"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

[JimG]

Anything as complicated as health care, with all the variables is going to take a lot of pages.

And the question is, can we as a nation afford NOT to reform health care?

Honestly, my only real objection was paying for elective abortion and the lack of a conscience clause. I am all for Americans not being one serious accident or illness away from bankruptcy, forcing people to take responsibility and pay their premiums and forcing insurance companies to stop denying or canceling policies on people who dare to have pre-existing conditions.

Your final paragraph sums up the essentials of what you want the law to do in two sentences. So why does the law need 2,000 pages of legislation and even more pages of regulation?

Only because the government wants to control every aspect of health care.

 

[Seeker1961]

Your final paragraph sums up the essentials of what you want the law to do in two sentences. So why does the law need 2,000 pages of legislation and even more pages of regulation?

Only because the government wants to control every aspect of health care.

There are so many variables in a nation this size that even handling those few things cause a LOT of legalese. There’s always a “what about this” scenario that has to be addressed.

 

[sedonaman]

… forcing insurance companies to stop denying or canceling policies on people who dare to have pre-existing conditions.

But that’s what makes insurance work. If they covered pre-existing conditions, what would prevent people from waiting until they needed health care and then buy insurance and canceling once they are well? Just think if car insurance companies were required to cover pre-existing accidents. There would be no car insurance companies; and maybe that is obama’s long term goal: to eliminate health insurance companies so that government insurance is the only insurance.

 

[Seeker1961]

True, but this is the first time ever that a Court has ruled that a person can be taxed just because they exist. That has nothing to do with commerce or property.

Hospitals are happy, but insurance companies are not happy. Their stocks tanked today.

US Stocks Slump as Court’s Health-Care Ruling Speeds Declines

The referenced article doesn’t support your claim. There was a moderate dip for big pharma and insurance but they did not “tank”. The drops were between 2 to 6%. Analysts are actually puzzled by that because it was a good day for them. If the mandate had been struck down, then the new laws that would cost them more to implement would have gone into effect without the new customers to pay for them.

 

[Seeker1961]

But that’s what makes insurance work. If they covered pre-existing conditions, what would prevent people from waiting until they needed health care and then buy insurance and canceling once they are well? Just think if car insurance companies were required to cover pre-existing accidents. There would be no car insurance companies; and maybe that is obama’s long term goal: to eliminate health insurance companies so that government insurance is the only insurance.

Um…that’s why the mandate to buy coverage or be taxed. To keep people from waiting to buy coverage until they got sick.

 

[ahollars]

The referenced article doesn’t support your claim. There was a moderate dip for big pharma and insurance but they did not “tank”. The drops were between 2 to 6%. Analysts are actually puzzled by that because it was a good day for them. If the mandate had been struck down, then the new laws that would cost them more to implement would have gone into effect without the new customers to pay for them.

But that would not expand their pool. All the healthy, financially stable people already have insurance. Anyone not covered who will not be jumping on board will automatically be a drain on the system for people already covered. Since you cannot discriminate anymore, healthy people will see their costs go up to make up for high-expense patients.

Doctors and hospitals are the ones who are profiting, but only for now, since they have no worries about the bill not being paid. But, doctors and hospitals will protest next when they realize that they can no longer refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid, and they will lose money when the government refuses to reimburse actual cost.

 

[GratefulFred]

When the government tells me to buy or be taxed, what freedom do I have?

When the government tells religious hospitals, schools, and social services they MUST do X even when it goes against thier teaching, what freedom do they have?

When the government fails to write law that clearly protects those who’s conscience will not allow them to partake in certain acts, what freedom do they have?

I doubt there would be many that would argue against the GOAL. But it is still very important HOW we get there. The end does not justify the means.

 

[Contarini]

"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

June 28, 2012

Washington, DC - The United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 split decision this morning upholding Obamacare as constitutional as a tax. The Court also ruled that Congress can levy penalties on individuals with no health insurance.

“We will not comply with this socialistic and oppressive law that forces us to not only purchase insurance we may not want, but more importantly, forces us to violate our consciences and fund abortion coverage,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “We must demand that Congress change the law for the good of our nation. If Congress will not change it, we still will not comply.”

It sounds as if they’re collapsing the abortion/contraception coverage issue (which is a question of conscience) with the constitutionality of the mandate itself (which isn’t, since it pertains solely to the interpretation of human law and in no way to natural or divine law).

That’s a very bad move both in itself and in its effect on the broader debate.

Catholics need to make it clear that they are objecting to the violation of their consciences, not to any other aspect of “Obamacare.” (Individual Catholics may have problems with other aspects of the law, of course–I am more favorable to it than many on this forum, but I have a number of misgivings about it. I’m just saying that the two things need to be kept clearly separate.)

Edwin

 

[Seeker1961]

But that would not expand their pool. All the healthy, financially stable people already have insurance. Anyone not covered who will not be jumping on board will automatically be a drain on the system for people already covered. Since you cannot discriminate anymore, healthy people will see their costs go up to make up for high-expense patients.

Doctors and hospitals are the ones who are profiting, but only for now, since they have no worries about the bill not being paid. But, doctors and hospitals will protest next when they realize that they can no longer refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid, and they will lose money when the government refuses to reimburse actual cost.

No, they don’t. Healthy people, particularly young people were NOT buying insurance coverage simply because they were young and healthy. Adding them into the system will pay for those who need the care. Social Security works the exact same way.

 

[ahollars]

No, they don’t. Healthy people, particularly young people were NOT buying insurance coverage simply because they were young and healthy. Adding them into the system will pay for those who need the care. Social Security works the exact same way.

Which goes back to forcing people to buy a product they don’t want simply because they exist, or pay a tax penalty.

I said healthy, financially stablepeople. I didn’t even say anything about young.

And even then, why would they buy health insurance now, when they can’t stay on their parents program until they’re 26? How much sense does that make?

I don’t know a single person who didn’t have health insurance in their late 20’s because they thought they didn’t need it. I’m 33, so this is about my current friends. Early 20’s, yes, I’ll give that. I did that myself.

But the truth is that we all have different bodies, and some of us were given a raw deal, but that does not mean that everyone else must balance the load when all of us are putting in different levels of effort.

BTW, I have a daughter with sickle-cell anemia. So before you do, please don’t try to argue with me about pre-existing conditions or constant care. I know better than to demand that someone else pay our bills.

 

[Seeker1961]

I pay for a lot of things that I don’t want to buy and may never use, but because I am a responsible citizen I pay for them anyway. I pay for roads I don’t drive on, police and firefighters that I thankfully have never had to call, schools that I didn’t go to and if I had children wouldn’t have gone to either, wars I didn’t agree with, and on and on it goes. I want people to pay their own healthcare premiums so when I go to the MD or hospital I’m only paying for me.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Your final paragraph sums up the essentials of what you want the law to do in two sentences. So why does the law need 2,000 pages of legislation and even more pages of regulation?

Only because the government wants to control every aspect of health care.

Herman Cain was right. A bill should only be 3 pages!

 

[ahollars]

I pay for a lot of things that I don’t want to buy and may never use, but because I am a responsible citizen I pay for them anyway. I pay for roads I don’t drive on, police and firefighters that I thankfully have never had to call, schools that I didn’t go to and if I had children wouldn’t have gone to either, wars I didn’t agree with, and on and on it goes. I want people to pay their own healthcare premiums so when I go to the MD or hospital I’m only paying for me.

Everything you just listed is provided by the government. Health coverage is not provided by the government, unless all doctors are now government employees.

And you don’t have to pay for any of those things if you don’t own property or drive a car. Several states do not have sales taxes on food.

I support school vouchers, so that takes away the school argument. I’ve home-schooled and used Catholic schools as well.

War is another matter. I’ll give you that, but my wife and I are veterans, and she’s disabled from her service. We did our part.

 

[bscastro]

If the plan were socialist, private insurance companies would not be involved. Government would have taken over United Healthcare, Blue Cross and every other private health insurance company and we would have single payer coverage. While all those companies are still making tidy profits for their shareholders and CEO’s you can’t call it socialism.

The happiest people in America today are the health care insurance companies. This law was created by and for them. Go back to the 1990’s and look at the original version of this law. It was created by the GOP in response to Hillary’s plan. How quickly everyone forgets!

Ultimately, this will open the doors for a government health system. Health insurance companies will have to raise their premiums to be able to afford Obamacare. As they do so, people will complain about the rise in costs, the government will blame it on the greedy health insurance companies, and impose regulations on insurance companies. As insurance companies realize it doesn’t pay to be in the insurance business, they will back out. As companies leave the market, the prices will go up even more, eventually leading to the government “saving” we poor Americans by taking over healthcare altogether. It will take a few years for this to happen, but that’s the master plan.

God bless America.

Bryan

 

[lerapt78]

If the plan were socialist, private insurance companies would not be involved. Government would have taken over United Healthcare, Blue Cross and every other private health insurance company and we would have single payer coverage. While all those companies are still making tidy profits for their shareholders and CEO’s you can’t call it socialism.

The happiest people in America today are the health care insurance companies. This law was created by and for them. Go back to the 1990’s and look at the original version of this law. It was created by the GOP in response to Hillary’s plan. How quickly everyone forgets!

Thanks for the reply. I don’t doubt that insurance companies are in bed with the government, and I too think they will always be happy (their lobbyists will ensure that). However, I see the option to buy private health insurance in place of/ in addition to government plans as an extension of a socialist endeavor. The minute the government begins to enforce a law that will dictate a citizen take action on what should be a personal purchase, or subsidize what should be a privately offered service, it is espousing the very ideals of socialism. In other words, if the government said that only people who pay an additional tax will be eligible for govt. healthcare, but that those who choose *not *to opt into this system can retain their money and either buy private service or pay out-of-pocket, then I would agree it’s not socialist. However, here we see a clear case of the government using force (either through taxes or fines) to regulate the health services access of all Americans. Therefore, I see the law as a socialist umbrella, with the ability to buy privately being one option that is covered underneath it.

You may be more familiar with the details of the bill than I. Do you think that we will be able to opt-out of government plans without having to contribute to them via taxes? Or will a chunk be taken out of *everyone’s *paycheck, regardless of whether they are paying someone else?

 

[JimG]

There are so many variables in a nation this size that even handling those few things cause a LOT of legalese. There’s always a “what about this” scenario that has to be addressed.

Yes, for example publishing regulations forcing Catholic institutions and Catholic businesses to buy insurance that violates Catholic morality.

Even now, physicians don’t get paid for what they actually do; they get paid for what they can correctly code. Code it wrong and they won’t be paid. The list of medical codes was recently expanded to something over 100,000. It’s a bureaucratic mess.

 

[JimG]

Herman Cain was right. A bill should only be 3 pages!

The original GI Bill after WW-II for returning veterans (called the “Veterans’ Readjustment Act of 1944,”) was about 6 paragraphs.

But, not to worry, the regulations put in place to enforce the act amount to quite a few volumes. And those volumes are added to by the issuance of operating manuals, periodically revised, for VA employees.

And of course, vets couldn’t readjust just once, so nearly every year, the act is modified and enacted again at greater length and with more provisions.

Sorry to go off topic! But it’s all similar.

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

June 28, 2012

Washington, DC - The United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 split decision this morning upholding Obamacare as constitutional as a tax. The Court also ruled that Congress can levy penalties on individuals with no health insurance.

“We will not comply with this socialistic and oppressive law that forces us to not only purchase insurance we may not want, but more importantly, forces us to violate our consciences and fund abortion coverage,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “We must demand that Congress change the law for the good of our nation. If Congress will not change it, we still will not comply.”

No one has to buy health insurance. If you don’t want health insurance then you just pay a $700 tax to the government.

 

[JimG]

No, they don’t. Healthy people, particularly young people were NOT buying insurance coverage simply because they were young and healthy. Adding them into the system will pay for those who need the care. Social Security works the exact same way.

Yes, the healthy will pay for the unhealthy, and that’s okay; it’s how insurance is supposed to work, as long as it consists of mainly catastrophic coverage.

When it tries to cover everything, there are cost problems.

Social Security, as you say, works the same way. But there are too many old and not enough young. That’s why the system will become unsustainable.

 

[Hesychios]

But the US Supreme Court ruled today that if you do not buy health insurance, the government, under this President’s health care law, CAN TAX YOU.

Actually, considering the increased public burden uncared for persons represent, this may be justifiable.

It is similar to a government taxing smoking, I guess.