Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Elizabeth502]

While I voted No (and explained why on another thread), I remain divided, confused, uneasy – I expect like a lot of other Americans. Until I see the financial effect on the middle class – of all those extra millions of federal dollars subsidizing huge influxes of Medicaid recipients – I cannot support it.

It is not justice to transform the middle class into the lower class overnight (not to mention that it’s unwise for the nation’s economy). A huge lower class, a small middle class, and a tiny upper class, is an impaired country, and resembles some other countries I can think of rather immediately.

I continue to prefer a phased-in experiment, on a state-by-state basis.

And here’s another thing: Will only federal taxes be impacted on a federal bill, even though huge state impacts will result in heavily-Medicaid states? And if State tax bills also go up, will those be punitive to the middle class in States with huge Medicaid populations? (Will tax penalties be very uneven, by state, in the ACA?)

 

[_Abyssinia]

While I don’t think the Affordable Care Act went far enough, I agreed with the decision. Better than the status quo. Jesus wants the sick to get care. And having adequate health care includes more than a trip to the ER.

Do not think Jesus would want people to be forced to go against their conscience to pay for services that are normally evil; contraception, sterilisation, abortifacients, abortion.

Do not think Jesus would want Catholic hospitals, clinics, schools to be sold because these institutions can not go against their conscience.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Most serious observers (read: not cable news pundits) knew how the bill would work all along. The only reasons for not calling it a tax were political: people react irrationally negatively to the word. The bill could have been perfect, but defeated anyway because too many people would stick their fingers in their ears the instance the word “tax” came up.

People really wanted health care reform. People really like the individual components of this law. People also like balanced budgets. To do all those things, there need to be some taxes. I suspect if the democrats, knowing what they’ve gone through the past two years, would have rather passed a more progressive plan, like the single payer.

But people do not like the individual mandate, and that is foundation that holds the entire bill together. Most people do not like central component.

There are free market solutions that can create healthcare reform, that does not create a federal bureaucracy like ObamaTax does

On July 11th the House is going to vote on the repeal of ObamaTax, and it is ogling to be interesting what Democrats vote for repeal. Likely the ones who face touch reelection will vote of repeal to save face when they have to go back to their districts

 

[_Abyssinia]

Dominican Sisters of Mary Issue Statement on SCOTUS Ruling

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Mother Mary Assumpta Long, O.P., the Prioress General of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist released the following statement which was obtained by CatholicVote.org:

“Because the United States Supreme Court did not overturn the individual mandate in the PPACA, the unconstitutional HHS mandated coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and artificial contraception for employees is intact, and our religious freedom remains severely compromised. This is unacceptable, especially for a country that proudly protected and promoted religious liberty in all its fullness since its founding.

We will not despair. Instead we urge all Catholics to remain vigilant, to pray, and to engage our faith in the public arena. Religious liberty must not be reduced to simply freedom of worship.

Vigilance is imperative since our elected representatives will now be pursuing the repeal of the PPAC and the individual mandate in the coming weeks; dozens of religious-liberty lawsuits against the unconstitutional HHS mandate are proceeding; and in the upcoming election we have the ability to elect candidates to public office who will work and vote to change this unjust policy and defend our religious liberty.

We stand in solidarity with our bishops and their Fortnight for Religious Freedom campaign, which asks all Catholics, other Christians, and all people of good will to study, pray and engage in public action against the unconstitutional HHS mandate.

The Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist pray that God will protect the ability for all Americans to freely exercise their religious liberty. The Sisters of Mary will offer up daily prayers with the intention that this unjust mandate be overturned, and we will do so until it is overturned.”

The Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist is a Roman Catholic community of women religious based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Our primary apostolate is the education and formation of young people. We remain open to engaging the modern culture with new forms of evangelization in order to preach the Gospel and teach the Truth. In 15 years, the Sisters have grown to over 100, the average age is 28 and the average age of the women who enter is 21. Sisters represent most of the States across the U.S., various Provinces in Canada.

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=32550

 

[PaulinVA]

We have two problems with health care in the US:

1. 5% of the people spend 50% of the health care dollars
2. Many people (over 30 million) have no way to pay for insurance/care.

To pay for 30 million people, you need others to pick up the tab. That requires a tax.

To reduce the costs of the 5% spending all of the money, you need targeted solutions that cost less than the actual care.

Okay, now I’m on to solve world hunger…

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

We have two problems with health care in the US:

1. 5% of the people spend 50% of the health care dollars
2. Many people (over 30 million) have no way to pay for insurance/care.

To pay for 30 million people, you need others to pick up the tab. That requires a tax.

To reduce the costs of the 5% spending all of the money, you need targeted solutions that cost less than the actual care.

Okay, now I’m on to solve world hunger…

I am trying to find any justification whatsoever, anywhere, that says that one person, regardless of their level of need, has the right to demand that someone else provide that thing for them. This “right to healthcare” is essentially an arguement that group A, which does not have health insurance for whatever reason, has a God-given right to demand that group B provide it for them using the force of government. That theory has the overt effect of turning group B into slaves for group A, which means that government has confounded its purpose, and rather existing to serve as a protector of rights, has become a usurper of rights. Group B, therefore, has legitimate cause to exercise ITS God-given rights to call for or forcibly execute a change in government, as is written in the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " - Declaration of Independence

“By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.” - Ezra Taft Benson

Jesus Christ, in all of His advocation to care for the poor, never, ever made the case that the poor have the God-given right to demand that they be taken care of. He gave that to us as a personal responsibility, to voluntarily take up our cross and follow Him, not to submit to a cross being dropped on our backs by a government that supposes that it has a duty to demand care by proxy.

 

[_Abyssinia]

We have two problems with health care in the US:

1. 5% of the people spend 50% of the health care dollars
2. Many people (over 30 million) have no way to pay for insurance/care.

To pay for 30 million people, you need others to pick up the tab. That requires a tax.

To reduce the costs of the 5% spending all of the money, you need targeted solutions that cost less than the actual care.

Okay, now I’m on to solve world hunger…

Estimated 12 million are uninsured

Prof Anthony Davies discusses here

• The Census Bureau itself says that “Health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported…” (See Appendix C of THIS report) For example, “16.9 percent of people with an MSIS record indicating Medicaid coverage reported…that they were uninsured.”
• According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “as many as 12 million uninsured Americans are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program–but they haven’t signed up.”
• More than half of the uninsured are between 18 and 34 years of age, a group which has relatively few expensive health issues and for whom self-insuring (paying their own medical bills) makes sense. Only 14% of people over the age of 55% are uninsured.
• Over 9 million of the “uninsured” have household incomes over $75,000.
• Roughly 30% of the uninsured are without insurance for less than 6 months (though this statistic will likely worsen during the current recession).
• And finally, estimates are that between 7.5 million to over 10 million of the uninsured (15% of them or more) are illegal immigrants.

nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=134

Estimated 4% - 6% of the American population do not have health insurance and likely much of those can get health insurance and not worry about the cost, but for reasons not known do not choose to get it. While reforms need to be made, is it worth it to overhaul the health care system like ObamaTax does?

Gallup did a poll which showed nearly 60% of people who make between $30000 and $74999 and were uninsured say their their health care is ‘good’ or ‘excellent.’

 

[PaulinVA]

Estimated 4% - 6% of the American population do not have health insurance and likely much of those can get health insurance and not worry about the cost, but for reasons not known do not choose to get it. While reforms need to be made, is it worth it to overhaul the health care system like ObamaTax does?

Gallup did a poll which showed nearly 60% of people who make between $30000 and $74999 and were uninsured say their their health care is ‘good’ or ‘excellent.’

_Abyssinia, actually, people on medicaid can not afford insurance, The latest estimate the Goggle found was 58 million. Expanding Medicaid to 130% of the poverty line will make millions more eligible. Forcing the people who have not signed up to sign up so they have the mandatory coverage will add more people.

Of course, people who get care and either pay for it out-of-pocket or or don’t pay at all think their care is good!

I think we agree that this is a tax. It’s a tax increase. And yes, there is no guarantee this will help.

 

[PaulinVA]

Scott, I think you have the story wrong. The government is telling Group A that it needs to pay for the health care of Group B. Group B is not necessarily advocating for taxpayer-funded care. Group A is, if anything, becoming the slaves of the government. You know, the problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of others people’s money, yadda yadda yadda.

So, there are all these people who can’t afford care. What is our obligation to them? Does our obligation to a child cease when we force the mother to give birth by restricting abortion?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scott, I think you have the story wrong. The government is telling Group A that it needs to pay for the health care of Group B. Group B is not necessarily advocating for taxpayer-funded care. Group A is, if anything, becoming the slaves of the government. You know, the problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of others people’s money, yadda yadda yadda.

So, there are all these people who can’t afford care. What is our obligation to them? Does our obligation to a child cease when we force the mother to give birth by restricting abortion?

Who is the “our” and “we” you keep talking about? I wasn’t born into this collective construct of “we” that everyone keeps talking about. I am responsible for my own problems, no-one else’s.

 

[Rence]

Scott, I think you have the story wrong. The government is telling Group A that it needs to pay for the health care of Group B. Group B is not necessarily advocating for taxpayer-funded care. Group A is, if anything, becoming the slaves of the government. You know, the problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of others people’s money, yadda yadda yadda.

I disagree with that completely. While one might think Group A is ‘paying for group B’ by making their contribution to the pot in the form of premiums - that’s not true. The fact of the matter is Group A doesn’t make a contribution by their own choice by deciding to not get insurance, and then when life happens and they get sick, they pull from the pot just like everyone else either by going on medicaid or by racking up bills they can’t afford to pay. Group A, by paying for their premiums, will just be adding to the pot from which they will draw later in life. Everyone gets older, everyone gets sick. It’s silly and naive (not to mention wishful thinking) to think one can skate on by in life thinking they’re not going to need major healthcare later.

 

[stevegravy]

I am trying to find any justification whatsoever, anywhere, that says that one person, regardless of their level of need, has the right to demand that someone else provide that thing for them. This “right to healthcare” is essentially an arguement that group A, which does not have health insurance for whatever reason, has a God-given right to demand that group B provide it for them using the force of government. That theory has the overt effect of turning group B into slaves for group A, which means that government has confounded its purpose, and rather existing to serve as a protector of rights, has become a usurper of rights. Group B, therefore, has legitimate cause to exercise ITS God-given rights to call for or forcibly execute a change in government, as is written in the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " - Declaration of Independence

“By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.” - Ezra Taft Benson

Jesus Christ, in all of His advocation to care for the poor, never, ever made the case that the poor have the God-given right to demand that they be taken care of. He gave that to us as a personal responsibility, to voluntarily take up our cross and follow Him, not to submit to a cross being dropped on our backs by a government that supposes that it has a duty to demand care by proxy.

Oh, the creature can become greater than its creator and it has, at least temporarily. The modern American is as ignorant of his birthright as an ape is of nuclear power. This convoluted twisting of the language is as egregious as finding a right in the penumbra of a piece of paper. It is simply another nail in the coffin of personal liberty and as such another step toward serfdom as practiced in the old USSR.

To paraphrase Lincoln and he had some good lines, “At least in Russia they don’t mix their oppression with the base metal of hypocrisy.”

 

[iamrefreshed]

$50 a month?

Sorry…$60 a month

uhone.com/Quote/PlansList.aspx

 

[stevegravy]

I disagree with that completely. While one might think Group A is ‘paying for group B’ by making their contribution to the pot in the form of premiums - that’s not true. The fact of the matter is Group B doesn’t make a contribution by their own choice by deciding to not get insurance, and then when life happens and they get sick, they pull from the pot just like everyone else either by going on medicaid or by racking up bills they can’t afford to pay. Group A, by paying for their premiums, will just be adding to the pot from which everyone will draw later in life. Everyone gets older, everyone gets sick. It’s silly and naive (not to mention wishful thinking) to think one can skate on by in life thinking they’re not going to need major healthcare later.

I think this is what you ment to say. If not let me assure you this is what is really happening.

 

[PaulinVA]

I disagree with that completely. While one might think Group A is ‘paying for group B’ by making their contribution to the pot in the form of premiums - that’s not true. The fact of the matter is Group A doesn’t make a contribution by their own choice by deciding to not get insurance, and then when life happens and they get sick, they pull from the pot just like everyone else either by going on medicaid or by racking up bills they can’t afford to pay. Group A, by paying for their premiums, will just be adding to the pot from which they will draw later in life. Everyone gets older, everyone gets sick. It’s silly and naive (not to mention wishful thinking) to think one can skate on by in life thinking they’re not going to need major healthcare later.

Rence, Group A is paying for Group B through taxes. State and Federal taxes pay for medicaid.

Yes, we all need health care. Absolutely.

That is the divide right now between the parties.

Democrats: Poor people need health care. Expand medicare and subsidize insurance.

Republicans: There is no money available to do that. We simply can’t afford it.

Democrats: And, you let them die or be sick?

Republicans: Where will the money come from? Yes, they need care. Cut spending in others areas.

And it goes on…

 

[wynnejj]

This “right to healthcare” is essentially an arguement that group A, which does not have health insurance for whatever reason, has a God-given right to demand that group B provide it for them using the force of government.

I share your opinion essentially of the individual mandate but, I think the above statement is flawed . Without the individual mandate, some in group A take the attitude that they have the God-given right to accept the benefit of insurance paid by group B due to the currently existing force of government regulation. With the individual mandate, some of group A who can afford will be put into the group B category.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have difficulty merely rationalizing that because Jesus didn’t mention government (he didn’t), that we’re free to address health care needs with private charities. What he urged us to do is to take responsibility for the poor. Some would argue that in modern eras, that responsibility is most directly achieved through access which government provides (subsidies for insurance, etc.), and that therefore there is no other morally acceptable choice but to get the government involved, because otherwise the poor will be unassisted.

However, that changes the dynamic from voluntarily (Jesus) to involuntarily, and also requires nothing less than socialized medicine (and I’m not being rhetorical or hyperbolic). Not the delivery of medicine but the taxing of it.

Also, the difference between ancient poverty and modern poverty is the definition of poverty, for each. Many people have pointed out the fraud in the Medicaid system. Lots of people who are not poor at all (by ancient or modern definition) have options and cash that should not require dependency on government, which in their case is also a form of robbery (others paying for their fraudulent Medicaid).

Again, I would have wished that many people on this thread and the previous World News SCOTUS thread would have contributed to the 2 threads on Social Justice which asked for constructive options. People want to complain & criticize, but very few want to suggest changes from the status quo.

I believe in leveled care: that some essential services should be available to all, through clinics – not enough of which are in place right now. This is what happens in some foreign countries. Costs are kept down because low-level access is more available. (Such as, certainly people who now qualify for Medicaid, but not only those: all of us.) You’re not making app’ts in private doctors’ offices constantly, or choosing the ER. You have clinics open extended hours for routine, for regular, and for urgent needs which are not life-death. We don’t have these in place yet, and until we do, medical costs will remain high. I have talked to some medical professionals who are convinced that community clinic money is coming via the ACA, but I’m not sure when/where/how soon.

Such access would greatly reduce Medicaid rolls. I have no problem having everyone taxed for such clinics because they would/will benefit all of us; we could all actually use them and reduce our out-of-pocket medical costs. I don’t see how the middle and upper middle class can complain about that. But it does mean staffing them; it does mean physicians willing to contribute labor to those at least on a rotating basis, possibly with some kind of split on their part. (Some doctors have two or three offices in various cities; instead, they could have clinic hours + keep one of their private offices open; it would reduce their office overhead whlie not reducing their own services.)

I also believe that government should be able to mandate that all insurance companies providing private insurance also provide some level of stand-alone hospital/catastrophic insurance. Otherwise, they don’t get to operate as an insurance company. It is in the national interest that public & private hospitals not be closing right and left because the ordinary citizen cannot pay astronomical hospital bills. I believe that the gov’t should also be able to mandate that this coverage be universal, and if necessary be partly subsidized by gov’t (i.e., taxes), which would be a small flat tax across the board, including to the poor. It would not be subject to “deductions.” Rather, it would be an assigned fee, much like motor vehicle registration or other fee.

I believe that far more universal clinic access, as well as universal hospital access, will be far less painful (especially if phased in, state by state) than what has been proposed in Obamacare, and that those taxes/penalties/fees should not be recoverable through standard income tax filings but by separate assignment. And if the fees are not paid (regardless of income level) they are deducted from your company paycheck, or from your state or federal income tax refund, or you show up in court.

 

[Dawnia]

I share your opinion essentially of the individual mandate but, I think the above statement is flawed . Without the individual mandate, some in group A take the attitude that they have the God-given right to accept the benefit of insurance paid by group B due to the currently existing force of government regulation. With the individual mandate, some of group A who can afford will be put into the group B category.

You’re assuming that many in group B won’t end up forgoing insurance because of higher premiums costs and causing an increase in group A. If the prediction that employers will dump insurance comes true, we could see a huge number of newly uninsured over the next year or two.

 

[Dawnia]

I disagree with that completely. While one might think Group A is ‘paying for group B’ by making their contribution to the pot in the form of premiums - that’s not true. The fact of the matter is Group A doesn’t make a contribution by their own choice by deciding to not get insurance, and then when life happens and they get sick, they pull from the pot just like everyone else either by going on medicaid or by racking up bills they can’t afford to pay. Group A, by paying for their premiums, will just be adding to the pot from which they will draw later in life. Everyone gets older, everyone gets sick. It’s silly and naive (not to mention wishful thinking) to think one can skate on by in life thinking they’re not going to need major healthcare later.

I’m really starting to think this pot is as mythical as the one at the end of the rainbow. In reality, people who don’t have insurance get billed for the full cost of the care they received. They get sued if they don’t pay & collection measured are used to collect on the bill. There is no pot that they get to dig into to pay the bill. It’s paid out of their own income. And if it doesn’t get paid…the medical provider is just out that money. No magical pot pays for the costs.

 

[CMatt25]

Estimated 12 million are uninsured

Prof Anthony Davies discusses here

• The Census Bureau itself says that “Health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported…” (See Appendix C of THIS report) For example, “16.9 percent of people with an MSIS record indicating Medicaid coverage reported…that they were uninsured.”
• According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “as many as 12 million uninsured Americans are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program–but they haven’t signed up.”
• More than half of the uninsured are between 18 and 34 years of age, a group which has relatively few expensive health issues and for whom self-insuring (paying their own medical bills) makes sense. Only 14% of people over the age of 55% are uninsured.
• Over 9 million of the “uninsured” have household incomes over $75,000.
• Roughly 30% of the uninsured are without insurance for less than 6 months (though this statistic will likely worsen during the current recession).
• And finally, estimates are that between 7.5 million to over 10 million of the uninsured (15% of them or more) are illegal immigrants.

nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=134

Estimated 4% - 6% of the American population do not have health insurance and likely much of those can get health insurance and not worry about the cost, but for reasons not known do not choose to get it. While reforms need to be made, is it worth it to overhaul the health care system like ObamaTax does?

Gallup did a poll which showed nearly 60% of people who make between $30000 and $74999 and were uninsured say their their health care is ‘good’ or ‘excellent.’

I find it sad when Christians debate whether it’s 30 million+ of His people in the US who are uninsured or whether it’s 12 million and only 4 - 6% of the population. In either case it’s still entirely too many left behind by individuals, faith based groups, and the free enterprise private sector. This is why I have not a doubt in my mind, believing in my Christian faith, that Jesus would welcome additional help if offered. Including government offering to play a role to try to help ensure that all have access to affordable, adequate health care. If that and universal healthcare are not part of the Catholic faith or not a high priority, that’s fine. But it’s a big part of mine. Peace.