the US had only those financial issues–and a citizenry that supported health care for all and many other benefits for those in need, esp child-bearing women and children!

With respect for your opinion, do you have any idea the financial situation this country is in? We are darn near as strapped as France, and not far behind Greece. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said. We could help those in this country who truly need help, but more than 75% of Americans were happy with their health care coverage before Obamacare came along. There is no need to lump us all together. One size does not fit all.

 

[BobCatholic]

I hope that Obamacare gets struck down as a whole. Anything less is just acceptance of totalitarianism.